SNP, LGBT YOUTH SCOTLAND, STONEWALL SCOTLAND, AND IGLA ARE NOT TRYING TO LOWER THE AGE OF CONSENT

There have been several questionable comments which have come from the recently-formed Alba Party concerning gender. However, few can be more contentious than claims around the Alba Women’s Conference on Saturday, 10 April 2021, which claimed that the SNP were planning to reduce the age of consent in Scotland to 10 years old, and that this was at the behest of LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland.

Denise Findlay, an Alba candidate, posted on Twitter, “Margaret Lynch on queer theory – the next move is to reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age. LGBT youth and Stonewall Scotland have signed up to this and have received over 1 million pounds of Scottish Government funding.”

Margaret Lynch, who apparently originated this comment is another Alba candidate, and one who in the blog Wings Over Scotland on 31 March referred to transgender women as, quote, “crossdressers – but not real women”. Denise Findlay later deleted her Tweet, but not before she had managed to set the heather on fire among the transphobic Twitterati.

What Lynch and Findlay are alluding to is a declaration read out in the United Nations on 9 March 2020 by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), which adopted the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, 25 years after their declaration, commonly known as “the Beijing Declaration”. The declaration, which it’s critics have been very careful to omit it’s origins lie with the UN, has some paragraphs which have been carefully cherry-picked, and taken completely out of context, to claim that the IGLA are promoting paedophilia.

When one looks at these paragraphs, and takes them in context, we can see that far from harming children and adolescents they in fact aim to protect them and to further their individual rights. The passages come from clause 14 in the declaration, with the critics very carefully picking out 14a and 14g, as follows:

14. Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:

a. Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;

g. End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms;

Now, let’s go through this carefully.

“Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence”

That statement right there speaks of the right to bodily autonomy, and that everybody should be free of, quote, “coercion and violence”. That right away tells us that nobody has the right to coerce or force anyone else against their will, and that includes over their sexualities, identities (which can include gender), and their bodies (which of course can include gender corrective surgery). The declaration goes on to state that it is their aim to “fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty” This again is about autonomy over ones life and body; with the goal being that everyone has the sexual and reproductive rights, which no other person has any right to dictate.

So we come to the part the transphobes are pouncing upon;

“Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use”

Those who are trying to play “GOTCHA!” with the SNP are concentrating upon that line, “including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex” to try to make out that this means a lowering of the age of consent – when it does no such thing.

Their argument is that the United Nations defines adolescence being from between 10 to 19 years of age, and there is where the “reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age” claim comes from. In fact, under the UN definition, one may already be classed as an adolescent, but still be beyond the age of consent in many countries, including Scotland, where the age of consent is 16. Can we assume then that if Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay do not want ‘adolescents’ being able to consent to sex, that while falsely claiming that LGBT Youth, Stonewall Scotland, and the SNP seek to lower the age of consent to 10, they would in fact like it raised to 20 years old? Or would it be farcical of me to make any such claim? As farcical as them attempting to smear two vital LGBT charities and the democratically-elected Scottish Government? Indeed, could it be I’m taking them out of context? Hey, I’m merely playing their game, and they can hardly blame me for jumping the shark and making false accusations in exactly the same way they are.

So we come to paragraph g.

“End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”

Again, here the transphobes are concentrating upon “End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality” and are trying to claim that this means removing the protection in law for children, when again, it is saying no such thing. In fact, all this paragraph does is recognise that adolescents do indeed have attractions and sexual longings. Yes, that’s right, Missus, they do – as most parents of teenagers, particularly teenage boys, will tell you. Trust me, that funk you smell in the bedroom of any teenage boy is not just from dirty socks. I sincerely doubt that I was alone when I was a teenager of turning my bedroom into some sort of ‘masturbation furnace’.

You’ll notice that the transphobes are very careful to ignore the rest of paragraph g; the part that averts their rights to make “informed and independent decisions on matters concerning bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”. I hate to inform the doubters, but your teenage daughters and sons do indeed have sexual longings and fantasies, and they do indeed, gasp, masturbate. Quick! Someone pass Margaret and Denise the smelling salts. They and others can live in ignorance in Gumdrop Castle in Lala Land, and do a Helen Lovejoy by throwing up their hands in horror and shouting “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?” all they want, but that does not and never will alter the fact that each and every one of us is a sexual being from puberty onwards – get used to it. Of course, it may be that Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay never had sexual longings as teenage girls, and never masturbated. To use a well-known Scots phrase, “Aye! Right” (actually, if they didn’t that may explain a lot).

As every adolescent is indeed a sexual being, as you and I are, and were from puberty (deny it all you want – you know I’m telling the truth), they should not be at all stigmatised for that, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, and they should be accorded the freedoms to explore those aspects of their personalities, free of interference, free of shame, and free of governmental legislation preventing them doing so. This is all the declaration is saying, nothing more.

It most certainly not the “paedophiles charter” some are making it out to be. And actually, by levelling claims of paedophilia, the panic merchants are wrong again. Paedophilia refers only to the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The term for sexual attraction to underage pubescent adolescents is hebephilia.

The Beijing Declaration absolutely does not propose lowering the age of consent, and it does not remove the protections in law for children, whether adolescent or prepubescent. In fact, in averring the rights of bodily autonomy, it underlines the right of children to protection from those who would form them. Consider that the overwhelming majority of children who are victims of sexual abuse have no bodily autonomy; they are almost always coerced or forced into sexual activities. In law, those under the age of consent are deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activities, so the onus is always upon the adult concerned, and that is why child sexual abuse is always deemed to be statutory rape.

There are of course a tiny, tiny number of adolescents who do indeed initiate sexual congress, either with another underage person, or with an adult, and guess what? The adult is still to blame, and is still committing statutory rape. Why? Because the adult is supposed to be the responsible one, who should know better, and if they give into the demands of child, they are still the ones to blame. So another aspect of the declaration is that children who do initiate sexual contact should not be stigmatised or blamed for that, because guess what? Children often make mistakes, and get themselves into situations they think they can handle, but realise too late that they are in way over their heads. I like the way sexologist Roy Eskapa put this in his book, Bizarre Sex; that a child may think they can drive a car, but if you were to put a child behind the wheel of a car in traffic, they would be horrified (or at the least would very quickly discover they had got themselves into a situation they could not handle).

