Hatty

TL;DR - The history of IQ tests are racist with these tests being used to justify white superiority. This history results in a test that may not have started as racist but still has racist connotations with more researchers agreeing on this notion and the idea that intelligence can’t be identified by a numerical score.

Binet created the IQ test as a response to children from impoverished backgrounds coming into Paris as a way to measure their intellectual development. Therefore, the education system could be tailored to the individuals and result in a focus on differing educational needs. This test however was co-opted by racist and classist ideologies in the U.S. Born was this idea of black intellectual inferiority. That and the eugenics movement in the U.S. also compounded this.

Terman took Binet’s test and used it to promote white superiority, creating an additional part to the test that still exists today which resulted in this idea of ‘white brilliance’. This also results in the IQ test being about white brilliance rather than educational development.

IQ test results have been used to justify horrific policies and scientifically baseless ideologies. IQ tests do not take into account the position a person is in which results in a lower reading and writing level which will contribute to a lower IQ score. Whilst the gap between white and non-white individuals is lessening in terms of education, it still exists meaning white individuals have more opportunity in terms of education in comparison to non-white individuals resulting in a greater chance of a higher score.

Furthering this, IQ tests are based on the Western concept of education and intelligence. However, different cultures have different forms of intelligence and different educational structures. It is racist as it does not take into account that non-western cultures are just as intelligent but just not what the West deems as intelligent through IQ tests. With the West primarily being white, and non-western cultures primarily being non-white. This results in the idea that as more white people do better on the test due to these cultural and socio-economic issues, the idea of white brilliance over non-white is perpetuated.

There are many complicated political, historical, racist issues wrapped up in IQ testing, more and more researchers agree on this point, and reject the notion that individuals can be categorized by a single numerical score.

There is nothing I love more than going on a run. I find running can easily be altered depending on the level of runner or whether it is for fun or a more serious form of exercise. It is so easy to change goals and improve whilst being able to actively see the improvement.

Additionally, running is great for people-watching, listening to music and spending time outside. As a gym goer what sometimes frustrates me is being constantly stuck inside. Therefore, the ability to run a few times a week in the fresh air is welcome

TL;DR - People are born gay. Gay individuals can grow up in completely heterosexual environments. Therefore I find it hard to understand how society can have an involvement in someone's sexuality. Additionally, as Gay people are persecuted, I do not know anyone who would choose that persecution if it was a choice.

I completely believe people are born gay. I won't rehash the science or research studies as other people have done such a wonderful job, I just have a few comments.

Firstly, as a gay individual no-one else in my family or friendship circle when I was younger were LGBTQ+. Therefore, having spent much time in my youth thinking about it, I don't understand how it could have been learned or how it could be societal as all I knew through people close to me and the media was heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, in certain countries people are persecuted, tortured, stoned, killed, imprisoned, raped, forcibly impregnated etc. due to their sexuality. So I can't understand how they can't be born gay. I don't understand why they would be gay due to society and this idea of nurture over nature, as everything in their society persecutes gay individuals in the most horrific and torturous ways, so what would teach them in that society to be gay?

Additionally, in terms of some who have said it is a choice, whilst I love being gay, when growing up it would have been so much easier if I wasn't and would still be easier now. So in these countries why would people choose to put their lives and families lives in danger and make that choice? I don't know anyone who would choose that life if they had the choice.

This is pretty much my daily breakfast! Two well toasted slices of sourdough rye, lovely buttery avocado and hot sauce.

The creaminess of the avocado along with the spiciness of the hot sauce offers a perfect balance of the calm and the storm. The flavours and senses are all engaged offering a perfect jump start to the day.

I have tried different forms of seasoning on my avocado toast. I have tried paprika, nutritional yeast, just pepper, balsamic vinegar or lemon juice but none of them quite have the effect of hot sauce. Much like bread and butter, I believe hot sauce and avocado on toast belong together.

TL;DR - Dairy products have a high concentration of saturated fat which contributes to diseases such as heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

Milk and other dairy products are one of the top sources of artery-clogging saturated fat in an individual's diet. Milk products also contain cholesterol. Diets high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol increase the risk of heart disease, which remains America’s top killer. Cheese is especially dangerous. Typical cheeses are 70 percent fat.

A 2017 study funded by the National Cancer Institute that compared the diets of women diagnosed with breast cancer to those without breast cancer found that those who consumed the most American, cheddar, and cream cheeses had a 53% higher risk for breast cancer.

Additionally, dairy products have high amounts of calcium which is needed for strong bones. Without enough calcium, a person may be at risk of osteoporosis. This condition causes bones to weaken and leaves them prone to breaking. The National Osteoporosis Foundation explain that people need adequate calcium and vitamin D to prevent bone loss and osteoporosis.

Although dairy products may contain more calcium than many other foods, evidence suggesting that consuming dairy can prevent bone fractures seems conflicting.

For example, one systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that as dairy intake increases, the risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture decreases in some studies. However, this was not the case in all the studies included in the analysis.

TL;DR - Gender blindness is wrong as it does not acknowledge how people can be oppressed or privileged because of their gender identities. Therefore, it can act as a deterrent for future improvements.

Gender blindness is a term used to describe treating all genders the same regardless of their biological or historical differences (equality). Although this may on the surface seem to be a great step forward in the journey to equality, this blanket treatment of all people as the exact same ends up doing more harm than good.

In the ongoing fight for gender rights, the word “equality” is used a lot. From this constant usage of the word, gender-blind views became more common in response to the cry for differing genders to have an equal chance in the world as men.

The reality is people are treated differently throughout their daily lives (whether that's in public, in relationships, or in healthcare settings) because of their gender. These are factors we cannot ignore as we try to treat all individuals with respect on the road to gender equality. Due to sexism and transphobia, cisgender women and all transgender individuals are oppressed and victimized through unconscious biases and stereotypes about them.

Refusing to acknowledge how people can be oppressed or privileged because of their gender identities and if they are transgender or cisgender runs the risk of ignoring and not appropriately addressing the hardships of gender minorities and the systems of oppression that privilege cisgender men.

Transgender people (people whose genders are different from the gender they were assigned at birth), women, and non-binary individuals are oppressed every day. By saying we don't see society's disenfranchisement of these communities, we are saying that we don't see the ways gender affects how people are treated and the experiences they have as a result.

As a result, real change cannot occur. By minimizing or ignoring societal issues between genders, gender blindness is a deterrent to future improvements.

TL;DR - Marriage was created in the 1400s when people would die much earlier. Therefore, marriage did not account for the length of time we live now and the change that comes with that resulting in it being outdated.

In the 1400’s when people were getting married, it was “until death do you part.” Because people would get married as teenagers and somebody would die in their 20’s or early 30’s. The life span was not 80 years.

As we grew as a society and medical care got better, we figured out how to get rid of things like the bubonic plague and gangrene, people are living a lot longer. When they live a lot longer, they make many changes in their lives.

A lot of the times when some people are married, one partner grows and the other one stays stagnant, or they grow in different directions.

Marriage is this idea of forever which is outdated. I personally find it difficult to imagine being with one person for 60 years of my life as I grow and change. At different junctures in your life, different things are needed out of a relationship and personally, tying myself in a contract with one person when I am aware that things could change is firstly not sensible, and secondly outdated.

