Hate speech is one of the most important conceptual categories in anti‐oppression politics today; a great deal of energy and political will is devoted to identifying, characterizing, contesting, and (sometimes) penalizing hate speech. However, despite the increasing inclusion of gender identity as a socially salient trait, antipatriarchal politics has largely been absent within this body of scholarship. Figuring out how to properly situate patriarchy‐enforcing speech within the category of hate speech is therefore an important politico‐philosophical project. My aim in this article is twofold: first, I argue that sexist speech, though oppressive, is not hate speech. Second, I argue that misogynistic speech is hate speech, even when it is intradivisional (that is, when it targets only subsets of women). This is important because recognizing that the concept hate speech applies to certain forms of patriarchy‐enforcing speech is another step in clarifying what is wrong with the practice, and how bad it is in relation to other abuses. Consequently, this article provides a more nuanced account of the kinds of expressions that can and should count as instances of hate speech.

Religiously affiliated schools employ a substantial portion of the Australian educational workforce. These religiously affiliated schools are exempt from Australian state‐based anti‐discrimination legislation in varying degrees. This can have a devastating effect on LGBT+ employees. While NSW has broad exemptions to anti‐discrimination legislation, in contrast Tasmanian anti‐discrimination legislation provides very limited exemptions. This paper examines and compares the experiences of ten LGBT+ teachers employed in religiously affiliated schools in Tasmania and New South Wales. The aim of this paper is to document the differing experiences of these LGBT+ teachers, examining whether the distinctive state‐based legislation has an impact on their lives. The small number of cases examined here suggests that the state difference in anti‐discrimination legislation has a significant impact on LGBT+ peoples’ job security and career development.

This article identifies five genres of anti-queer hate speech found in The Australian's Facebook comments sections, exposing and analyzing the ways in which such comments are used to derogate cisgender and (often) heterosexual women. One may be tempted to think of cis-het women as third-party victims of queerphobia; however, this article argues that these genres of anti-queer speech are, in fact, misogynistic. Specifically, it argues that these are instances of cis-hetero-misogynistic hate speech. Cis-hetero-misogyny functions as the "law enforcement branch" of a cis-hetero-patriarchal gender order. Given the existence of such an order, it is clear that cis-het women's liberation is inextricable from queer liberation (and vice versa). This article argues that to facilitate allyship and challenge this gender order-the order that elicits such hate speech acts-we need an epistemological revolution in the way we recognize and recognize human difference.

No abstract

No abstract