The Transgender Agenda

Afternoon all.

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to have noticed the recent avalanche of transgender-related stories in various forms of media, plus the apparent 'debate' that we're all supposed to be having on the subject. Well, it's either that or you're one of those incredibly smart people who manages through a series of deft and agile manoeuvres to black out the mainstream media altogether - credit where credit's due and I'm most impressed. I've always wondered who or what plants the seeds of these 'debates' and decides what the rest of us could, would, should and then ultimately must talk about. Right now and remember to reach the 'right' conclusions at the end. Or else.

I've no problem admitting that I don't really 'get' the concept of gender dysphoria and on the very small number of occasions I've met transgendered people in 'real' life I've been somewhat wary of them, due at least partially to a genuine 'eggshells' fear of saying 'the wrong thing' and causing inadvertent offence. My basic understanding of gender dysphoria is that it's a sense or belief, held over a long period of time that the sex into which somebody is born is basically a misnomer when placed next to the gender with which they identify socially, so (say) a person born as male but personally identifying themselves as a female, hence the need for operations etc.

Now that can't be a nice way to live - in fact it sounds pretty traumatic and it's something I genuinely wouldn't wish upon anybody. If I could hit a button that would rid the world of gender dysphoria for good then I would do so without hesitation - less dysphoria means fewer miserable and unhappy people living in a perpetual state of identity crisis until the possibility of a highly intrusive and risky procedure becomes a viable option. That's before we even get onto the need to be pumped with hormones over several years, sometimes for the rest of the individual's life. However, Utopia is not an option and we know that no such 'magic button' exists.

However I'm not sure that absolutely everybody would like to rid our planet of this nasty condition, a point I promise to return to later on.

So anybody in that situation has my sympathy in an abstract sense but it clearly strikes me as the sort of thing you've either gone through personally or really have very little idea about. Something that continues to grind my gears is this wholly false attempt by too many people to offer a sort of pseudo-understanding of the suffering of others, when the possibility of walking a mile in the other person's shoes simply does not and never will exist. This is far closer to the virtue signalling method of people making the right noises to make themselves look and feel good, enable a self-congratulatory pat on the back, rather than actually doing any good. It's nasty, exploitative and wholly insincere.

Now for another shocking confession - in addition to not really 'getting' gender dysphoria I also have to admit to the heinous crime of finding the whole thing just ever so slightly odd or unusual. Apparently, this alone makes me an evil bigot on the same scale as an Imperial Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, guilty of the all-new shiny hate crime of 'Transphobia' no less. Now I would like to make two points in my own defence before you wheel out the electric chair. Firstly, it is odd or unusual, strictly from a statistical point of view. Secondly, the process and procedure to go from one gender to the other is indeed drastic by definition, that is simply an objective fact. Do I get to live now?

Predictably enough the 'debate' we are all supposed to be having about 'trans issues' is not a debate at all, but a crash course in what to think dressed up as some sort of discussion. In a genuine debate, there is an acknowledgement that while facts are sacred an opinion is free, that any worldview which does not infringe upon the basic rights and liberties of others is a valid one to be respected. This is quite apparently not what is going on here, as acknowledging that "it's your body and do what the hell you like with it" is simply not good enough. You're either a fully paid-up virtue signaller, offering 'support' and 'understanding' or you are a 'transphobe', a hater.

And note:- there is absolutely NO in between, everybody one side of the road or the other.

The tactics of Marxoids and their useful idiots within the Toddler Left are pretty clear-cut when it comes to this stuff. Bait people with the latest round of group advocacy, then fling mud at anybody breaking ranks from the established orthodoxy and conventional wisdom of 'inclusiveness', 'diversity' and all that jazz. That they have now moved onto transgendered people is interesting in itself as it comes quite close to an admission that there is now very little mileage left in the traditional goldmines for this subversive bullshit that have been the supposed 'wars' on racism, homophobia etc. Soon these bastards will need to invent new 'groups' to pull this stuff with.