TL;DR - Not all porn damages teenagers, unethical pornography damages teenagers. However, ethical pornography that practices the idea of consent and choice does not. As sex education is currently taught in schools at the most basic level, unethical porn is used as a tool by teenagers to learn about sex which is damaging.

The majority of pornography that exists on sites such as Pornhub is unethical porn. Firstly, it is made unethically which can be through sexual exploitation, revenge porn etc. Secondly, it does not practice important concepts such as consent or real-life sex situations. It is important to note that some sites have equated an increase in anal sex and other types of sex with porn as a negative. However, this isn't inherently bad as long as it is practiced safely and with consent.

I find the issue is that sex education in schools is not good enough. It doesn't teach enough about consent, sex for pleasure, masturbation, different forms of sex but rather takes the heteronormative angle of sex between a man and a woman in order to procreate. Additionally, you are taught the more you have sex, the more likely you are to get a disease (which is categorically untrue.) With this lack of education, teenagers have no choice but to turn to porn for information regarding sex. The porn websites they turn to are unethical sites that are free.

Meta-analyses – systematic research that synthesises multiple studies – from 2000 and 2015 have found associations between watching pornography and actual violent behaviours.

Aggression, largely by males and overwhelmingly against females, is common in unethical pornography: an analysis of top-selling and top-renting titles found 88% of scenes showed aggression.

Men who use pornography more often are more likely to practise or desire dominant, degrading practices, such as gagging and choking. And women who use pornography are more likely to practise or desire submissive practices.

The difficulty I come to is that different people like different forms of sex. Whether this be bondage, restraints, sex toys etc. However, what unethical porn teaches is that this should be expected and that the male partner (in heterosexual porn) has to be the dominant and the woman the submissive. In teenagers this is reinforcing that idea that women should have no agency. However, ethical porn teaches the idea of consent by the individuals in the videos asking what the other person would like and both making a decision together based on preferences rather than expectations.

Adding to this, in regards to wlw sex (women who love women,) unethical porn sites such as Pornhub portray sex as being for men. The videos are not realistic for wlw but are a performance for men. This can perpetuate the notion in teenagers that women have sex with each other for the satisfaction of men. As a gay woman I have experienced this from a teenager to now, men finding out and assuming I want a threesome or that I just haven't 'been with the right man'. This is damaging both mentally for wlw and can result in angry outbursts and violence from men when they are refused.

If sex education doesn't improve teenagers will carry on watching porn as a source of information. Therefore, it is important that this porn be ethical and practice consent while teaching about the different forms of sex from an ethical and consensual lens that practices equality and choice between individuals.

In 2019, the website Bright Blue Day held a crisp World Cup. After a gruelling 14 week competition the results were in. The crisp world cup was tight, however the winner of the best crisp flavour was Thai Sweet Chilli Sensations.

On a personal level I completely agree with this decision. These crisps have a level of spice, but not too much so it overwhelms the flavour. The crisps have the perfect amount of sweet and salt. In my opinion, they can be eaten with any food at any time of the day. Some other crisps I like I can only eat in certain situations or when I am in a certain mood e.g. I can only eat Doritos Chilli Heatwave with my sister, or ready salted when my mood is low and I just want a little pick-me-up treat. If I am in a particularly crazy mood I go for pickled onion monster munch (I have to be alone for that though because they really do make your breath strong.) However, Thai Sweet Chilli Sensations are there when I am feeling blue, or I am happy, or I want a treat with my meal, they have never let me down.

TL;DR - sleeping naked is good for your health. It can help with mental health, physical health, and sexual health.

Firstly, sleeping nude can help decrease your body’s temperature and help you achieve higher quality sleep. If you get too warm while you sleep, it can disrupt your REM cycle.

A decrease in body temperature also acts as a biological cue for your body to go to sleep. Sleeping nude can help you quickly decrease your temperature and fall asleep faster, which can lead to more dependable sleep that’s consistent with proper sleep hygiene.

Since sleeping nude can help lower your body temperature and produce higher quality sleep, dozing off in the buff can help decrease stress too. A study run by The Journal of Gerontology that studied sleep patterns and their effects showed an intimate relationship between sleep and stress levels.

One study found that spending more time naked improved participants’ self-esteem and decreased body image dissatisfaction. The study also cited the cultural impacts on body image and how even just spending more time naked can help overcome those mental blocks and unrealistic standards.

Another study looked at whether poor sleep limited the skin’s ability to heal from a small wound. They split participants into three groups — one that received “adequate” sleep, one that was sleep deprived, and a third that was sleep deprived but received extra nutrients. What they found was that the group that slept well recovered faster than the other two groups. And the extra nutrition didn’t make a significant difference in how fast the wounds healed.

Frontiers in Psychology, focused on the effects of skin-on-skin contact between adults. Their results showed that “oxytocin is released in response to low-intensity stimulation of the skin, e.g. touch, stroking.” This suggests that sleeping nude with your partner can help increase skin contact and, in turn, produce a higher oxytocin release than clothed cuddling.

TL;DR - the X-Men are better than the Avengers as they tackle more serious underlying issues such as discrimination and the complexity of differing characters rather than characters being just good or just bad.

Firstly, the X-Men are mutants. Mutants are typically born looking and behaving just like normal humans, and it isn't until puberty that their powers develop. The series often deals with teenagers coming to terms with the fact that not only are they different, but also they now have to deal with discrimination on a daily basis. Regular humans are afraid of mutants, which leads to fear and hatred. Most mutants are good people, and they can't help that they were born different, so society should just learn to accept them for who they are. This is a message that is constant throughout the film and is one of the main storylines throughout the films.

The main message of the Avengers movies however seems to be that good overcomes evil. This completely misses the complexity of what is good and what is evil and does not dig any deeper into any other political points or societal issues. Whilst I realise this may not have been the purpose of the films, for me it takes away an interesting and real commentary on society that could have existed.

In terms of the complexities of characters, The Avengers, as previously stated, generally has good and evil characters. This for me is quite one tone. Iron Monger from "Iron Man" (2008) is evil because he's greedy. So is Justin Hammer from "Iron Man 2" (2010) and Darren Cross/Yellowjacket from "Ant-Man" (2015). Red Skull is just a power-mad Nazi in "Captain America: The First Avenger" (2011), and Ronan from "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014) is a Kree radical that hates the Nova Corps because they're not Kree. Even Loki, from "Thor" (2011), is mostly motivated by jealousy of Thor. These villains are all great characters, but their motivations just aren't interesting.

The opening scene in "X-Men" (2000) shows Erik Lensherr as a child being led into a Nazi concentration camp when his magnetic powers begin to develop. This is further explored in "X-Men: First Class" when it's shown that Sebastian Shaw was posing as a Nazi scientist in the camp, and tortured Erik until he learned to use his powers correctly. [This experience caused Erik to lose faith in humanity] (https://www.cbr.com/reasons-why-x-men-movies-are-better-than-the-mcu/), fuelling his turn to villainy. As Magneto, his pain causes him to see himself as the saviour of the downtrodden mutants, which justifies having to do bad things, up to and including murder. This really begins to explore the idea that what can be seen as evil is based on perception and is complex, as humans are complex. It is not as simple as being good or bad.