Child molesters, be they paedophiles or hebephiles, are among the most manipulative of people in the world. They tend to be inadequate adults who seek control over others. There is certainly a sexual aspect to their actions, but this is allied to a need to assert authority over those less able to defend themselves. In this aspect we can see that the child molester, like all abusers, is a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart. Needless to say, vulnerable children, perhaps those who lack confidence, or who already suffering some other kind of abuse, are a magnet to such individuals. They will hone in on them, pretend to love them, and then make their move. The Beijing Declaration in fact seeks to protect adolescents and children from such perverts by asserting that they, and they alone, have autonomy over their own lives and their own bodies.

But hey, the Beijing Declaration, in asserting that bodily autonomy is also stating that no-one has any right to dictate the sexual or gender identities of adolescents and children; that no-one has the right to tell them, “You’re NOT trans” or “You’re NOT gay”, or to threaten or coerce them, or indeed subject them to violence. It seems to me that those against the Beijing Declaration have much more in common with child molesters than the very children they claim to be protecting. If they are denying the gender and sexual identities of young people, they are certainly abusing them.

And this is one aspect of this latest rhetoric which I do find disturbing. I have been saying since their formation that the Alba Party is full of transphobes. This I have come to expect. I never for one moment suspected them of also being homophobes, particularly as there are some lesbians in the party, but in attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland in making false claims about IGLA, the attackers are partaking in one of the oldest homophobic tropes going. The argument is that because LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland signed up to IGLA, both of these charities must be in some great conspiracy to lower the age of consent, and make the molestation of children legal.

Should anyone doubt this, I would point them to the Wings Over Scotland blog of 10 April 2020, The Paedophile Charter. In this odious title (with an incorrect title – see point above about hebephilia), the originator of ‘Wings’, Rev Stuart Campbell, makes the point that both LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland are indeed signatories to the IGLA Charter. He then points to a Guardian story from 2009, telling how a then Chief Executive of LGBT Youth Scotland was one of a paedophile ring convicted of 50 charges of sexually abusing young boys. Campbell states, “LGBT Youth Scotland was at the centre of Scotland’s biggest ever paedophile scandal” Not so. The then Chief Executive was, but not the charity. This is putting two and two together to get five. If LGBT Youth Scotland had been at the centre of a paedophile ring, they would have been closed down long ago.

And in case you missed it, the conviction of the men concerned had absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. None of them identified as transgender. They did indeed molest little boys, and the inference here is that they did so because they are gay. Actually, as any sexual therapist who deals with paedophiles will tell you, even those men who prey upon little boys are almost always heterosexual, and many have expressed horror and even anger when a sexual encounter with another adult male has been suggested to them. Note the point again about paedophilia having a control / power dynamic.

But not happy with thus trying to smear two charities, Campbell jumps the shark even further, and makes the point that until 2017, one of LGBT Youth Scotland’s directors was openly gay SNP politician Alyn Smith, MP for Stirling. Campbell, in totally homophobic language even refers to him as ‘Alyn “Daddy Bear” Smith’. Alyn Smith had no part in the 2009 convictions, has never been involved in any criminal case involving children, but the inference here is that because he was a LGBT Youth director, he somehow must be involved.

How Campbell gets away with these vile accusations is beyond me, and it would give me the greatest of pleasure to see LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland, the SNP, and Alyn Smith sue the socks off him.

Margaret Lynch, Denise Findlay, Rev Stuart Campbell and others are trying to build a conspiracy out of nothing, in much the same way that there are people who try to claim that global finance is controlled by the Jews, or that Bill Gates is trying to depopulate the world. And we could just as easily laugh at them and the rest of the Alba Party, were they not so bloody dangerous. They already have followers believing them, and who are attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland. This could do enormous damage to LGBT people – all LGBT people – in Scotland. I tried to warn people for years that the independence movement had a disturbing number of transphobes. Seems I should have been warning them about homophobia as well.

I’m not even convinced that those named above, and others making these false accusations do not know what they are doing, or the potential for damage it has, and in fact, I don’t think they even care. They claim to want to ‘help’ the SNP to get a supermajority, and to work with the SNP, but they seem intent on attacking the SNP at every turn, even if that means throwing Scotland’s LGBT people under the bus.

The twisting of the IGLA / Beijing Declaration seems to say that they want to deny adolescents their right to bodily autonomy, or that any mention of such should never be heard. It’s not unlike the hugely damaging law of Section 28, which outlawed the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools, which made any mention of being gay illegal, and which led to gay / lesbian young people being stigmatised, bullied, made to feel ashamed and guilty for their sexuality, and did indeed destroy many lives. And if they are seeking to deny young people access to sexual / reproductive health and birth control, well we have already seen the effects of that in some ‘abstinence only’ states in the USA, and some other countries; they end up having the highest incidence of teenage pregnancies, and of teenagers contracting STDs.

All in all, it smacks a bit like some authoritarian, right-wing state, which seeks to enforce sexual and gender laws under some religious pretext, that they know what’s best for children and young people, and anything LGBT is ‘sinful’. Is there any proof for this? Well, we are talking about the Reverend Stuart Campbell – that is a ‘reverend’ of the Universal Life Church; an internet organisation with no legal recognition as an official church – so we may be seeing yet another religious bigot appointing himself moral guardian, and trying to enforce his beliefs upon all of us.

Stuart Campbell does not even live in Scotland, but rather Bath, England. It is true that as a supporter of Scottish independence, I do not want legislation in my country dictated from London – and I don’t want it from bloody Bath, or anywhere else outwith Scotland, either.

And if we ever get independence, but that independence ignores the rights of LGBT people, and castigates them, then I should want no part of that. Any independent Scotland must be just and equitable for all who live here. If we leave one person behind, then we fail as a movement, as a people, and as a nation, and that would be a free Scotland not worth having.

As the song goes, “One of us are chained? None of us are free.”

By the way, when asked why she removed the Tweet, Denise Findlay claimed she was the one being bullied.  You couldn't make this shit up.

Transphobic Stickers ARE a Serious Crime

"IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!"

Except, as ever, it's not.

Oxford, England, is being plagued by people leaving transphobic stickers all over the city. The police response has been to consider it a "serious" crime, and the reaction to that from the right - oh, and of course, the transphobes (usually but not always the same people) - has been predictable.