Inequality before the law is always, always wrong - that should really go without saying. But it's worth noting that no such legal inequality exists in relation to transgendered people. Any adult suffering from gender dysphoria can pursue a sex change operation if they remain sure they want one after counselling. He or she is then able to get a court order which legally acknowledges their change of name and also of gender. They cannot be refused public services on the basis of being transgendered - and rightly so. They cannot be refused a job or fired from their current employment on that basis either - and rightly so. Where exactly is the 'inequality' here?

But then this is the thing - 'inequality' isn't about 'before the law' anymore, we've moved way, way past that and into the dark arts of 're-education'  and social engineering, 'informing' people of the narrow range of 'acceptable' opinions they have the State's 'kind permission' to hold. Marching to get people the vote or genuine equal rights has now given way to something intimidatory, let's call it 'bullwashing' (a hybrid of bullying and brainwashing), in order to 'change the minds' of those holding potentially 'dangerous' views, or at least cow them into silence. While promoting 'diversity' on questions of identity, any diversity of opinion is something social engineers seek to crush ruthlessly.

It's no accident that the 'trans crusade' has attached itself to that which claims to promote the interests of gay, lesbian and bisexual people (yes, all of them, these are apparently not individuals possessed of agency or free will, but a homogenous block who think, feel and want entirely the same things). The appropriation of the letter T within the LGBT umbrella has the deliberate intention of conflating people who have had sex change operations with those who might come out as gay, lesbian or bi and be accepted by the overwhelming majority of people, at least at any time in the last 15-20 years. This is pernicious, manipulative and wholly disingenuous. They are not the same.

If your friend Dave comes out as gay or bisexual next week then it probably represents a minor adjustment, but nothing that most intelligent and reasonable people can't make fairly quickly and with little fuss. It's possible that you already had suspicions (for want of a better word) in this regard and were unperturbed by the possibility. In essence, Dave is still circa 90% the same person, a very small component part of who he is, namely his sexual orientation and identity, perhaps isn't what you assumed or expected but so what? It might or might not be something that you can then have 'banter' about depending on your relationship. But after any initial awkwardness, life goes on.

Now Dave becoming Davina is a wholly different situation by definition, as the person you knew as Dave has made a conscious decision to reject the identity of who you knew (and by extension, the friendship itself) in favour of a new identity and new life. The individual with whom you might have gone on holiday, played in a band together, played football or simply gone drinking with no longer exists. This is not hyperbole, that now ex-friend is as good as dead on paper and in the eyes of the law, which is not a minor adjustment at all but an absolute bombshell. Any automatic expectation of 'support' from others on this basis strikes me as unreasonable and presumptuous.

It's this assumption that only the person of re-assigned gender is effected by the whole thing that feeds this poisonous assertion that it is somehow incumbent on the rest of us not simply to respect their rights, but to form a sort of quasi-support network for the transgendered, suspending any impact upon ourselves while doing so. Friends, wives or husbands and even children are now being (gradually less) subtly instructed that the transgendered demand for 'support' aces any sense of confusion, bewilderment or pain that they might be feeling themselves, as if this is another of those 'competing rights' issues and their 'rights' simply do not come into it in the final reckoning.

Of course the whole notion of 'competing rights' issues is itself horseshit but...another night.

Speaking of "I can't imagine", the possibility of any child seeing a parent 'switch gender' strikes me as something with the potential to be immensely traumatic and potentially ruinous to the child. We're now in the process of talking about 'genderless toilets' and teaching what can only be described as kids (less than 10 years old) about 'trans issues' at Primary School. This is a clear nod to the very real position that the transgendered now have within the hierarchies the Toddler Left adhere to (of course the Toddler Right have their own hierarchy but we'll do that soon enough). Being near the top of that particular tree of course gives you privileges and special status, as opposed to genuine equality.

So that child who might be upset, confused or just plain angry at Dad now becoming a woman called Delores will be told that they are being selfish (especially if this happens to be a white, middle class child). In a deranged subversion of the parent-child relationship, he or she will be reminded  to stop being so 'transphobic', that Delores really needs her kids' support right now, and that they have no claim on any feelings of their own about the situation. Then the whole class will be subjected to a Maoist 're-education' on 'trans issues', just to correct anybody who wrongly believes that these decisions impact anybody other than the people making them. This is poison.