Additionally, during the final act of "Days of Future Past" (2014), a dying Magneto looks up at Professor X and his final words are "all those wasted years fighting… to have a precious few of them back." It's such a poignant moment, that's made even more so by the fact that during the same scene, the Magneto and Professor X of the '70s are on opposite sides of a bloody fight. The relationship between both men is one of the driving forces behind the entire "X-Men" series. They both clearly love each other, and they could be brothers, but circumstances have forced them onto opposite sides of the battlefield. This exploration into human emotions, experiences and circumstances does not exist to the same extent as in the Avengers films.

TL;DR - Men should not have to pay on a first day. The expectation of men paying on the first date reinforces gender roles and is sexist.

Firstly, social scientists have named chivalry and chivalrous behaviour such as men paying for dinner as benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism is the idea that women should be cherished and adored, alongside the notion of women needing to be protected by men as they are not capable of protecting themselves. This reinforces stereotypes that women are fragile and weak, therefore needing a man's help and protection.

In terms of the man paying for the meal, his reinforces the idea that women can not provide for themselves and therefore need the man as the provider and protector. This also results in women being seen as a prize to be purchased.

Secondly, men paying for the first date reinforces the stereotypes of who is considered a man. The idea that men have to pay on the first date reinforces the idea of masculinity and the male protector. If a man is unable to do this, they are not seen as a man as they are not fulfilling their role.

In a survey on love and finances conducted by Money and SurveyMonkey, a whopping 78% of respondents said they think men should pay for the first date. And, perhaps surprisingly, men (85%) were even more likely than women (72%) to think that men should foot the bill. This displays how women and men reinforce these gender stereotypes of a man and a woman.

TL;DR - Whilst technology does help detect crime, it has also resulted in new crimes flourishing.

A few examples are the selling of private information online, cyberbullying which can lead to suicide, phone and email scams, and more. Additionally, the perpetrators of these crimes generally have complete anonymity due to the advancements in technology.

Technology can also contribute to existing crimes. For example, technology can be used to track an individual. There have been stalking cases where the perpetrator has installed cameras in the survivors home. Or information such as the address of an individual, checking if they are home and burgling when they are not.

Furthering this, technology has resulted in a huge increase in child exploitation and sexual exploitation. There was a study in which an AI Filipino girl was named Sweetie was used to highlight this issue. Sweetie was developed in 2013 as part of research into webcam child sex. Within a short time, Sweetie was in touch with 1,000 men. Whilst technology helped identify these men, there were very few prosecutions.

Child sexual exploitation is rampant due to technology, this including online rape of children and sexual exploitation online for men. According to the FBI, at any given moment of the day, around 750,000 men are seeking online sex with children. In the Philippines alone, local police estimate that tens of thousands of children are such victims. This would not be possible at this scale if it weren't for technology, and in this case technology did not help with convictions.

When I worked with teenagers, we had a rule. You could swear at a situation through frustration but not at each other. This is why I am mixed.

Swearing sometimes feels good. When in a situation in which you are frustrated it can relieve tension. Researchers say swearing helps the body combat pain. It’s called the analgesic response, which makes the body more impervious to pain. Swearing also triggers an emotional response which can work to your benefit, if you need the extra motivation.

However I personally think, of course there may be some exceptions to the rule, however generally swearing at another person should not always be allowed due to the effects this can have on another person. Swearing at a situation does not affect other people, however swearing at another person does.

I am definitely for a three day weekend. I would much rather work for longer hours and have a longer weekend than having a five day week. Currently I work 48 hours a week in 12 hour night shifts. Whilst I would prefer to not work night shifts, I definitely prefer the longer shifts (maybe not 12 hours) to have the longer weekend. It allows me more time to look after my health by both having time to relax and decompress but also have time to socialise (when I can!) without it affecting my weekend. I find the two day weekend does not allow enough time for socialising and relaxing from the previous weeks work.

I don't think books are better entertainment than television. I think they both offer differing entertainment values. I love reading, but sometimes I am too tired to read a book for entertainment but prefer television/Netflix. Additionally, if I have been reading all day from University or research, the last thing I want to do at the end of the day to decompress and have some form of entertainment is reading. Instead I want to be able to put on a show like Schitts Creek, not have to concentrate that hard, and let my brain and mind relax.

TL;DR - The reason why there are separate parliaments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is so they have a certain level of independence and autonomy from the UK parliament that has an overwhelmingly English majority.

Using the example of Scotland, England outnumbers Scotland around 10 to 1 which means that democracy in Scotland and around Scottish views is not necessarily represented. For example, Scotland voted overwhelmingly against the Conservative party, as did Wales and Northern Ireland:

Conservative seats in Northern Ireland: 0/18
Conservative seats in Scotland: 1/59
Conservative seats in Wales: 11/40
Conservative seats in England: 319/533

Therefore, through the sheer amount of numbers and representation of these different countries in parliament, England sets the tone for UK governance.

Therefore, England does not need its own parliamentary body as it already has an overwhelming majority within UK governance. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not have this representation or power and therefore need their own parliamentary bodies to represent the views of their own country that can't be represented through the UK government.

For example, the UK has a Conservative government and voted to leave the EU, Scotland voted for neither of those things.

TL;DR - Revenge porn is not easy to prosecute due to an environment of victim-blaming and the categorisation of revenge porn as a communication crime rather than a sexual offense.

During the Police process, victims of revenge porn have commented on the victim-blaming from Police. One individual was told by the Police Officer that ‘at least she has learned her lesson now’. In another case, an individual was told by a police officer that if you don’t take pictures, this wouldn’t happen. By that logic, if you don’t drive a car you are less likely to get into a car accident, but you still have the right to drive that car if you want to. Just like an individual has the right to take intimate pictures of themselves if they want to, without fear of those pictures being shared without their consent. I highly doubt a police officer would say to the victim of a car accident that if they didn’t want to get into an accident, they shouldn’t have driven the car.

This extends to cyber-bullying online and the blaming of the victim. An individual consenting to intimate videos or pictures of themselves and sending them to another person is not them consenting to those videos and pictures being shared to anyone else. This can result in the victim experiencing large amounts of hate online and the criminal justice process also displaying these biases when going through court.

A study by the University of Suffolk found that 95% of police officers have not been trained on revenge porn legislation which can further result in Police Officers leading from their own biases rather than this legislation.

Revenge porn is categorised as an offense under the Communications Act rather than a sexual crime. This has resulted in issues that contribute to the lack of prosecutions for revenge porn. A communications crime means victims are not granted anonymity or supported to the extent they are in a sexual crime. This leads to victims experiencing further harassment online and can further damage an individuals mental health. Resulting from this, many victims decide to not continue with the prosecution process and are understandably quick to drop charges.

According to the BBC (2018), 1 in 3 allegations of revenge porn are withdrawn by the complainant before reaching court. Additionally, since revenge porn was made a criminal offence in 2015, 2813 of 7806 incidents were chosen not to be supported by their victims.

TL;DR - watermelon is the best fruit due to its health benefits and how delicious watermelon is!

Hydration
Watermelon is made up of 92% water and is incredibly fibrous. This means that it makes you feel fuller whilst also tasting deliciously sweet and contributing to your hydration levels.