Some are questioning why it is being treated as a serious crime.  Well, it is. Because it starts with hateful messages on stickers, and it ends with people suffering prejudice, and their very identity being denied. 

Some of the stickers use of the dictionary definition of women;  “Woman: noun. Adult human female".

The use of this trope by transphobes is becoming increasingly common, to the point some are claiming it is the "scientific" definition, which of course it is nothing of the sort.  And actually, using dictionary definitions of common English are seldom useful in extremely nuanced and complicated issues.

For example, let's see the dictionary definition of a Scot:

"Scot: noun. A native or inhabitant of Scotland."

Now, that definition, if taken purely, would mean that only those native to or living in Scotland are Scots. Well, I have many online friends all over the world who come from Scots descent, and do consider themselves to be Scots. And likewise, I recognise their identity as such. By equal measure, not all inhabitants of Scotland are Scots, and some do not wish to be identified as such.

See how silly relying upon dictionary definitions of common English can be?

Saying that a woman is always an "adult human female", is about as useful as Baldrick's definition of a dog in Blackadder the Third: "Not a cat."

But if the transphobes really want to  insist that a woman is an “Adult human female”, then fair enough, let them have that.  For after all, that indeed is what all women are – including transgender women.

And this is where the transphobes throw in their other claims, which have been seen on some stickers in Oxford, including “Transwomen are men, and most have penises”, and “Women don’t have penises”.

Except of course, some women do indeed have penises – and / or testes; they are born with them.  Just as some boys are born with ‘female’ genito-urinary tracts and/or wombs, and a small proportion are born with the genitals of both sexes.  Some babies are born with XX chromosomes, some are born with XY – and some are born XXY, some born XYY, some born with any variation of the above.  If the transphobes want to use the dictionary definition of women as the only viable description, then they must deny the very existence of intersex people.

These transphobes are the people who claim to have science on their side, folks.

The facts are that they do not have one iota of science upon their side.  Decades of reams upon reams of peer-reviewed scientific research have confirmed gender diversity and gender dysphoria to be 100% factual.  Frankly, if anyone wants to deny the existence of transgender and non-binary – as well as intersex – people, then they may as well go and join the young earth creationists, the evolution deniers, the climate change deniers, the anti-vaxxers, and the fucking flat earthers, because they are demonstrating exactly the same level of scientific ignorance.

And worse still, they get others believing them.  Most of the public do not understand the nuances of gender, or how a woman can indeed have a penis, or for that matter that a man can have a vagina.  I have heard one radio show host trying to argue that the stickers are just “telling the truth”.

Except they do anything but tell the truth.  The stickers try to equate biological sex with gender, which are not one and the same thing.   We all start essentially female in the womb – which is why men have nipples (and some can actually lactate).  Then in the first few weeks, the genitalia forms to either ‘male’ or ‘female’ in most cases – see above about variations.  The genitalia we are born with determines biological sex.  It does not however determine gender, which is decided in the mind.  To use a much used saying, “Sex occurs between the legs.  Gender occurs between the ears.”

But does it matter so much for these stickers to be considered a serious crime?

Well, consider this; these stickers seek to deny the very existence of transgender and non-binary people.

If someone put up stickers calling Jews subhuman, that would be a serious crime.  If anyone put up stickers calling black people animals, that would be a serious crime.

So, likewise, when someone equally denies the existence of transgender and non-binary people, that too is a serious crime, and Oxford police are right to treat it as such.

It starts with stickers.  It ends with a transgender woman being targeted and killed.  And the police are only doing the right thing in nipping that in the bud.

Where Is The Love?

Not at all homophobic you understand?

Anderton Park Primary School, LGBTI-inclusive education, and Eshter McVey

Amidst ongoing protests at Anderton Park Primary School in Birmingham, England, former cabinet minister and current contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and thereby future Prime Minister, Esther McVey, has thrown her support behind those protesting against LGBTI-inclusive education at the school.

“I believe parents know best for their children and whilst they are still children then really parents need to have the final say in what they want their children to know,” says McVey,  “People shouldn't be protesting outside of primary schools. That's young children going into school there. Everyone has to be a bit more adult, a little bit more grown up in what they do outside a primary school.  I'm being very clear. The final say is with the parents and if parents want to take their young children out of primary school, out of certain forms or sex education, relationship education that is down to them.”

Despite her fine words that people should not be protesting outside schools, Esther McVey could not be more wrong, and has effectively thrown the head teacher and staff at the school, as well as parents with no problem with the lessons, under a bus.

First the background.  Anderton Park School is a primary school in Birmingham, England, which has introduced LGBTI-inclusive education into their curriculum, as has been sanctioned by the UK government.  The form it took was an award-winning programme called No Outsiders, formed by local teacher Andrew Moffat.    The No Outsiders programme teaches the realities of LGBTI+ people at age-appropriate level, without any mention of sexual activities.  It merely teaches that LGBT+ people exist, that some children have two fathers or two mothers, that some men like men, some women like women, and that some people identify with a gender which differs from their biological sex.  The aim of No Outsiders, like all LGBTI-inclusive education, is to teach respect and acceptance of others, and thereby reduce the incidence of homophobic and transphobic discrimination, harassment, and bullying.  This is particularly important to children who may identify as LGBTI, in that it aims to foster acceptance from their peers, reduce prejudice and bullying, and teach those children that it is perfectly normal and natural to be who they are, and to own their identity with pride.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?  And great it would be, were it not for homophobia, transphobia, disinformation, and propaganda to raise their ugly heads.  The school happens to be in a largely Muslim community, and many children attending the school come from Muslim families.  No sooner had the No Outsiders programme started than there were a small group of Muslims objecting to it.  This formed a protest outside the school gates, which has since snowballed.  The protestors are objecting to children being taught about same-sex relationships, transgender people, and “gay sex”.  The protests started with a small group of parents, but since then others have become involved.  The self-appointed leader of the protests, Shakeel Asfar, does not even have children at the school, but is an uncle to two children attending.  The increasing protest has started to involve others who do not have children at the school, and even those who are not parents at all.  Numbers have increased as other anti-LGBT Muslims, Christians, and even extreme right-wingers – who otherwise are prejudiced towards Asians and Muslims – have joined in.  There are also now signs of the protest spreading to other schools in England.