It doesn't surprise me that in the true style of anyone seeking to brainwash the young, a maxim of 'the younger the better' is being applied here, but then that doesn't make it a single percentage point less pernicious or dangerous. Not only is it brutal and inhuman to ram this stuff down the throats of children, it runs the risk of creating more gender dysphoria, more confusion amongst young people for whom the adolescent years in particular are already traumatic and difficult enough without being bombarded with 'trans' propaganda. What could be a 'passing phase' in reality might end up being misconstrued as a clear cut case of dysphoria, with particularly horrendous results.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that someone, somewhere actually wants this, but then we'd be entering the realm of 'conspiracy theory' or something like that. I'll leave you to make up your own minds.

It's worth repeating that anybody with long-running gender dysphoria should be free to pursue whatever surgery and/or treatment they feel is necessary, although the question of whether the taxpayer should fund it is an altogether different one. On balance it's probably correct that the individual concerned gets to be legally recognised as their 'new gender' and the anti-discrimination rules that have existed on the grounds of race, gender and sexual orientation are extended to include the transgendered. Creating new 'oppressed groups' within society is bad, but creating inequalities before the law is certainly 'as bad' and probably quite a bit worse.

That said, legal recognition and 'social acceptance', let alone a demand that the rest of society reacts or responds to you a certain way on threat of punishment, are absolutely stratospheres from each other. One is the recognition of and a certain respect for the rights of an individual, while the other is a blatant trampling over the rights of others to hold politically incorrect, socially conservative or even offensive points of view without penalty. I'll say it again, collectivism based on this kind of hierarchy and oppressor/oppressed lens is inherently selfish. Dressed up as 'equality', it's actually a totalitarian assertion of your 'rights' way over and above the natural rights of others.

Counter-intuitive as that might be, it also happens to be true.

I'll be back later in the week to discuss the life and times of the Conservative Party - anyway, I'll leave you with the most appropriate song I could find and thank you all one once again for reading. See you soon.

Why Safe Space is Bad for Your Health

Afternoon all.

It's true enough that none of us like being challenged, criticised or disagreed with. We all prefer the warm glow of being told that we're right, that we have hit upon some searing point that is very rarely exposed or illuminated, that we're a rare voice of sanity in an increasingly mad world. Being challenged and cross-examined about your thoughts or ideas can be bloody hard work, a trip outside your own comfort zone into the 'real world' of someone else. Rather than recalling things sequentially from the card index in the brain, we're forced to slalom at someone else's instruction, perhaps answer questions we'd never considered, from a perspective that isn't really ours.

This is why I'm inherently suspicious of 'ideologically pure' people - having spent a bit of time on the Libertarian wing of politics a few years ago, I found it to be something of a 'filter bubble' and 'warm glow society' (dare I say, its own type of 'safe space') for like-minded ideologues who preferred stroking each others' egos on the internet to anything more substantial. Whereas totally 'pragmatic' people who believe in precisely nothing are dangerous because they are prepared to believe in anything for the sake of personal gain, the purely ideological present their own malevolent threat, refusing to be tempered by context, the need for gradualism or even decency.

The trouble with these 'filter bubbles' is that they can very easily descend into a game of who can 'outpure' each other on the ideological front, leading to real silliness. A massive flashlight regarding the 'batshit insane' wing of Libertarianism came one morning when a fella started arguing quite loudly on the old LPUKE website for the legalisation of child pornography, on the basis that, well, watching it wasn't the same thing as doing it and didn't amount to a violation of the non-aggression principle - ergo, it should be filed under the "I'd rather you didn't but I'm not going to have you arrested for it" category.

Whatever the arguments for and against (and no, I don't think we should legalise child porn before you ask, although a few people seemed to be in agreement with him) there's a more important point here when I look back at that morning a few years ago. This is where the occupation of such bubbles ends, in an obsession with marginal issues and a total detachment from what it palatable to people of a different socio-political denomination or none. I got sick of telling my fellow Libs that banging on about how great it would be if we could legalise crack and heroin next week was not a bright idea. In a room full of people who support at least some drug legalisation that's an interesting conversation, but be assured, just about everyone else is off down the fire escape.

