Odd agenda about gender

BRITISH PM Benjamin Disraeli was credited with saying there were three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics.

ADF recruiting statistics revealed in the Townsville Bulletin this week showed more NQ women and fewer men enlisted last year.

All three services – army, navy and air force – recorded an increase in female intake.

The data revealed 118 women were enlisted or appointed in the ADF last year, up from 74 in 2016. But for men, it was the opposite.

A total of 189 men were enlisted or appointed in 2017, down from 226 in 2016, with a decrease in male intake across all three services.

These statistics are what they are, so without interviewing individual recruits we can only speculate why there has been a gender shift.

The ADF spin is “Defence aims to attract the best talent from the widest possible talent pool”.

Anecdotally, some rejected applicants have claimed to have been advised preference has been given to female applicants across all roles.

A Defence spokesperson said competing for talent remained a key workforce chal- lenge. However, they also admitted diversity would continue to be a focus of Defence recruiting.

In the David Morrison era, whose legacy continues to influence the ADF echelons, that was interpreted to mean positive discrimination to ensure gender quotas were met.

However, even that has been taken to absurd extremes.

A cadet currently training at the Royal Military College Duntroon has declined to identify by gender, causing all sorts of problems for cadets and staff alike.

Apparently it is not appropriate to address this individual as “he” or “she”.

Instead the individual must be referred to as “they” in all forms of address, correspondence and reports.

The same spokesperson mentioned earlier also said defence recognised and welcomed the considerable skills and capabilities which exist across the whole Australian community.

“The ADF is most effective when the best Australian talent is available to serve and contribute to operations and capability,” they said.

“Recruitment of the right people into the right jobs at the right time will ensure Defence continues its mission to defend Australia and its national interests.”

While diversity has apparently become an important selection criteria, surely the strict psychological selection criteria, which are supposed to be applied to all applicants, might have detected an issue in this case.

It should have been obvious in the filtering process that this individual’s requirements to have their non- gender status observed would place such a considerable admin burden on the system that their enlistment might not be in the best interests of the service.

In days past, “retention not in the best interests of the service” or “administrative liability” were sufficient reasons to effect an individual’s discharge.

Now it seems individual interests outweigh those of the ADF as a whole.

Social engineering is not an ADF responsibility but the current hierarchy seem committed to an agenda where it is a priority.

Disraeli, whose own ambiguous sexuality raised eyebrows, may have been amused by the statistical turn.