Contains Nutrients and Beneficial Plant Compounds
One cup of watermelon contains these nutrients:
Vitamin C : 21% of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) - Vitamin Cis an antioxidant that helps prevent cell damage and reduces cold severity and duration.
Vitamin A: 18% of the RDI - contains carotenoids which are a class of plant compounds that includes alpha-carotene and beta-carotene, which your body converts to vitamin A.
Potassium: 5% of the RDI
Magnesium: 4% of the RDI
Vitamins B1, B5 and B6: 3% of the RDI
Cucurbitacin E - Cucurbitacin E is a plant compound with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects.

Is good for skin and hair
Vitamin A and C are great for hair and skin. Vitamin C helps your body make collagen, a protein that keeps your skin supple and your hair strong. Vitamin A is also important for healthy skin since it helps create and repair skin cells. Without enough Vitamin A, your skin can look dry and flaky.

Can Improve Digestion
Watermelon contains, as previously stated, lots of water and fibre. These are both important for healthy digestion. Fibre provides a level of bulk for your stool whilst water can keep your digestion efficient. Therefore this promotes normal, healthy bowel movements.

Tastes delicious
Watermelon tastes incredibly sweet and delicious. Aside from the health benefits, there is nothing I love more than eating half a watermelon for dessert, on a hot day. It is refreshing, hydrating and unbelievably delicious.

TL;DR - Monopoly is overly competitive, usually ends in a board flip or storm off, and is not actually a fun game. Additionally, Monopoly as a game was originally designed as a tool to teach about rent and the working class, before being turned into a capitalist product.

My personal experiences with Monopoly have not been great. Firstly, as somebody who gets bored very easily and as somebody who can’t sit still for a long time, Monopoly is a struggle. However, aside from my inability to play a board game for a long period of time, Monopoly is completely overrated.

Firstly, board games are supposed to be fun. They are supposed to be a laugh and a way to hang out and have fun with friends and family. Maybe this is because I am not that competitive, but Monopoly takes this fun aspect out by creating an overly competitive environment that can result in anger, people storming out or board flips.

Monopoly is a game that game designers name as having a ‘snowball effect’. This means that when in the lead, you get even more bonuses than simply being in the lead. Therefore, those who are winning generally build larger leads, snowballing their advantages for the next four hours until they actually win. Which mimics the capitalist economies pretty well.

The game was designed by Elizabeth Magie to teach players about how working people are screwed over by rent and benefits those in society that own properties. Originally, it had two sets of good rules, those of the monopolist and the anti-monopolist. This makes the game even worse to me, as Magie was given $500 and no royalties for her anti-capitalist economy game that was then turned into a capitalist product by the person who bought the game who ended up making millions.

Just to reiterate, not only is Monopoly not fun as it ends up becoming overly competitive and long, but it wasn’t designed to be. It was designed to be a tool to prove how the economy is stacked against the working class in the form of rent. Monopoly is a game that can result in the loss of friends and fun, whilst an individual has had to pay for the luxury of playing a game that has been designed to be anti-capitalist and pro working class by showing the structure of society and who benefits and loses from this structure.

Snowboarding is better than skiing.

Snowboarding is so much more convenient than skiing. If you want to have a sit at the top of the mountain it is so much easier than with skis and poles. There is so much baggage that comes with skiing and, in my opinion, for less excitement.

Week one of snowboarding is tough. But once it clicks and you are linking turns, then you are absolutely fine. The transitions to steeper slopes and to off piste flow more easily. Skiing however is a very technical sport. As someone who is impatient and takes part in activities for the thrill and adrenaline, skiing is too technical, and therefore less exciting for me. Part of the excitement of snowboarding is when it finally clicks and you actually spend more time on your feet than the ground.

Pine can make good furniture.

Firstly, pine is a stiff wood so is durable and strong. It is also light in weight in comparison to other woods resulting in it being easy to move around. Furthering this pine as a wood is also significantly cheaper than oak for example. Therefore, if you are on more of a budget pine might be a good option for you.

Additionally, pine itself comes in different shade, some yellowish but some relatively light. This means that depending on your space, you can choose a different shade of pine showing versatility. Additionally, pine is easy to stain or paint. As pine is cheaper than a wood like oak, it means that there is more money in the budget to stain it to the colour you would prefer rather than spending lots of money on another wood only to paint over it.

Resources:
https://www.houseofoak.co.uk/blog/post/oak-vs-pine#:~:text=Due%20to%20the%20time%20it,for%20furniture%20compared%20to%20pine.&text=Pine%20is%20extremely%20sturdy%2C%20but,of%20time%20compared%20to%20pine.

https://medium.com/@annuwebphantoms/is-pinewood-good-for-furniture-their-pros-and-cons-b14b39e61253

I believe that Doctor Who has become more political which has been a good thing. However, in other respects it has not.

Doctor Who cast a woman (Jodie Whittaker) as the Doctor which was a good political statement and certainly shows progression (even though it was a bit late!) However, as soon as a woman became Doctor Who, there were suddenly three regular companions that accompanied her. This is in comparison the Doctor Who actors who were men and had one regular companion throughout the different series. This perpetuates the gender binary biases that exist, despite making a political statement against these gender constructions, which is political in itself. The idea that as a man the Dr. needs one companion but as a woman the Dr. needs three reinforces the idea that a woman is less than and is capable of less than her male counterparts. People may say that this does not have anything to do with gender biases, however this is too much of a coincidence for me and undermines the political move of finally having a woman Doctor Who.

TL;DR - Easter has chocolate, is cheaper, and has better weather. What more can you want from a holiday?

Firstly, Easter brings chocolate (or for me as a vegan non-dairy chocolate or another assortment of yummie food!) This is what I always used to look forward to as a child. I would gorge myself until I was sick as it was one of the only days when my parents lifted their ‘only healthy snacks’ rule. This has pretty much stayed with me. I make sure I eat all the nutrients I need in a day and sometimes have a treat when my body wants one. However, Easter is the only day that I do not pay close attention to nutrients and eat all the goodness of sweet treats.

Easter is also much cheaper than other holidays. On Halloween you have costumes, and on Christmas you have all the presents, which is a lot of pressure. Easter is a way of showing someone you care to get them a treat without spending a lot of money.

Finally, Easter has better weather. I love on Easter weekend eating all the goodies whilst sitting outside with my friends (in a pub garden or one of their gardens,) and drinking a beer or cider. Despite the weather not being massively predictable in the UK, it is usually much better weather than Christmas or Halloween and lands right as it starts getting warmer outside.

And, do I even need to mention Easter egg hunts? All the fun, with more of the sun and little of the money!

Resources
https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/30/5-reasons-why-easter-is-actually-better-than-christmas-7390576/
https://charlie.csu.edu.au/2017/04/03/why-easter-is-the-best-holiday-ever/

TL;DR - Nurses trained in mental health will be vital in schools, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite the pandemic there has been an increase in children with mental health issues. Nurses trained in mental health will be able to identify mental health issues earlier in children which is beneficial for the children and can save the NHS money in the future.

