Meanwhile, in the UK, Stonewall, backed by the Good Law Project, is petitioning the UN to revoke the status of the GB Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) as an independent group. The reason would appear to be that the EHRC has stated that it can see “no reason” for making it simpler for people legally to change their gender, raising concerns that such a change would put at risk the provision of single-sex services (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962). If successful, the challenge would mean the EHRC would be stripped of its ‘A rating’ and would no longer be able to make representations at the UN Human Rights Council, or to its committees on human rights.
Once again, both stories demonstrate the unremitting drive by LGBTQ activists to impose their ideology, with little or no thought for the possible repercussions or harms being so casually inflicted on society as a whole. In particular, in this instance, being inflicted on children and women, both of whose rights, as groups, and being massively impacted.
With regards children, any teaching that prematurely sexualises them, most especially introducing them to behaviours formerly labelled deviant, should be prohibited. Children simply don’t need this kind of detailed ‘adult’ information, and one would have thought, even without Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_2_protocol_1_eng.pdf), enshrined into UK law in Article 2, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1), that parents have an absolute right to demand their offspring not be exposed to teaching that goes against their faith or other views. Especially when such teaching also exposes children to a well-evidenced risk of harm.
Moreover, the argument that such teaching serves to protect the mental health of LGBTQ children by promoting tolerance appears misleading, because even if a child displays behaviour indicative of possible future same sex attraction, where is the logic in normalising and promoting such behaviours to all children? Surely, they should rather be taught respect? What, traditionally, was labelled as good manners.
It should be remembered that children, by definition, lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to assess for themselves what they are being taught, and are highly suggestible – especially when such teaching is being delivered by an authority figure such as a teacher. They will inevitably be left confused and curious by much of the material currently being taught, and will want to explore it for themselves. This is one of the functions of education – to stimulate enquiry. But dress it up how you will, this kind of teaching – aimed at normalising and promoting behaviours in order to embed a societal shift in values – is a clear attempt at political indoctrination and, as such, poses a threat not just to child safety, but, longer term, to society as a whole.
Similarly, with women, removing current protections by making single-sex spaces open to transgender men can only expose them to harm – whether that harm be sexual abuse and assault, or emotional and mental stress felt by young girls and women finding themselves, for example, in a female changing room with an individual who seems clearly to be a man. But the ‘harms’ from such attempted reclassification actually extend far beyond that, because the insistence on equivalence trivialises or even ignores the uniqueness of female biology and the distinct value of ‘motherhood’. It says that what it really means to be a woman is irrelevant. From which it follows that, allowing men to call themselves women – ignoring biological reality – is an affront and insult to the female sex. It is, in fact, an existential attack on the nature and personhood of women. Fundamentally, this is an abuse of women’s rights.
The unpalatable, but inescapable, truth is that LGTBQ activists are attempting to impose their brand of ‘truth’ onto the rest of humanity. A ‘truth’ that not just flies in the face of biology and science, but that tramples our natural understanding and culture. At the end of the day, this is a fight that has nothing to do with tolerance towards others and inclusivity. It is rather an attempted ideological take-over, based on hatred of our values and the traditions that have underpinned our society for thousands of years. If so it is, in essence, an attempt to re-orchestrate what it means to be human and, as such, is demonic. Such insanity must be resisted, before it damages irrevocably the future of the human race.