Commenting on the story: Norwood ratepayers question council spending on Parade court stoush

This intersection needs green right arrows, problem solved. Forget slip lanes, removing trees – it’s time this Department’s planners spent time on our roads and got to know them as we do! – Kay McBryde

One of Steven Marshall’s (Member for Dunstan) 2018 election promises was the installation of a scramble crossing at the George St/The Parade intersection.

There was no mention of right turn lanes at the time so he needs to ensure that the crossing is delivered before the next State election in March 2022. – Penny Gordon

Commenting on the story: Anger as government bins ‘time-wasting’ VET courses

As an ex-professional advertising photographer and graphic designer I have seen the quality of work produced at Marden Senior College.

I have attended the college and assisted students with various tasks that are required for them to achieve their certificates. I believe the photography courses offered at the college give the students the opportunity to achieve industry-recognised standards.

Good mentors make such a difference to reducing the steepness of a student’s learning curve. This in turn boosts their confidence to position them well for a successful job in the photographic field.

In my opinion, these courses are essential to maintain (and improve) the professional photography industry. – Alan Musa

Commenting on the story: Action imminent at Adelaide’s most notorious vacant block

I think everyone in Adelaide is keen to see a project at last come to fruition on this unique site.

However, it is frustrating to see what I can only describe as Gold Coast-style architecture proposed for the site after a more than 30 year wait.

North Adelaide has some of the most beautiful architectural examples in our fair city and this was an opportunity to build something similar in size, still residential and modern but innovative and creative in form that future generations would appreciate.

Three boxes doesn’t cut it. – Hans van Bavel

Commenting on the opinion piece: Stand down the language police

Best piece I’ve read in a long time. I can play this game too. I am a woman and mum and I am highly offended to be called anything other than this. – Ivana Dawe

This stupidity should be totally rejected by our government and universities told to teach what is appropriate and useful in life, not come up with these types of crazy ideas. – Roger Flavell

I feel it’s necessary to correct a few items in Morry Bailes’ column as they are inaccurate, an occurrence that seems to happen with alarming frequency when conservative pundits decide to comment on the apparent “culture wars”.

Nancy Pelosi is not seeking to ban the terms “uncle” and “aunt”. The US House of Representatives voted to amend their own internal Code of Conduct to become gender neutral which removes the need to explicitly list “mother, father, daughter, son, husband, wife, etc” when “parent, child, spouse” adequately describes these relationships. No members of their congress have been banned from using any gender-specific terms in their own speeches or documentation.

The Australian National University’s Gender Institute published a handbook promoting the benefits of gender-inclusive language in an educational setting. It’s a fairly interesting read – I’m sure Mr Bailes would like to have a look over it sometime – and discusses the importance of a person’s sense of wellbeing, how inclusivity increases wellbeing, and how language and behaviour affect inclusivity.

However, it was designed as a resource for university employees and students to discuss and implement these practices if they wish to – the university has publicly stated that the handbook is not their official policy.

I also note the auspicious timing of this piece being published the day after the federal LNP passed a One Nation motion in the senate to affirm gender-specific descriptors, decry gender inclusive language as distortion, and ensure government agencies do not use those terms in any materials – yet somehow, it’s always those on the ‘left’ and the LGBTQIA+ community who are perpetually accused of trying to stifle freedom of speech and control what people are allowed to say.

Mr Bailes believes that law and policy should reflect the want of the majority. There also needs to be place in our legal and governance systems for protecting and valuing its most vulnerable members, including trans and gender diverse people. A government that doesn’t recognise the diversity of the community that it serves has no place being in government at all.

The narrative around this discussion is so often framed as a minority trying to ban the majority from saying certain things or forcing them to use particular language. Perhaps in actuality it’s about recognising that, as always, our social mores evolve and so does our language alongside it – and the entire point of inclusivity is not to take anything away from anyone, but to find new ways to bring people in. – Matt Kilgariff

This is not the first time of recent times that this issue of language barbarisation has risen. The concept of satisfying a few, who shall we say, do not live in the real world.

We all know that language changes over time. It does this because the users introduce change, not academics on some misguided windmill-tilting exercise.   

This degeneration fails the basic concept of change should be undertaken where there is a measurable improvement. These changes do not improve anything!

Perhaps its about time a petition was initiated: something, as a starting point that clearly tells our politicians that they should not go there! And in fact they should be the defenders of our language and put this into legislation if necessary to stop those that are trying to do are language harm, whoever they may be.

I’ll definitely put my name on it. – Ian Greig