The last NHS survey of children’s mental health was in 2004. It found that 1 in 10 children between the ages of 5 and 15 had a mental health disorder (emotional, behavioural, hyperactive). A survey was then completed in 2017 that found these figures have increased to 1 in 9. The inclusion of young people (5-19) resulted in an increase to 1 in 8. The main factor was an increase in emotional disorders such as anxiety and depression which rose to 5.8% in 2017 from 3.9% in 2004. [1]

Due to Covid-19, these figures are set to rise. A study showed that the increase in probable mental health problems reported in adults also affected 5–16 year olds in England, with the incidence rising from 10·8% in 2017 to 16·0% in July 2020 across age, gender, and ethnic groups. More than a quarter of children (aged 5–16 years) and young people (aged 17–22) reported disrupted sleep and one in ten (5·4% of children and 13·8% of young people) often or always felt lonely. Both problems were more common in those with probable mental health problems, of whom 18·0% felt fearful of leaving the house because of COVID-19. [2]

School nurses can be effective when working with children and young people with mental health needs. As specialist public health nurses their primary area of work should be on the promotion of good mental health and the early identification and support for those who have poor mental health. Mental health training can give school nurses the confidence and skills they need to understand and engage on mental health issues affecting their pupils. [3]

Pupil numbers are expected to grow in England from 7.14 million in 2014 to 8.02 million in 2023 [4]. With children currently already experiencing mental health issues, the ability to identify these early will both avoid extra costs for the NHS in treatment for severe mental health issues, and will promote the importance of mental health in children.

Resources
[1]https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/what-new-statistics-show-about-childrens-mental-health
[2]https://files.digital.nhs.uk/CB/C41981/mhcyp_2020_rep.pdf
[3]https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjsn.2015.10.3.126
[4]https://www.nursingtimes.net/opinion/school-nurses-can-support-mental-health-and-wellbeing-but-only-if-we-have-enough-of-them-01-03-2019/

TL;DR - The majority of fitness influencers are not qualified to give any tips or have any programs regarding fitness. Their programs are not based on Science and can be extremely damaging to their audiences. This opinion is using the example of cellulite

Many ‘fitness influencers’ on social media have not achieved any qualifications in order to have programs and give people advice on how to be fitter and achieve certain goals. Due to their lack of qualifications and the understanding of the science much of their information is wrong and is damaging to their audiences. Granted there are a couple who have built their fitness influencer status through a wholly science-based and researched approach and they have the qualifications to back this up for example Natacha Oceane and EIQ nutrition (also does an incredible podcast.) However these influencers have been a little less successful in building up a massive following due to their honesty that there is no get fit quick scheme as many other influencers are selling.

I have seen many influencers spread damaging information on cellulite. Cellulite appears on the female body due to a boost of estrogen from puberty, is due to genes and other unexplained phenomena [2]. In terms of estrogen, the estrogen results in stubborn fat that settles around the fattiest parts of the female body i.e. the legs and the bum. Estrogen affects the vascular activity of the skin, as well as fat levels and collagen production, resulting in it having a significant contribution to the formation of cellulite.85% of female bodies have cellulite by the time they are 20 years old [1]. For many, myself included, cellulite first appears from a younger age such as 16. There is categorically no way you can get rid of cellulite whilst many have tried.

There have been numerous scientific studies into cellulite and how to remove it to little success. Any medical procedures are short-term fixes [3]. Many fitness influencers claim to have the answers. ‘How to get rid of cellulite in these simple steps’. What the individual reading this post fails to realise is that the picture any influencer with a female body has taken is when the bum is stuck out, stretching the skin, and in a particular lighting that results in the invisibility of cellulite. This is damaging to people who are on their fitness journey as it sets completely false and unrealistic standards and pressure on their audiences.

If a ‘fitness influencer’ is saying you can get rid of cellulite, they are essentially saying you shouldn’t have it. This old wives tale is completely misinformed. The fittest person in the world can have cellulite. Whilst in some cases fitness can reduce cellulite, in many it doesn’t. This can have negative effects on an individual such as a lack of self-confidence and promoting unhealthy eating and exercise habits in order to achieve a fabricated goal that isn’t achievable due to this misinformation.

Resources
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232550/
[2]Drąg J, Goździalska A, Jaśkiewicz J. Udział hormonów płciowych w patofizjologii cellulitu. Wydział Zdrowia i Nauk Medycznych, Krakowska Akademia im. Krakow: Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego; 2013
[3]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25518090/

I completely agree with this opinion. I am not someone who knows all that much about vaccines. Therefore, as I do not personally have any knowledge, I prefer to put my trust in the people who have been studying vaccines for a large portion of their lives. These individuals have studied vaccines, the effects of vaccines, and how to create vaccines. No matter what you feel about the current governance, it would not be advantageous for them to buy a vaccine, that is created by private companies, that have not been rigorously tested.

There is a process for the development of vaccines, and the fact that we are in a pandemic has meant that rather than resources being spread, resources have been concentrated on the Coronavirus vaccine meaning it has had a quicker development process. I personally trust in the Scientists who have created the vaccine.

I do not believe any one cuisine is better than the other, I eat a plant-based diet, it is difficult for me to eat certain cuisines that rely heavily on animal products such as the French cuisine. Therefore, certain cuisines suit myself better than others. For example, I tend to eat lots of Thai food, Japanese cuisine and anything really that can be more easily adapted to a vegan diet.

Unfortunately, the French cuisine does rely heavily on animal products. When in France on holiday, I found it virtually impossible to find vegetarian meals let alone vegan. I, in the end, settled for boiled vegetables, pulses and potatoes in order to be sure that the food I was eating was vegan. Therefore, the French cuisine for me does not necessarily suit my particular diet.

After having been in a car with a few elderly drivers (namely my Nanna and Grandma) I completely agree with this point.

I love my Grandma and Nanna with all my heart but I have been terrified when in a car with them. My Grandma's eyesight is not great yet she only gave up driving last year at the age of 90. Whilst I am glad that she felt confident in herself to drive, this didn't translate to safety. If my Gran had to take a test she would not have passed. There have been a few close shaves both for myself and my Gran and other people in other cars.

When older your reaction times are significantly impacted as well as the physical effects of being older. Whilst this will result in more pressure on driving test centres and more financial burden, I believe that safety for all road users and pedestrians/animals is more important. I do not however think the test should be as it is for new drivers, there should be a refresher version in order to test capabilities.

I believe the first Mamma Mia film is better than the second. As someone who finds it incredibly difficult to concentrate on a film (I usually google the plot beforehand so I don't have to,) I found that the first film kept my attention. Whilst I do think the second film is good in its own right, the first film for me had a little more sparkle.

Although sometimes Pierce Brosnan's singing was a tad questionable, even that had charm to it. The film left me with more of a smile than the second film. Maybe it was the fact that Amanda Seyfried's character decided the norm of marriage was not what she wanted at that time. Or that old love was rekindled again, there was something I did like more.

TL;DR - Children have too many tests in school resulting in unnecessary stress and pressure which can lead to severe mental health issues.