Were their objections to harmless LGBTI-inclusive education not enough, some of these protestors have started spreading lies and propaganda about the No Outsiders programme.  Protestors are claiming that the programme teaches about gay sex, it does not, that is sexualises children, and worst of all that it is teaching paedophilia.  Abdullah Bahm, an Islamic preacher from Batley, Yorkshire – not even with no relationship to the school, but from a completely different county in England – shouting through a PA system at the protest, held up images including a near-naked couple, which he falsely claimed came from No Outsiders literature, and proclaimed “There are paedophiles in there. There are paedophiles in there.” and claimed that to teach equality is to teach a “paedophile agenda”.

A Christian preacher from Bournemouth – hundreds of miles from Birmingham, again, in another county -  following Mr Bahm, then took the microphone, insisted that teaching about “gay equality” was confusing children, and related an anecdote (which almost certainly never happened) of a little girl being afraid to pick up a friend who had fallen, “in case she was called a lesbian”.  He then went on to rattle off a number of alleged statistics about gay relationships and sexually transmitted diseases – which of course are completely irrelevant to LGBTI-inclusive education.

There are parents who have no problem with their children being taught about equality, and some who have bravely spoken out about it.  However, when these said parents attempt to take their children to school, they are being confronted by protestors, usually outside the school but some have reported being accosted streets away, and being told “If you send your children to that school, you are not a Muslim, and you will burn in Hell.”  Parents, with little children, are constantly jeered as they go into the school.  Teachers at the school, including the head teacher, have been verbally abused, jostled, threatened, and have even received death threats.  The head teacher, Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, described in an interview on LBC Radio, how even in what are supposed to be discussions with the protestors, hardliners have shut down debate by shouting over her and other staff any time they attempted to talk.  There is one reported instance of one man slamming his fist down on a desk and declaring that he was a general in the Kashmiri Liberation Army.  The aforementioned Mr Asfar has no intention of speaking civilly with Ms Hewit-Clarkson, whom he wants to resign, but instead in a speech denouncing her, and in which he threw in completely off-topic various ‘atrocities’ committed upon Muslims around the world, insinuated that she was probably having a sexual relationship with a “biased” female journalist.  Not that it should matter, but the sexuality of Ms Hewit-Clarkson is not known.

Worse still was to come.  A counter-protest of pro-LGBT people, who had gained permission from the school, arrived on the evening of 19 May, and started hanging rainbow flags, pom-poms, and messages of pro-LGBT support on the school railings.  The counter protest had non-violent intentions, and even arrived with cupcakes to hand out and share with the protestors, whom they hoped to have a reasoned discourse with.  Instead, as they were hanging their messages, they were pelted with eggs, shouted and screamed at, cars full of men turned up and told them to “get out of our community”.   But even when they did try to leave, some of the protestors, all women, found their way blocked by a large group of men.  Due to a distraction, they managed to escape.  By the morning, nearly all of the messages had been torn down.

Shakeel Asfar blamed the counter-protestors for the confrontation.  He claimed that the flags and messages were “inflammatory”, and accused the group of provoking residents were about to mark Ikfar, the breaking of the Ramadan fast.   It is not at all lost on me that Mr Asfar is attempting to turn this issue into a wider “Islamophobia” one, when that is patently not the case.

Even at the lower end, there are protestors objecting to what is being taught, chanting “Our children, our choice”, and maintaining it is ‘their’ school.  Yes, it is, but only up to a point.  And this is where Esther McVey is wrong to support them.

Yes, it is their school; every school is part of the community it serves, and parents should indeed be able and even be encouraged to interact with the school, for the benefits of their children.  However, it is not their curriculum and when a curriculum, or part thereof, is accepted by that school, by the local authority, and by central government, that is where the individual input of parents has to end, for the greater interests of all children at that school.  If that were not the case, then every school would have their hands tied, and not be able to teach anything, because of objections from individual parents.  Besides which, there are now a number taking part in this protests who do not have children at that school, some who have come hundreds of miles to protest a school they probably never heard of until this year, and some of whom do not even have children at all.  It is not Shakeel’s Asfar School, far less some Islamic preacher from Bradford, or a Christian preacher from Bournemouth.

If some parents are unhappy with the No Outsiders programme, then they have the freedom to remove their children from the school, which sadly, some have done.  However, when they attempt to prevent the teaching of the programme altogether, spreading lies, disinformation and propaganda, are trying to enforce the resignation of the head teacher, are harassing, bullying, jostling, and threatening staff and other parents, scaring their children while doing so, when they send death threats to staff, when a non-violent group of women with the best intentions are intimidated and threatened by a gang of men, and when they are pelted with eggs, it becomes a different matter.  

This again is where Esther McVey is wrong.  Do parents really know what is best for their children, in every case?  I sincerely doubt it.  To quote an auld Scots saying, “Bairns and fuils speak at the cross whit they hear at the ingleside.”  In other words, bigotry is never learned, but begins in the home.  Even to this day there are few parents who teach their children tolerance of all, but most will still instil, either deliberately or inadvertently, their own prejudices into their children.  Likewise, very few parents are education professionals.  They have never gone to university to learn to be teachers, and they have never had experience of dealing with classes full of children, or all the work which being a teacher entails.  The simple fact is that if parents knew what was best for their children, there would be no schools, because there would be no need for them.  The overwhelming majority of people send their children to school because they know what is best for their children is to learn from teachers whom they know have a far better education than they shall ever have.

What McVey is saying is downright dangerous, and we need not look far to see the results of her thinking.  Indeed, we need only look across the North Atlantic to the USA, where religious maniacs who do not want their children taught in “Godless” schools home teach their children.  And the result is another generation of cretins coming up who are going to be laughed at throughout their lives for believing that the Earth was created by their god in six days, 6000 years ago, and who are going to have poor future employment prospects as a result.  Until they in turn in their dead-end jobs, bring up the next generation who are brainwashed believing that every word in the Bible is the unerring and factual word of their god.

Indeed, we see exactly the same thing in Muslim majority countries, and that includes the few countries where they are even allowed to attend school, girls are enforced to cover up completely, and that the best they can hope for is to have a good husband chosen for them, to whom they must be good and loyal wives.  And quite scarily, teaching like such has been exposed in some Islamic schools in the UK.

