THINK

Double Think, Wishful Think, …...Think?

It's a mad world. Natasha Devon, former government mental health guru, told a meeting of girls' school headmistresses (oops!) that they shouldn't address girls as girls or ladies but as pupils or students. Why? Because that reminds females (is that OK?) of their gender, which in Devon's view could cause said females great anxiety and mental health problems. Corresponding cautions should apply to boys' (oops again) schools.  No more boys' or girls' schools, only pupils'schools.

Unfortunately (in my view) the same problem arises with the use of the words «she», «her», «he» and «his». So obviously these words should be avoided too. What then? We'd presumably have to refer to all individuals as «it». But this, of course, could be interpreted as dehumanising people, objectifying them, which could definitely cause anxiety and mental health problems. Then again there is the problem of names. Some names are gender neutral, such as Lesley. However some aren't; have you ever met or heard of a boy called Agatha or a girl called John? So, to avoid mental health problems should we ban all gender-specific names or be compelled to use girls' names for boys and boys' names for girls, just to get rid of gender bias? Difficult one that.

Fortunately we Brits don't have the problem that Romance langage speakers have of every noun having a gender. Then we would really be in trouble, with anything sentient. So what can we conclude. One suggestion I have is that government mental health advisors should be tested for mental health problems before being appointed. Another is that Ms (can I use that; …….M, It?) Devon should get a life.

Elsewhere a mother has asked a school to ban the Sleeping Beauty fairy story because the Prince kissed Beauty while she was asleep, without first asking her permission. I suppose, by the same criterion, we could ban most literature written before 1950. What exciting lives some people live! More seriously, what has been said about people who want to ban books?

It is easy to make fun of such misguided people but, even if they are well intentioned, they do their cause no favours. There are still some serious issues in male/female interractions and the ridicule these people invite tends to trivialise these issues.

Things sentient do not include animals, according to media coverage of the government's proposal to exclude Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty from the Bill on leaving the EU now going through Parliament. Article 13 places an onus on governments to take animal welfare into account when creating new legislation so this onus would be excluded. The media coverage proclaims that the government thereby believes that animals are not capable of having feelings (causing God knows what mental health problems to people; animals may not be aware of media coverage). Michael Gove, shining knight of all lovers of the truth(?), is outraged at what he calls this distortion of the truth. Of course the government is concerned about animal welfare, he says; in fact, exclusion of Article 13 provides an opportunity for the government to create even more protection for animals than that provided by Article 13. (This, like everything else, will be better after Brexit). What he didn't specifically state, in his determination to clarify the exact truth, was that of course the government won't have to consider animal welfare (that onus will be on the animal owner) and won't have to create stronger legislation. It could create stronger legislation or it could completely ignore the issue and place animal owners in a difficult if not possible position. But what government, determined to cut all costs to the bone, would do that?

Well, let's have a little look at Gove's overriding concern for the truth, at his rôle in the Brexit campaign for instance; the little matter of the £350 million for the NHS? Do the sayings a kettle calling the pot black and leopards not being able to change their spots come to mind? Ah well, who ever accused politicains of honesty?

It really is a mad, mad world.