Many studies show the damage of extensive testing such as SATs on children. A survey by the National Education Union in 2016 found that 89% of those who completed the survey thought that testing was the biggest cause of pressure in children. A survey of primary school headteachers found that 80% see an increase of mental health issues among children during testing period and national tests with some children suffering from panic attacks and sleeplessness. [1][2][3]

The NEU surveyed 730 education staff working in early years, primary, secondary, sixth-form colleges and FE colleges and found, overall, that more than half (56%) of pupils’ mental health issues are leading to self-harm, 45% reported pupils having eating disorders, and 48% said pupils were having panic attacks. According to 82% of respondents, tests and exams have the biggest impact on the mental health of pupils. Sixty-seven per cent said they feel it is due to pressure from schools to do well.[4]

These beliefs are gaining popularity. A petition to abolish SATs has been signed by 49,000 parents. With this growing rate of mental health issues among children, the priority in school needs to be the child’s health and happiness and not academic tests. Testing only suits a small minority of individual’s yet all children are forced to take tests. This can have a big impact on children who do not test well as they thrive in a different environment and can lead to a massive lack of self-confidence and worth in children as they grow. Instead of prioritising the child’s health, the message seems to be that children should be resilient and ‘toughen up’.

This sentiment is contrary to parents' views. A survey by YouGov of 2028 parents found 73% of parents surveyed think children are under too much pressure because of government testing. 44% believe SATs had a negative impact on their child’s well-being and almost one in three believe they affected family life negatively. Additionally, this report has found that 63% of parents surveyed believe happiness is the most important factor for their children in school.

Additionally, only 12% believe schools should be measured by these standardised tests. The most important factor for parents is how happy pupils are at school, cited by 63% of parents in the survey. In sharp contrast, only 12% believe schools should be measured on the basis of standardised tests taken under exam conditions. [5]

Resources:
[1]https://reclaimingschools.org/2019/06/07/primary-school-tests-and-childrens-mental-health/
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/01/sats-primary-school-children-suffering-stress-exam-time
[3]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/sats-exams-tests-mental-health-children-endangering-learning-house-commons-education-committee-a7711276.html
[4]https://neu.org.uk/press-releases/pressures-school-making-pupils-suicidal-neu-survey
[5]https://www.morethanascore.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Parents-research.pdf

TL;DR - Fast Five was the perfect film to end the Fast and Furious franchise. It was satisfying for the watcher as characters returned to do one last job before being able to retire for good.

Fast and Furious is a long running film franchise that is mainly focused on illegal street racing, spies and heists with fast cars. This franchise began in 2001 and is now heading to the 10th film in the franchise being released in 2022. However, I believe that this franchise should have finished after Fast Five.

Fast Five is set in Rio de Janeiro. It follows Brian and Mia who, after breaking Mia’s brother out of custody, are moving from border to border in order to evade the authorities. The film itself seems to be a perfect ending to the Fast and Furious franchise.

The film sees previous popular characters all working together in order to complete one big job and retire from the game for good. How better to end a franchise than for all the characters to come together and complete one final job, stealing a drug lord’s money, resulting in their freedom. This a sense of finality. A happy ending in which the characters you have followed through the franchise, can finally be happy and not live life in an environment of uncertainty.

Dom finds love after losing his previous girlfriend. Two of the characters from previous films fall in love. Brian and Mia find out they are pregnant. A drug lord gets his comeuppance due to the Fast and Furious team stealing his money. Also, there is an extremely satisfying ending in which a federal agent realises the Fast and Furious team is good and lets them go after a huge car chase involving a big safe full of money. All the characters get an equal split of the money with the film ending with a flashforward to their lives post Rio. A flashforward to an extremely happy and peaceful ending, a complete turnaround from the lives they led before.

TL;DR - NGOs are a form of neocolonialism. NGOs working in non-western countries receive their funding from western funding sources such as the World Bank. This means that they rely on western funding in order to work in these countries meaning they will spread western values and norms in non-western cultures, exerting western influence over non-western countries.

Definitions

Neocolonialism, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as 'the economic and political policies by which a great power indirectly maintains or extends its influence over other areas or people'.

NGOs (non-governmental organisations) or not for profit charitable organisations that are supposed to be separate from any governmental power. An example of an NGO is Oxfam. Many NGOs work in non-western countries.

NGO Funding

This opinion will look at the World Bank one of the main funding sources for NGOs. The World Bank is a western organisation based in the United States, that is funded by western countries to support initiatives that promote equality. However, this idea of equality is what is understood by western cultural standards of equality.

As the World Bank is a western organisation, it works under the western frameworks that western society works under and from there universalises western cultural understandings and values without taking into account the cultural understandings of countries around the world. Whether it is freeing monkeys from their trainers in India, or fighting female genital mutilation in Africa, the money flows from Europe to help “educate” the locals. In many ways this constitutes part of a neocolonialism with buying influence through NGOs to encourage the spread of certain values.

This in turn creates a power dynamic in which if an NGO working in a non-western country needs financial support from these big western funders such as the World Bank, they need to fit into western cultural categories in order to receive that funding. This results in the enforcing of western values and categories through western funding avenues resulting in the enforcement of western influence and power through these NGO funding sources onto non-western countries. This results in a forced dependency of NGOs in non-western countries on western funding streams. This fits with the previous definition of neocolonialism.

Resources:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neocolonialism

https://sethfrantzman.com/2013/03/16/are-ngos-a-form-of-neo-colonialism/

https://www.vocaleurope.eu/ngos-spearheading-neo-colonialism-eu-style/

Quijano, A. (2006). ‘Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America’, International Sociology, 15(2), p. 215–232.

World Bank. (2015). ‘World Bank Group Gender Strategy (FY16-23)’, Gender Equality, Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth

I completely agree with this opinion.

Tattoos have been practised by many different cultures throughout history. I see tattoos as art, as a way of remembering, as a way of expressing oneself. The idea of looking at an individual and judging them based on their appearance is a concept that society is fighting against. Therefore, I do not see why tattoos and piercings are seen as any different to judging somebody based on their clothes. How somebody looks, and how they choose to present themselves in terms of their hair and body art does not have any effect on who they are as a person and how good and professional they will be at their job.

TL;DR - Love at first sight isn't actually love, but strong attraction

There are certain qualities known to be reflective of love. These include trust, commitment, passion, intimacy, comfortability and others. Within the moments of first meeting someone, some of these can be felt such as a slight passion, but not to the extent of love. When falling in love you learn that you can trust an individual, that you can commit, that you are completely comfortable around them.

When you first meet someone, there is know way you can know that you can trust that person and feel completely comfortable in love at first sight. The extent to which people in relationships report feeling intimacy and commitment and passion toward their partners exceeds the emotions felt by people who experience love at first sight. Yet the love-at-first-sight experience appears open to these emotions to a greater extent than first meetings where love at first sight is not reported.

Rather than love at first sight, it is a strong pull or attraction to someone that people feel that opens the possibility for a relationship to develop for an individual (Zsoks et al., 2017). Love at first sight can happen multiple times, and maybe the instances where it fizzles or simply never translates into a relationship are forgotten.