Amidst all this, we have the teaching in these religious communities that anything which detracts in the slightest from the cisgender heteronormative is an “abomination” to their god, from whence the protest at Anderton Park School has sprung.  In some interpretations of both Christianity and Islam, followers are taught that LGBTI+ people are at best to be shunned, at worst to be chased down and killed.  A 2016 ICM poll found that 52% of British Muslims polled believed that homosexuality should be illegal, and 47% said that that gay people should not be allowed to become teachers.  And of course, among this, as we have seen, some castigate all LGBT+ people are paedophiles, when in fact the LGBT+ demographic have the lowest incidence of paedophilia in society.  This smear is common to both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.

As long as parents are filling the minds of their children with this bigoted filth, does Esther McVey still want to claim they know what is best for them?

But then, Ms McVey is equally wrong when she states “if parents want to take their young children out of primary school, out of certain forms or sex education, relationship education that is down to them”, for no part of LGBTI-inclusive education includes sex education.  Some of the protestors have jumped on the sex education bandwagon, claiming that the school is “sexualising” their children, when they are doing no such thing.  In fact, if there were any school teaching children as young as 5 any type of sex education, be it straight or gay, I too would object to that.  But the simple fact is that is not happening, it actually cannot happen under the law (either in England or Scotland), and anyone who claims that is what LGBTI-inclusive education is doing is either misinformed, or an out-and-out liar.  As far as those leading the Anderton Park protest are concerned, I know which of the two I am more likely to believe.

Certainly, there is mention of relationships in LGBTI-inclusive education, but that is only to explain same-sex relationships, which are simply a fact.  One mother at Anderton Park asked a reporter if they knew how difficult it was to explain to her little one “why some children have two mummies”.  What is she going to do?  Ignore it and hope that it will go away?  So when her child does actually encounter a child with same-sex parents, or sees a gay couple with a child, and asks questions, what is she going to say then?  Pretend they don’t exist and they never saw them?  What indeed is she going to say if her daughter turns out to be gay?  How about letting professionals in the field of education instead quietly explaining that love is love, and some people are attracted to the same gender?

Likewise, a Christian father recently phoned LBC Radio claiming that little children are too young to learn about any relationships.  Are they really?  So, Dad, I take it you’ve never told your kids fairy stories about women being swept off their feet by dashing, handsome princes?  Of kids being cruelly treated by their wicked stepmothers, or being rescued by beautiful princesses?  Of course you have.  Every parent has.  And in fact, I’d be more worried about instilling young minds with stereotyped perceptions of what is and what is not ‘beautiful’ – and the perceived roles of women – than the relationships within those stories.  But then, one wonders if the said father has any qualms about teaching his children about Adam and Eve, or even the relationship of Mary carrying the child of God for that matter?

Joking apart, there is an important point here; children are actually much more switched on and accepting of the lives of others than many adults give credence to.  And when they do see or hear of a child with same-sex adults, or hear of or encounter someone who comes out as gay, transgender, or any other aspect of the LGBTI+ spectrum, and ask questions, they deserve honest answers, and will more than likely be very accepting of that.  Likewise, as far as gender goes, science has proven that children as young as 3 are capable of expressing their gender; and that goes for all genders, including cisgender.  

It is not the children who are hating others at Anderton Park, or anywhere else.  It is the adults doing that, and brainwashing the children with their hate.

But if the protestors at Anderton Park Primary School are in the wrong, if Esther McVey is in the wrong, then they are nowhere near as in the wrong as the Westminster Government, who have been constantly asked by Sarah Hewit-Clarkson, and other head teachers across England to give clear guidance on LGBTI-inclusive education, and have remained steadfastly silent upon the matter.

Gender Self-ID is happening - and it is important to Scotland

This year the Scottish Government shall implement changes to the Gender Recognition Act, 2004, under which transgender and non-binary people in Scotland shall be able to self-identify as transgender, and this right shall be extended to 16-17 year olds, who will be able to self-identify without parental consent.  This has been a long time coming.  The initial moves towards this began in 2016, and it has been progressing through the Scottish Parliament, where it had cross-party support, and has gone through the mandatory consultation period, where 60% agreed to the proposals.

Although the change to legislation has the support of many LGBT, family and youth organisations and charities, and other austere bodies, it has nonetheless come in for severe criticism from some others.  Many of those objecting are either at best misinformed, or at worst openly hostile towards transgender people.

Contrary to what many in society think, our gender is not determined by our biological sex; that is the sexual organs we are born with.  And what is more, as contradictory as this may seem, sexual genitalia in itself does not have a gender.  Most people identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, pertaining to their biological sex according to their sexual organs; these people are ‘cisgender’, from the Latin word cis, meaning “on this side of”.  However some others do not identify with the gender they are assigned at birth, but identify with the opposite side of the traditional gender binary, and are therefore ‘transgender’, from the Latin trans, meaning “on the opposite side of”.  Then there are people who can identify with both sides, and are thus ‘non-binary’, those who do not identify with any fixed gender and are thereby ‘genderfluid’, those who can identify with all genders who are ‘pangender’, and even those who do not identify with any gender, and are thereby ‘agender’.

I have only mentioned a few genders above, but the fact is, as absurd as some think it is, science is just discovering that there are a great plethora of genders.  This supports the science as we understand it, that biological sex does not and never has determined gender.   It is not yet known if we are born identifying with any particular gender, or whether it is environmental, emotional, and other factors which determine such, but there is one thing which is irrefutable; gender is decided by the mind.  As a transgender man friend of mine put it simply, “Sex occurs between the legs.  Gender occurs between the ears.”

Those who do not identify with their biological sex / birth gender are identified as having gender dysphoria; a recognised medial / psychological condition whereby “a person experiences discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.” (NHS).  This condition is most notable in transgender people, but is also often prevalent among non-binary and genderfluid people, as well as those of other genders.

Gender diversity is never easy to understand.  Far from it, it can be a minefield, and I may even make mistakes in this article.  But the facts remain that we are not all either male nor female, and certainly not determined by what dangly bits we may or may not have, and to identify with another gender is not an illness, it is not a crime, and it certainly does not invalidate anyone’s identity.

Under the law as it stands, if a transgender person wants to officially change their gender on official documentation, which starts with their birth certificate, then they must apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  To do so is a lengthy process.  Firstly they must live under the gender they identify as for at least two years, and this is only recognised for those aged 18 or over.  The applicant then must undergo examinations by a (usually cisgender) medical professional to diagnose gender dysphoria, and must then make their application, including their diagnosis, to a (usually cisgender) panel in London for a GRC, along with their payment for a GRC.  This panel usually grants a GRC, but it is worth noting that it is equally within their power to refuse them.

