A Rhetorical Analysis Of Susie O Brien

Have you ever listened to a news story and thought it sounded one-sided? Or have you thought the news didn't seem to report the whole story or the most important aspect of a story? Journalists possess the power to influence a whole group of people with their work. When writers input their opinion, they generate bias. Consecutively, this influences a reader's reaction to a topic. In using casual language, the writer makes the reader feel more comfortable, as if they were talking to a friend. Thus, this blatant use of persuasion assures readers of their stance and perhaps may prompt one who previously felt differently to change their viewpoint. This can be acutely alarming and will be discussed further in the immediate future. A highly controversial

The overall tone she uses towards the notion is somewhat disgust and contempt. She describes the matter as “there are worrying signs that battle to put gender and sexuality at the forefront of all teaching and learning is going too far.” The use of scare quotes throughout the piece suggest that the words should not be taken at face value. It is often used to suggest disbelief or actual disagreement with the words as they are being used, as if the words don’t actually exist. Examples comprise “cisgenderism”, “heterosexism”, “transgender” and “gender dysphoria”, all of which are genuine words in the oxford dictionary. Rhetorical questions are used to persuade or subtly influence the audience. O’Brien uses rhetorical questions to emphasize her points. She asserts “Why do early childhood educators need to ‘actively promote gender equity and challenge gender stereotypes’, when the approach is tokenistic at best?”. To describe the concern as “tokenistic” reveals that she does not know what she is discussing. In teaching children of gender and sexuality they are not making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, but instead educating children of instances that they can identify

The article written by Susie O’Brien uses language that convinces readers that teaching children of gender and sexuality is unnecessary and improper. O’Brien considers children to be “too young to discuss gender fluidity...and spend class time challenging cisgenderism”. These thoughts can impact what a nation believes, and may leave an impression that will rescind all that this country has done to advance. O’Brien construes that “[talking] with children, families and carers about gender, identity and sexuality” is a joke. She asks, “since when has it been the job of educators to take on that role?”. All over the country children are brought up with parents that don’t consider gender and sexuality to be valid and when school don’t acknowledge this either they may need to research on their own what they are feeling, which can be damaging to a young person’s thoughts as they will believe that all the adults around them do not desire for them to have awareness of their feelings. In some cases, these children are never taught what they feel to be legitimate and perfectly acceptable. It is only when these children become adults that they realise that the way the feel is not amiss. When analysing a negative article, it is valuable to also view an article that displays the