Resources:

Zsok, F., Haucke, M., De Wit, C. Y., & Barelds, D. P. (2017). What kind of love is love at first sight? An empirical investigation. Personal Relationships, 24, 869-885.

https://www.businessinsider.com/love-at-first-sight-probably-isnt-a-real-thing-heres-why-2017-11?amp&r=US&IR=T

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201801/is-love-first-sight-real

https://www.byrdie.com/love-at-first-sight-science

https://tcnjsignal.net/2019/11/11/classic-signals-love-at-first-sight-debunked/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/love-first-sight-not-exist-sexual-attraction-lust-university-groningen-netherlands-study-a8081866.html

TL;DR - I believe it is important to look after your skin. However, I do think skincare as an industry has been commercialised and uses this idea of the 'perfect skin' to justify selling expensive products that don't do that much.

I am a person who has a skincare routine, and I find it important in making me feel good. However, I take issue with the idea that skincare as a whole portrays this image of the perfect skin, and requires people spend a lot of money in order to reach this imaginary goal. There is no such thing as the perfect skin, just different types.

I have found that many companies have jumped on this skincare bandwagon and have taken advantage by releasing incredibly expensive products that don't really do that much. In this sense, I believe some beauty products and companies are a scam.

However, that isn't to say that washing your face and taking care of your skin isn't important. I, admittedly, did not used to wash my face apart from when I washed my hair in the shower. However, now that I do I have not seen much of a change (if any) in the physical appearance of my skin but I do feel better in myself when I do take the time and care to wash a moisturise my face and I am sure there are physical benefits that I can't see.

Therefore I think some skincare companies have developed the scam of selling 'perfect skin' through the use of their overpriced products, that don't really result in much change. However, that isn't to say that washing your face isn't important.

TL;DR - The most influential President will depend on which group of people are asked and what issues are being discussed. Therefore, I do not believe any one President can be seen as more influential overall than others.

For the LGBTQ+ community and LGBTQ+ issues, one of the most influential Presidents was Jimmy Carter. In 1977, Carter invited the first gay and lesbian delegation to the White House to discuss policy issues with administration officials. In 1978, he urged voters to defeat Proposition 6, a.k.a. the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in the state’s public schools — and the proposition was voted down. When he ran for re-election in 1980, he agreed to a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party which was a first. Since leaving the White House, Carter has been a prominent activist in support of LGBT rights. He has famously said, “I never knew of any word or action of Jesus Christ that discriminated against anyone,” and has endorsed marriage equality.

Additionally, the election of Obama as the first black President has sparked conversation regarding the need for racial representation within American politics. According to Pew Research, four-in-ten Black adults said that working to get more Black people elected to office would be a very effective tactic for groups striving to help Black Americans achieve equality. Obama's election has also paved the way for the election of Kamala Harris and a more diverse government to represent more of the American population instead of the few. Resulting from this, Obama has been one of the most influential American President's in terms of racial issues and racial equality.

Therefore, depending on what group of people is asked and on what issues affect that particular group results in differing opinions on who the most influential President is. I don't believe you can categorically say one President is more influential than another as the question then arises; for who?. Instead it depends on what issues are being discussed and on what issues affect the people who are being asked.

Resources:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2015/02/16/11-most-significant-presidents-lgbt-americans?pg=1#article-content

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/black-americans-have-made-gains-in-u-s-political-leadership-but-gaps-remain/

TL;DR - I believe walking is the best stress relief as it combines physical actions known to relieve stress with nature

Walking as a form of cardiovascular exercise has been found to link to the releasing of endorphins into the body. An increase of endorphins can reduce the stress hormones and alleviate mild depression. Regular exercise and regular walks, according to WebMD, can release these 'feel-good' endorphins and improve mood, stress and overall self-esteem.

Furthering this, walking outside and in nature has been linked to stress reduction. A study from the University of Edinburgh has found that those who can regularly visit green areas and walk in nature have a significant decrease in the amount of cortisol released (hormone released in response to stress.) Furthering this, when walking individuals can be accompanied by friends and family to further improve stress by combining a variety of different stress reducing steps.

Resources:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/national-walking-day-stress-relief-tips_n_2992972#:~:text=Walking%20Boosts%20Stress%2DBusting%20Endorphins,%2Desteem%2C%20according%20to%20WebMD.

https://phys.org/news/2012-02-green-spaces-stress-jobless.html

https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-for-your-mind-and-spirit-3432871

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/exercising-to-relax

https://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression#1

TL;DR - I absolutely agree with this. Whilst allies are incredibly important for the LGBTQ+ community, allies are not a part of the community.

The LGBTQ+ community exists for all those people of alternate genders and sexualities that sit outside of the heteronormative structures (heteronormativity being the assumption of heterosexuality and the gender binary, seen as normal and expected in society.) Those who are asexual and aromantic sit outside of this structure but allies do not. Allies are those who fit within the heteronormative structures of gender and sexuality but show their support and action for those who don't, therefore they can't be included in the LGBTQ+ community and identities. Those within the queer community are discriminated against and experience many hardships due to their sexuality and/or gender which is something allies do not experience.

Therefore, the A in LGBTQIA+ cannot possibly include allies but does stand for asexuals and aromantics as individuals who do not fit inside these heteronormative structures.

TL;DR - I believe boarding schools can be beneficial for students.

Many boarding students in the school I attended developed close bonds with their fellow boarding peers. These bonds and relationships have expanded across countries and continents. They became family to each other and also developed close bonds with their house managers and residential staff.

Boarding schools also promote independent living at a younger age. Pupils can still be close to their family members. With the ability to use Skype, Zoom or Whatsapp, pupils are not without the love of their families as their families are only a message away.

I do not think boarding schools are 'abusive' or 'loveless'. Previously, before the introduction of pastoral care, I am sure certain boarding schools were. But now the standards have changed. There is now a promotion of independence with love and care for each other and for staff caring for pupils. This is carefully regulated and assessed to make sure the schools are providing an environment of care and support.

Animal testing has been attributed to many major medical advancements, however this argument is not necessarily true.

According to PETA, an article was published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that found this claim to be false. The National Institute of health reported that 95 out of 100 drugs that pass animal testing fail on humans.

Additionally, PETA cited a further study that was conducted by researchers called 'Where is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?'. This study found that there is very little evidence to support animal experimentation to benefit humans. Instead, much of the improvements and advancements in health are down to environmental factors, development of X-Rays, nutrition and research and knowledge on particular illnesses. Not due to the experimentation of drugs on animals.

Whilst there have been experiments conducted on animals during these discoveries, these experiments were not vital to any medical or health research or findings. Instead of wasting time and money on testing drugs on animals that have been found to be 5% effective, these resources should be used to advance non-animal testing methods that will have an impact on human health, with the potential to be cheaper faster, and ethical.

Resources:
https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing

https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm

https://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

For me, water skiing is the best water sport, and cliff diving (if that counts).

As a bit of an adrenaline junkie, I find that surfing doesn't quit hit the spot for me. Yes it may be exciting when you finally conquer your first wave, however it doesn't have the excitement and adventure that I get when I am water skiing of cliff jumping.

The thrill of being attached to the end of a speedboat by a rope and gliding over the water. And the unbelievable rush from jumping from a great height into water below. Whilst I do enjoy surfing every now and then, it just does not feed my adrenaline and need for speed and adventure.