The current system is thereby deemed by transgender people to be unfair and deeply intrusive into private lives, where government has absolutely no business being, and where cisgender people – mostly men – can rule over the gender of others, and charge for that privilege.  No wonder that some transgender people call the GRC a “Trans Tax”.  Where younger transgender people are concerned, we can immediately see how the law is deeply skewed against them, and that they cannot actually outwardly display their identified gender until at least the age of 20.  These faults with the GRC are precisely why self-ID is so badly needed, and why Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has promoted it to bring Scotland into line with “international best practice”.

While the majority of respondents to the consultation period were in favour of self-ID, it has nonetheless had its detractors, some of whom have been very vocal in their opposition.  One of the greatest concerns is that self-ID may lead to sexually predatory men dressing as women to gain access to female “safe spaces”, such as public toilets and changing rooms.  I am not for one moment going to dismiss this, or pretend that it does not happen.  But I would ask those with such concerns to look at those countries that already have self-ID.   Canada, Ireland, Portugal, Malta Belgium, Norway, and Denmark have all had Self-ID for some time, and with no significant increase in sexual assaults.  This is because far from being just ‘men in dresses’, transgender women are to all intents and purposes women, and just like women, merely want to pee.  What is more, given that women’s toilets have stalls with locking doors, the chances are that many detractors probably have already shared a toilet with a transgender woman, and never known it.  Spare a thought for transgender men who have not had gender reassignment surgery, and who using a public toilet, will be faced with one locking stall, which could be occupied, and a row of urinals.

Add to this that the vast majority of sexual assaults in toilets are already carried out by cisgender men, and far from being carefully planned, are mostly on the spur of the moment.  Strange as it may seem, a little silhouetted sign of a figure in a dress (why is she bald?) is no deterrent to predatory men.  The men who carry out these attacks tend to be full of toxic masculinity – many are in fact downright misogynists with a pathological hatred of women – and to imagine that such ‘macho’ men would even consider dressing as women to gain entry to toilets is to stretch credulity to its limits.  So, while the vast majority of those carrying out sexual assaults upon women in toilets are cisgender men, who do you reckon make up the second highest offenders?  Other cisgender women, that’s who.  Are we then to allow only one woman into a public loo at a time?

The issue of changing rooms, particularly in schools and colleges, particularly in schools and colleges, is admittedly more complex, not least because not all have cubicles for changing.  According to the National Education Union (NEU), who advise educational establishments on transgender-inclusive policies, the best policy is to provide alternative or gender-neutral facilities when there are no cubicle facilities available, but that “It is not necessary to make all toilet facilities gender neutral however, because some students will prefer single-sex toilets.” and they add “The young person should not in any case be told that they must use the changing rooms that correspond with the gender they were assigned at birth.”  Should anyone think this unfair, then consider how you would react if you, or your child, were told you could not use a shared changing room because of some aspect of your personality.

Where there are still schools and colleges where changing rooms do not have cubicles, this therefore has to change.  Creating separate facilities for transgender and non-binary individuals is in itself not an answer, because that only further marginalises those use them, and identifies them as targets for attacks.  Likewise, making everything gender-neutral is not an answer either, as far from deterring predators, such facilities would only exacerbate the problem.  There are those who try to argue that refurbishing or rebuilding current changing rooms would be costly.  The simple answer to that is creating separate or gender-neutral facilities would cost even more.  Of course, there are some who will completely disregard the latter argument, because they simply don’t want to acknowledge the existence of transgender people.

Some who object to self-ID are quick to point to the case of Karen White, a transgender woman (and yes, she is transgender) sexually assaulted two women in New Hall Prison in England.  However, Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, who had been jailed for grievous bodily harm, multiple rapes, and other sexual assaults against women, and placing her with cisgender women was wholly the fault of the prison authorities.  White was moved to a men’s prison in Leeds, and underwent gender reassignment surgery.  So yes, Karen White is a transgender woman, who is also a sexual predator.  This no more makes all transgender people sexual predators than it makes all cisgender men such, despite the fact that cis men carry out the vast amount of sexual assaults.  But then compare that to Scotland, where the Scottish Prison Service already assign places according to self-ID, have done since 2010 – almost 10 years – and with no reported sexual assaults by men ‘pretending’ to be women.  Hmm.  I don’t hear the detractors being so loud about that little fact.

Therefore, one case in England of a transgender woman who is a known sexual predator that women and children are not safe from does not outweigh the many transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons who have never presented any problems.  The problem here is not with gender but rather with sexual assault, which is no respecter of gender boundaries.  There is not the room here to go into them in detail, but there are more than plenty case studies of homosexual assaults in prison by male cisgender prisoners, and indeed, by cisgender women prisoners on other prisoners.

Despite all these arguments, there are still people, mostly but not always women, who still stand against self-ID.  But then these same people seek to deny the very existence of transgender people in the first place.

The biggest mistake that most of them make is to wrongly equate gender with biological sex, when the two are clearly not one and the same thing.  Many are quick to state, “XX equals female, and XY equals male”, as if their high school biology is the be-all and end-all of gender identity, or even for that matter, of biology.  In fact, this “gender binary” is not always the case.  There are in fact many human beings who do not have the standard number of chromosomes.  Some have more, others have fewer.  “XXXY Syndrome”, otherwise known as “Third Gender” effects one in 50,000 males, whereby they are born with two extra X chromosomes. 

Some will go further and flatly state, “If you have a penis you are male, and you have a vagina, you are female.  It’s simple as that.”  Again, wrong, as the very existence of intersex individuals – those born with sexual organs of both sides of the gender binary – clearly illustrates.  A 2015 study by Eric Vilian of the Center for Gender Based Biology at UCLA found a great number of “Differences of Sexual Development” (DSD), which included a 46-year-old woman having her third child, whose cells were found to carry 50% male chromosomes, and a 70-year-old father of three, undergoing a hernia operation, who was found to have a uterus.  Dr Vilian’s study have estimated that those with DSDs could be as high as 1in every 100 people.