A couple of Christmases back I remember getting in a discussion with a friend of a friend on social media, who was genuinely arguing that a person involved in and benefiting from theft from their place of work is not doing anything 'all that bad' and should be treated with some degree of leniency. Now that falls down rather rapidly on three levels, 1) if the theft is on any sort of scale then that could lead to other people losing their jobs in cutbacks, or not getting pay rises etc. 2) the person benefiting from the theft did it for personal gain rather than as some form of protest against 'the man' and was highly unlikely to have been in abject poverty or anything like that, 3) once you defend this then surely you're consenting to him or her nicking your stuff if he or she feels like it?

Thought not.

Now this fella was a 'younger person' in his 20s and I looked forward to hearing his response, seeing as I'd raised these points in a respectful way. His actual response was to shut down anyone disagreeing with him, myself included, and essentially non-platform them. It also became very clear that he'd 'discussed' this subject with a raft of like minded people and received the personal validation of a "well said" from at least most of them. As for the matter in hand, it's a straightforward Marxist way of thinking - poor, oppressed worker gets his own back on evil, exploitative bourgeois boss (who should have been paying him more in the first place) by helping himself to a few quid out of the till. All to feed his starving and malnourished kids and absolutely not for his own gain, promise.

Of course it's completely off the wall, but yes, I understand the 'logic' of this completely.

This proletariat vs bourgeoisie concept is a good example of what is probably the most tragic consequence of a lifetime spent around people agreeing with each other, namely the dehumanisation and demonisation of those who are not considered to be on message. One of the most destructive and dangerous elements of any one-party state, one of the biggest single reasons they end up in poverty, human rights abuses and mass murder, is this depiction of all who are not in complete agreement with the regime not simply as people who are opposed or agnostic, but as traitors, the fifth column, racists, fascists, communists, whatever the appropriate label happens to be at the time.

Once you have stripped your 'enemies' of their humanity, then anyone who wishes to inflict sub-human types of treatment on them is free to do so. See Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or basically any other hellhole for furher details on how propaganda can be used to get 'the people' to sort your enemies out for you.

With that in mind, the notion of 'safe space' within educational establishments in particular is one which I'm deeply alarmed about and genuinely believe not just to be wrong-headed but potentially dangerous, particularly as it brings with it a hefty wedge of the 'one party state' thinking I've just outlined. While it used to be 'edgy' views on social topics that led to some sort of non-platforming, it seems that the regressive left (who control most student unions these days) have moved into 'economics' as well. Arguing for lower public spending would see someone like Milton Friedman likened to Hitler or Slobodan Milosevic, and almost certainly non-platformed from most universities.

I'll repeat it because we know it's absolutely true - the quite brilliant (and not remotely dangerous) Milton Friedman would be widely non-plaftormed these days. Please, please reflect on that and if you're inclined towards believing that 'safe space' does more good than harm, think again. I can see a situation in about ten years time where Conservative, classical Liberal and Civic Nationalist groups are banned altogether from further and higher education campuses. As for the dubious contender on the charge, the 'alt right', it's clear as a bell that they would simply have different proscribed groups and different sacred cows if they got their hands on the machinery of the state.

Anyone who suggests that their ativists should become teachers so they can indoctrinate kids (as was suggested at the UKIP conference a year ago) is absolutely terrifying and clearly no lover of freedom of expression either. Now we also have groups like the President's favourite, 'Britain First' and the shiny new 'for Britain', led by the 21st century Joan of Arc, banging on about the day that the boot is on the other foot and how they're going to use internment on their enemies. Sorry, I meant 'terrorists', but then who would get to decide who all the 'terrorists' were? The stupidity of the small number of sane, reasonable people who join such organisations never ceases to amaze me.

They claim to be persecuted and in a narrow way yes, they probably are, but then do they stand for an altogether different way of doing things? Or would they impose their own version of political correctness, a 'safe space' for themselves and people who think like them, while that space became deeply unsafe for everybody else? Let's just say I wouldn't trust them to prove me wrong. My good mate Stuart Heal commented to me last week "y'know Daz, I never thought we'd get to the point where people like us were considered the sensible, moderate centre ground". I laughed, but of course Stuart is correct as he normally is. Sanity, logic and reason are lonely vocations these days.

In short, time spent talking and listening to people who disagree with you is not simply good for your spiritual and emotional health, it's highly necessary if you want to avoid the risk of turning into a warped, nasty and narcissistic little bastard. When I first set about writing this I was going to focus on something along the lines of "your opinion does not have an automatic claim on a certain amount of respect in the way that your personal dignity does - an attack on what you think does not and should never constitute an 'assault' in the true sense that needs to be stopped from happening". My good mate Chris Coey quite skillfully blew me out of the water on that front the other night, said that more conciesely than I ever could.

So,,,here's something you rarely hear. Safe spaces, people spending time only amongst people who agree with them, leads to worse tribalism, the dehumanisation of those who see things differently and, ultimately, is largely responsible for the squalid and nasty public discourse we currently have to endure. Someone who disagrees with me is, well, they're someone who disagrees with me - they're not 'scum', a 'traitor' or part of some 'fifth column' which wishes me personal harm. If he or she is giving a speech about a contentious topic on a night I'm free then I might go along and ask some awkward questions afterwards, it's only words after all.

Horrors, I might even change my mind about something - stranger things have happened before.

The alternative is to sit in a cave (cyber or real) with my like-minded pals, lamenting this individual and banging on about what a 'bastard' or 'bitch' they are, stripping them of their humanity, hoping they're involved in a motorway pile-up (copyright Morrissey vs Johnny Rogan) and giving a veneer of legitimacy to someone who might engage in some form of politically motivated violence. Meanwhile, we disappear up our ideological sphincters and try to be more Conservative/Socialist/Libertarian than each other, end up chatitng complete shite amongst ourselves. I'm not surprised that political parties are as useless and inept as they are, they are essentially 'safe spaces' on a national scale.

It's clear as a bell what 'the right approach' is and, as I seem to be saying rather frequently these days, we need to recognise that it's not about 'us' and get over ourselves somewhat. The Brexit 'debate' legitimised the branding of all in favour of leaving the EU as racists or xenophobes, while the mud being flung from the other side of the road was and continues to be about 'traitors', which includes anyone who voted Remain, judges doing their job and upholding the law, or members of parliament remembering the 48 per cent who voted Remain and asking questions of the government rather than engaging in jingoistic tubthumping.

Both 'sides' have dehumanised the other and both seem to have convinced themselves that they are being persecuted, that the other side is getting favourable treatment. Everyone involved needs to drop this petualant crybully modus operandi, get over themselves just a little and grow up before we sleepwalk into an altogether nastier form of tyranny. The state of public discourse post-Brexit has reached a foul new low from which we show no signs of recovering anytime soon - a low we have reached as a result of having too much 'safe space'  among members of our sad little tribes, rather than too little.


It's incumbent on all of us to reject the comfort of an unearned warm glow, dismiss the temptation of 'safe space' for ourselves and respectfully welcome those we profoundly disagree with. If we refuse, then we lose the right to complain when that process of tyranny is turned on us at a later date, along with the built-in auto-correct of the thuggish and unpleasant making utter fools of themselves and standing out like a sore thumb in a different climate. Once you resolve to respect those who think differently to yourself, you earn the right to walk away with honour when that is not reciprocated - to paraphrase the song, opinions don't hurt people, knobheads do.

I'll be doing one more about a topic I was asked to cover on either Saturday or Sunday, so here's some music and have fun in the meantime. Thanks for reading and I'll see you soon.

How a Gay Pride Rally Changed my Life

Afternoon. I've been away for a while - please don't worry I wasn't enjoying a spell at her majesty's pleasure or anything like that. To be honest, I got a tad bored of the blogging/writing thing, which often serves as a mechanism for synchronising one's own ideas and presenting 'random thoughts' in a more linear way. In the absence of a mass readership of thousands who really wanted to digest this stuff and take it in, a lengthy break from that kind of writing seemed both necessary and the right thing to do.