So much for the biology we all learned in school.  But even if the detractors were correct, this still does not get away from the fact that biological sex does not constitute gender.  And how do these transphobes – let’s call them what they are, as much as they deny it (in the same way some people say “I’m not a racist, but…”) – respond to these facts?  Some will state that those with less or more chromosomes are a “minority”.  So therefore they don’t count somehow?  And 1 in 100 is some “minority”.  Some will outright deny the science, some will reply – and I have actually more or less read this – “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”   And some will more or less shove their fingers in their ears and shout “LA, LA, LA, LA , LA!  I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Really?  Is that your reply to reams upon reams of peer-reviewed scientific research, now going back decades?  To deny it, say minorities don’t matter, make out it’s a conspiracy, and/or simply not listen?  If that’s your view, then you may as well go and join the young earth creationists who say their god created the Earth 6000 years ago, the evolution deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, and the flat earthers, because you are demonstrating precisely the same level of wilful ignorance (aka “stupidity”) as all of the above do.

The main thing that worries me about the whole self-ID debate is the way it has been hijacked by outright transphobes, who not only do not want self-ID, but completely deny the very existence of transgender people.  I have seen Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) use a dictionary definition of “female” in a feeble attempt to back up their argument; “belonging or relating to the sex that gives birth to young, produces eggs, etc”.  Yet the same women using such a narrow definition conveniently ignore an alternative definition under the same heading in the dictionary; “belonging or relating to, or characteristic of, a woman”, and that definition could very easily pertain to transgender women.  But even then, in using the first definition, the TERFs automatically discount women who for medical reasons cannot give birth or produce eggs.  Are they not “real women”?   Or don’t they count because they are a minority?  Even if that were the case, such a definition must also discount every woman who reaches the age where they can no longer procreate.  Are even they, once they stop menstruating, no longer “female”?  See the dangers of attempting to define gender purely on biological sex?

A side note here.  I have been told that I should not use the term “TERF” nowadays, as it is apparently ‘derogatory’ (for… …reasons).  Well, tough titty.  The fact is that the term was started by women who self-identified as TERFs, and given that I am talking of people who show extreme prejudice towards one of the most vulnerable sections of society, do excuse me for not sparing a thought for their hurt feels.

I have made mention throughout this article to those opposed to transgender people, but one may notice that the emphasis has been upon transgender women.  There is a very good reason for this.  Mostly it is transgender women and girls which transphobes target.  Rarely you will find them making any reference to transgender men.  There are some who do so however.  I have read and seen videos of TERFs who claim that transgender men who are not at all transgender, but that they are in fact lesbians who have been conditioned to think as men by “the patriarchy” (because of course, we men – who are supposedly all sexual predators – obviously want a planet completely inhabited by men).  Again we see this instance of denying the very existence of transgender people.

Gay men in a Nazi concentration camp

When any society dismisses one section within that society, because they are ‘merely a minority’, when they persecute that section because they do not fit in with their mindset, and worst of all, when they deny their very existence, that society is going down a very dangerous road indeed.  And we need not look very far to see the end result of what happens in those circumstances; we need only look to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.  Indeed, even in the modern day, we need only look to Chechnya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and many other countries, where LGBT people are openly persecuted, often to death.

And yes, transphobes and TERFs, I did just liken you to Nazis, and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so.  For when you treat transgender people as any less than human, when you attempt to strip them of their identity, of their dignity, and their basic human rights, then you are behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis did to the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally disabled, and of course, among others, LGBT people.

Not that I am calling everyone worried about self-ID a Nazi.  My vitriol is not for those with genuine concerns, and / or who are willing to learn, but those who despite all the evidence, absolutely refuse to learn, but are only intent on spreading their own hatred.  And it pleases me to say to such that self-ID is a reality, and it is happening this year, and nothing they say or do is going to stop that.   Get used to it.

Nicola Sturgeon

But I feel that there is something bigger at play here.  Self-ID is yet another step in a plethora of positive moves by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Scottish Government which have enhanced the lives of women, the elderly, the young, children, LGBT people, the disabled, the poor, and many more.  I believe that Nicola Sturgeon has a vision of a Scotland yet to come.  An independent Scotland which as fair and equitable for all, where the value of all are recognised, and where none are left behind.   It could be argued, and I believe, that the First Minister is laying the groundwork for that independent Scotland.

I share that vision, as I think the vast majority of the independence movement do.  And it is an achievable vision, but one which neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP can deliver alone.  It will take us, all of us, to play our part and help create the fully integrated Scotland which we all seek.  We are not only parts of the jigsaw, we are the jigsaw; all of us are integral parts of the bigger picture, which would not be complete without even one of us.  As Blair Jenkins, the former Chief Executive of Yes Scotland once said that we would get whatever independent Scotland we choose.

If it were ever to happen that we had an independent Scotland where one demographic, or even any individual, were persecuted, maligned, and denied basic human rights purely for being who they are, where even one person is left behind, that in my view would be a free Scotland not worth having.  For as the song goes, "If one of us is chained, none of us are free.”

Some rights DO require greater emphasis - get over it

She could be.  Could you?

Check your privilege before claiming equality.
 

In the wake of heightened racial tensions in the USA, there have been demonstrations both there and in the UK under the banner of “Black Lives Matter”. As ever when that phrase comes up, it has been met with someone stating “All Lives Matter”, and even accusing those protesting of racism.

All lives do indeed matter, but Black Lives Matter throws into sharp relief where even a society which claims to be equal in reality affords privilege to some, and denies those same privileges to others, for which the establishment, the police, and the general public are responsible for.

I am a 'white' person (hate the term – my skin's not white; “Peach Flake” is nearer the mark) myself and I would ask other white people to ask themselves the following;

• How often have you been stopped under suspicion by the police, and subjected to a search?
• How often have you been pulled over by the police for driving a flashy car (or even a crap one) because you “fit the description” of some alleged crime?
• If you are reading this in a country with armed police, how often has an officer stopped you and drawn their gun on you?
• How many of your friends, family, and local community have been deliberately targeted, and in some places shot at and killed, purely because of their ethnicity?
• How many times have you been refused a job or other opportunity because of your ethnicity?
• Were you ever asked or expected to aim lower in the employment market because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your car or other property vandalised by people who think that because of your ethnicity you should not have it?
• Have you ever been told to “go home” or “get back to your own country” by someone of another ethnicity to you?
• Have you ever been threatened, spat at, or physically attacked because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever received abusive and/or threatening letters because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had excrement pushed through your letterbox?
• If you are a business owner, have you ever had your business smashed up, or the windows smashed, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your house or business set on fire, or such an attempt made, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who was killed purely due to their ethnicity?