In the last couple of years I've spent quite a lot of time trying to discuss serious issues on social media, which actually forms the main thrust of what I'm going to talk about at length in a minute. In between photographs of people's lunch, narcissistic parents showing off their kids like they're fashion accessories and tales of 'off again, on again' relationships, you might find the occasional exchange of ideas that was actually worth having. If the cap fits, well, thanking you kindly.

You might also find shouting matches, tribal nonsense and idiots who essentially participate in a rather strange team sport called 'politics', where everything is an argument as opposed to a discussion and the aim is to win, humiliating their 'enemy' in the process if at all possible. Disagreement is met with personal abuse, ad hom attacks and the general mentality of an oversized toddler as opposed to logic, reason and some sort of coherent explanation.

Don't shout 'bullshit' or call me something unrepeatable (especially seeing as I didn't do that to you), please actually tell me why you think I'm wrong, be a part of my education if you will. If you can't express such disagreement without turning into the evil clown from the Child's Play movies then I'm not sure I want much to do with you anymore.

Social media is an interesting mirror to general society and, while I found if fascinating I eventually realised it was making me impatient and prone to losing my temper with people. I don't want all that narcissism and childishness to turn me into someone I really don't like, so it was better to cut all ties with Facebook. I occasionally re-tweet music videos and stuff like that from Youtube, but spend zero actual time on there. It actually strikes me as quite insulting to think that you should stop what you're all doing and read my incredibly profound 47 characters, then re-tweet them.

If I want you to take me seriously then I should meet you halfway, make a bit of an effort and write something meaningful, surely?

Speaking of which...

During the summer I had an eye-opening trip to deepest darkest Wigan to watch a resident comedian who enjoys a sort of 'local cult' status. Now the show itself rather resembled time travel, with most of the gags being the sort you might hear while watching an re-run of  'the Comedians' from the 1970s. If that's your thing then knock yourself out, but to be honest I found it rather dated and not especially funny at all. That said, I was there with and on the suggestion of a friend so we ended up having a brief chat and becoming 'friends' on social media.

A few short weeks later my comedian friend made some comments on Facebook regarding a Gay Pride rally in his hometown. Now I never thought I'd hear of Pride coming to Wigan and I laughed momentarily just because the place always struck me as a tad, er, provincial in its outlook and the sort of town where "get your head down" might be as good an instruction to a 'person of difference' as any. Perhaps things have really changed in the decade or so since I used to visit regularly, I dunno.

Anyway, my friend's posting was to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing, but sticking faithfully to the spirit of what he said) "look, I've nothing against gay or lesbian people whatsoever. If you're gay then good for you and get on with it, but your sexuality isn't an achievement or cause for celebration just as my being straight isn't. If you write a great piece of music, or come up with some inspired architecture or painting, then that's worthy of loud celebration. Standing on a milkfloat wearing leather pants and waving to the crowd just doesn't cut it"

I distinctly remember the bits about the milkfloat, the pants and the references to art or architecture as alternative sources of pride, and am happy with that as an accurate enough representation of what was said. Absolutely no threats were made, no really nasty or derogatory language was used and while it might have struck some as a tad on the abrasive side, I struggle to see how any lasting offence could have been caused. You might not agree with his point of view and that's fine, but that should really be the end of it.

However someone, somewhere decided that they were going to be 'offended' by this, perhaps on behalf of him or herself or perhaps this was a heterosexual 'trendy' deciding that poor, pathetic gay and lesbian people needed protecting from anything that might 'offend' them and that they were also incapable of turning their computers off, or shrugging it off as one of those things, muttering 'wanker' under their breath and getting on with something more important.

And..the thought that there might be real gay or lesbian people out there who don't participate in these rather infantile 'Pride' marches, who might actually think "to be fair, this guy has a bit of a point doesn't he?" never occurs to this metro crowd at all. Well, that actually happened - once our friend's Facebook account had been restored after a brief 'suspension' a gay man joined the discussion to add that he was sick of militant campaigners trying to define him by a single aspect of his life, that being gay wasn't the totality of his existence. Well said.