I am guessing that most if not all white people reading the above will have answered in the negative to all of these. Yet these are things which people of colour (another term I dislike, but it is useful for this article) face or have faced on a daily basis, in the USA, the UK, and many other white-dominated countries. I frankly take my hat off to people of colour, as if it were me, I'd be a nervous wreck, wondering what's coming next.

And of course, these things do not only pertain to people of colour, but to other people within our society, who are targeted by bigots purely because they differ from the “accepted norm”. Following the EU Referendum in the UK returned a vote in favour of leaving, Polish and other eastern European people have faced an upsurge in anti-European, xenophobic verbal and even physical attacks. Indeed, while not all Leave voters were xenophobic or racist, every such bigot probably voted Leave. Now some of these bigots, fuelled with bravado with the vote, seem to think that gives them the right to verbally or even physically abuse eastern Europeans – and people of colour. And the sad fact is that the majority of the British public look the other way, because a, it's not affecting them personally, and/or b, they more than likely share the views of the bigots.

And there are even white people, native to their country, who are still targeted because of other “differences”. Not least among these are the LGBT+. A bunch of racist thugs in London within days of the EU leave vote were heard chanting “First the immigrants, next the queers.”, and there are now some anti-LGBT+ groups, such as Christian Concern, who are calling for equal marriage legislation to be reversed. Meanwhile, as I write this the UK is facing having a new Prime Minister, the choice being between Home Secretary Theresa May, or Energy Secretary Andrea Leasom; both of whom claim to be deeply devout Christians, and both of whom have a track record of opposing pro-LGBT+ measures.

Not that it needed an EU Referendum to spark any anti-LGBT+ feeling; it has always been there, in the UK, in the USA, and in a great many other countries in the world. Cisgender and heterosexual people reading the above add the following questions;

• Have you ever been afraid to kiss, embrace, or hold hands with your partner?
• Have you ever been arrested for doing so?
• Have you ever been stopped by the police and / or arrested for the clothes you are wearing?
• Have you ever been verbally abused, threatened, or physically attacked for your sexuality or gender?
• Have you ever been convicted of a crime and put in a prison full of those opposite to the gender you identify with?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who has been killed, or has committed suicide, due to their sexuality or gender?

Again, the overwhelming majority of cishet people will answer no to most if not all of the above. Yet many, if not all, are the harsh reality for many LGBT+ people.

As I made mention of before, the problem lies with privilege. As a white cishet male UK national from a culturally Christian background, my life is full of privilege – and I am painfully aware of that. The only prejudice I face are a, for being a short man, and b, for being a Scot. But even then, I can't say either have ever been a real problem, and neither have denied me of many opportunities, or seen me fearing for my safety (apart from the very occasional 'big man' who thought he could bully me) or my life itself.

But those who upon hearing “Black lives matter” immediately reply “All lives matter” are ignoring their own privilege. For it is generally those who have not lived the experience of those affected, who have not been denied privilege who shout that the loudest.

A few years ago, my partner was on an online forum speaking about the importance of feminism. She came under attack from a 'man' (well, a silly wee laddie, really) who described himself as a “Humanist” and tried to argue that we should not fight for women's rights, but for the human rights of all human beings. My partner, myself, and a few others tried to reason with him, that yes human rights are an issue for us all, which all should be involved in, but within human rights – and within humanism – there are certain people who are denied so much privilege that greater emphasis must be placed upon them.

I made the point to the said fool, imagine what would have happened in the 1950s and 1960s, had white people in the USA not joined in with and lent their weight to the Civil Rights movement on the grounds of “I'm not going to fight for black rights, I'm a Humanist, so I will only fight for equality for all.” We don't have to imagine as the facts are staring us in the face; the USA would still be segregated, and there sure as hell would be no African American President.

Now, I do not wish for one moment to attempt to take anything away from African Americans and the victory they won so hard in the Civil Rights movement. For it was their struggle, it was their victory, and it was many of them who paid with their lives for that victory. The fact remains however that in 50s-60s USA it was the whites who held the power, who dominated over politics, public services, and companies. Without some of those whites speaking out and taking action, the politicians would never have taken any notice. As much as I admire the late, great John F Kennedy – and trust me, I do – he once advised that the Civil Rights movement needed to “slow down” a bit. It was another man I admire greatly, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who made it clear; “Slow downism leads to stand stillism, and stand stillism leads to do nothingism.” It was very easy for Jack Kennedy to ask the Civil Rights movement to “slow down”; as an affluent, powerful, white male, he enjoyed a great many privileges which the majority of African Americans were denied. The fact is that African Americans could not afford to slow down, and Dr King made that perfectly aware to President Kennedy, and thereby forced his hand to take action.

Back to the said guy who claimed to be a Humanist, he was having none of it, and despite her blocking him, he thence commenced on a hate campaign against my partner, trolling groups she belonged to and slandering her at every given turn. Some Humanist. Some 'champion' of human rights.

I can already hear those who are fond of saying “All lives matter” sneering “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.” I would point out to them that the second line of that particular quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm was in fact added by the pigs, who were the ones who were enjoying all the privileges. And that is what it comes down to; if you enjoy any degree of privilege which others are denied, then you cannot say that your life has equal value to theirs, or your struggle and their struggle are the same, because they simply are not. Nobody goes into an oncology ward and moans about their ingrown toenail.

Whether the “All lives matter” brigade like it or not, there are different degrees of privilege within society, and as long as that remains a fact, then we shall never have a truly equal or cohesive, united society. We see this already by even those who claim to stand up for the struggles of others making statements about “the black community”, “the Asian community”, “the immigrant community”, “the LGBT community”, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Yet you never hear anyone speaking of 'communities' by labelling them “white”, “European”, “cisgender”, “native”, “heterosexual”, etc. Why not? Because the latter all enjoy privileges which the former are denied.

Surely 'society' is made up of ALL people, with many differences? And trust me, each and every one of us is different from others. So when we start pigeonholing people into different communities, we immediately set them apart from 'society'.

And anyone who does that has just negated any right they have to whine “All lives matter”.