It was during this conversation that I had quite a profound shift in thought, a moment of epiphany at least to some extent. I'm generally loathe to putting people in boxes or groups, but in the broad sense there seemed to be three different types of response to what our friend was saying. The first was the irritating 'respecting diversity' bullshit you hear from that pink rainbow crowd which I mentioned earlier and will return to. The second was basically the nastiness of people who, regardless of what they claimed, were quite blatantly homophobic.

And the third, well, I think there weren't that many of us but we seemed to be the ones who actually got the point and the essence of what had originally been said. Surely the question about whether or not I approve of gay, lesbian or bi (we'll discuss transgender later) people is a bit of a trick question? In reality, is there no approval for me to give or refuse to give? Am I not being a bit of a self-obsessed tosser simply by thinking my 'approval' of other people's harmless and legal behaviour is either significant or necessary?

This is the thing - both of the other 'sides' of this 'argument' that we should not really have been having in the first place are totally self-obsessed, they think it's all about them. Homophobes clearly think that their view of other people's lifestyles and choices are oh so important and most would introduce new laws to make it more difficult (potentially impossible) for people to either be or continue being gay/lesbian going forward. That people bitterly opposed to others having anal sex could be so far up their own arses has an amusing irony to it.

But then...the metrosexal 'trendy' crowd, hopping aboard the pink rainbow bus with their 'I LOVE LGBT' badges annoy me just as much and perhaps slightly more. In the last few years I've been heavily involved with a spoken word event which I hope brought enjoyment to all involved. That said, my own enthusiasm waned slightly (and perhaps permanently) when one month they decided to attach themselves to the local 'Pride' festival. I vocalised this and certainly felt like I was being regarded as a potential bigot to be treated with suspicion.

Firstly, I'm no bigot and anyone who's known me for any length of time will surely confirm that. Secondly, attaching yourselves to an overtly political rally like 'Pride' without consulting people first strikes me as a slightly authoritarian thing to do. Thirdly, the non-sequitur that you are either an enthusiastic LGBT campaigner or some sort of vicious would-be London nailbomber is ridiculous and absurd. When I tried to explain my "surely it has nothing to do with me?" stance on the subject I got some rather strange looks and realised the scale of the minority I was in.

This Facebook row got me thinking about the subject again and an interesting question pops into my head. Suppose Karen from Telford, a married heterosexual woman, comes out loud and proud as an enthusiastic supporter of the LBGT community. Good for her. However, like all 'support' for any cause Karen is free to change her mind and withdraw her previous goodwill, state that she no longer supports the LGBT crusade and has now crossed to the other side of the road, for whatever reason or absolutely none.  Let's say Karen has that change of heart at some point.

What then? One of the god-awful consequences of representative democracy is that people start to believe that their personal opinion, or even just a binary expression of which side they are on, should somehow be considered significant and worthy of discussion. It conjures up a mental image of a gay man ringing his partner and saying "sorry Ray, but Karen in Telford doesn't approve of our lifestyles anymore. I suppose we're going to have to end it". Karen in Telford, and people like her, really need to get over themselves and realise they're not that important.

Now we're having the same conversation about 'trans people' and the same self-obsessed nonsense is being spewed by both 'sides' just as they have on issues like gay marriage for years. One tries unsuccessfully to hide its nosiness and its bigotry, the other uses the historical suffering of others to hop aboard the train of some trendy cause and give themselves a self-congratulatory pat on the back. And both are absolutely pathetic. Rather like Henry Kissinger discussing the Iran-Iraq war, I hope both sides lose.

This and other musings about what democracy does to people have formed the basis of a book I'll be working on in 2018. I'll be back with a weekly piece most Sundays going forward, so please feel free to suggest and nominate subjects for discussion and I'll get round to those that might be of interest to a wider audience. However, next week's has the working title of 'that Islam thing' so I'll leave that dangling for now, depart with some appropriate music and catch you soon. Thanks for reading.