An egg, as we know it today, is the membrane-bound container inside which an embryo (unborn offspring) can grow and develop. Eggs first developed around 340 million years ago, however the egg that we know it (characteristics such as asymmetrical shape and a hardened shell,) first evolved around 150 million years ago. Through the process of evolution, different forms of egg began to develop resulting in the development of the egg we see today. These eggs having further functions that can result in an embryo having the environment it needs to develop i.e. a chick having the environment (such as the ability to respire and store nutrients) it needs to eventually hatch and develop into a chicken.

The first chicken to have existed would have been a result of a mutation produced by two animals that share very close properties to that of a chicken. When they mated, a genetic mutation occurred resulting in the combining of DNA to create the chicken. However, the first chickens evolved around 58 thousand years ago. Therefore, compared to that of the egg, the chicken evolved much later than the egg resulting in the egg coming before the chicken.

Resources:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/problem-solved-the-egg-came-first-6910803/

https://www.treehugger.com/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-4864321#:~:text=So%20in%20a%20nutshell%20(or,then%20it%20hatched%20a%20chicken.

I could not agree more.

I find queerbaiting is homophobic in itself. It seems to me that queerbaiting is used in order for shows to not fully represent and include the LGBTQ+ community, but feign a certain level of acceptance and progressiveness.

This very much reminds me of the second Fantastic Beasts film (I have not read the books.) But in the film there is an insinuation of a romantic relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald as being "more than friends"" but couldn't outwardly say that they had been romantically involved. This to me invalidates LGBTQ+ relationships as being less worthy as heteronormative relationships. It also sits uncomfortably with me that these queerbaiting relationships insinuate enough to gain an audience with the LGBTQ+ community but not enough that they openly say it in order to keep popularity within some heteronormative circles, which I find quite offensive.

I recently watched Schitt's Creek and was so happy, and have not stopped talking about the fact that a queer couple had a normal healthy relationship on a show that ended happily, which should not be the case. This is a problem born through queerbaiting on screen and the inevitability in most shows of LGBTQ+ character deaths, stereotypes, and life disasters.

Marmite, you either love it or you hate it. However, I do firmly believe there are many ways you can use marmite which results in enhancing other flavours rather than experiencing the extremely strong flavour of the marmite.

Marmite on its own can be a very overwhelming flavour. However, I believe it is definitely underrated as an ingredient in a larger dish. Marmite has a high salt content, especially in comparison to other foods, and can therefore be used in the same way as ingredients such as vegetable stock. Vegetable stock is added to sauces in order to improve the flavour, which in part is due to a high salt content in the veggie stock cubes. Marmite is much the same. Additionally, marmite adds a certain depth of flavour to a dish by giving it a great savoury flavour. It can also be mixed with water and used as a soy sauce surrogate in certain sauces and dishes.

References:

https://www.mashed.com/197712/what-does-marmite-actually-taste-like/

https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1753/soy-sauce-substitute

TL;DR - Mulan is the best Disney film as it actively challenges gender roles and preferences. Many Disney films prize the masculinity of a man above femininity of a woman. However, Mulan shows the benefits of a man and a woman performing both masculine and feminine activities, and does not prize one form over the other. There is also a blur of gender roles from the idea that men and women can be both masculine and feminine, with neither taking precedence over the other.

Often in Disney films, it is the brute strength tied to masculinity and a man that saves the day. This is noted by the many films in which the masculine man saves the feminine woman through the man embodying masculinity as femininity, tied to a woman, is not enough. Whilst other more recent films do have strong female characters such as Moana, there is still this idea that Moana would not have been able to complete her journey without the help and brute strength/masculinity of Maui, something which she is unable to embody herself. However, Mulan shows that girls and boys (as it is aimed at children) can both be masculine and can have brute strength and physical dominance if they wish, but they can also incorporate femininity and both are just as valid as each other.

In the scene in which Mulan and the army are trying to gain entry into the palace, the sheer masculine brute strength in trying to knock down the door does not work, and instead using femininity and what is considered feminine in terms of dress helps them climb the pillars and defeat the guards. However, Mulan also uses typically masculine fighting skills in order to defeat the enemy. This promoting the idea that masculinity and femininity isn't tied to a man or woman but all genders can incorporate attributes seen as masculine and feminine.

This is also shown through the song 'Reflection'. In this song there is a particularly powerful image in which Mulan has half a neutral, half hyper-feminized, whilst also being partially covered by writing. The whole point of this song – and the underlying message of the movie – is that “boy” and “girl” are roles you put on, and not something innate to any one person.

Due to the challenging of these gender roles, I believe Mulan is the best Disney film. It is the film that is most beneficial for children in the exploration of gender and shows that both masculine and feminine traits can be equally as important and useful as each other.

References:

https://thepopcornscoop.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/why-mulan-is-the-greatest-movie-disney-ever-made/

https://www.hercampus.com/school/kutztown/10-reasons-why-mulan-best-disney-movie

https://www.shondaland.com/live/a21073307/disney-mulan-queerness/

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/mulan-helped-accept-sexuality-gender-55920902

Disney has received some backlash over the years for culturally insensitive films, and the portrayal of indigenous characters and cultures within these films. For example, the film 'Pocahontas'. It completely glorifies the effects colonialism had on indigenous cultures. The real Pocahontas was in fact believed to have been used as a sex slave when brought over to England at the age of around . Additionally, the idea that Pocahontas is a ‘good Indian’ is culturally problematic. In the Disney story, she admires the white man, admires Christianity, admires the culture and wants to have peace with these people. This portrayal makes people in white American culture feel good about their history. That the colonisers were not doing anything wrong to the Indians but really were saving them and the ‘good’ ones appreciated it (Manksy, 2017).

Additionally, a song in which the indigenous people were called 'savages' and 'barely even human' reinforces the idea that the Europeans were helping indigenous people become civilised ignoring the mass genocide and slavery of indigenous people. This promotes the normalisation of this kind of storyline to young people and children resulting in the erasure of true indigenous and coloniser history. Another example is the heavy accents and slanted eyes of the Siamese cats in 'Lady and the Tramp', which promotes racial stereotyping (Wong, 2020).

On the other hand, Dreamworks has been a lot more culturally sensitive. Films such as Kung Fu Panda and others showed research into the culture rather than the films being based on the perception of that culture from a Western point of view. For example in Kung Fu Panda, culturally sensitive jokes were made. Additionally, other issues are tackled such as the importance and role of insects and bees (The Bee Movie). To me, Dreamworks has a more mature, researched, and sensitive approach to films that both caters for children and adults.

I have found that Dreamworks is not afraid to tackle issues and does not necessarily sugar-coat issues by creating a magical recovery and happy ending, which I believe Disney do. For example, the loss of Hiccup's leg in 'How to Train Your Dragon' did not result in his leg magically getting better (Wong, 2020). Instead Dreamworks portrayed the issues and the challenges faced by Hiccup due to this incident.

Resources:

Falker, M. (2018). 'Dreamworks is Better than Disnay: CHange My Mind', Daily Utah Chronicle. Retrieved from: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2018/09/08/dreamworks-is-better-than-disney-change-my-mind/

Manksy, J. (2017). 'The True Story of Pocahontas', Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pocahontas-180962649/

Wong, L. (2020) 'Dreamworks is better than Disney'. Retrieved from: http://farragomagazine.com/2020/03/23/battle-of-the-animation-studios-disney-vs-dreamworks/#:~:text=While%20Disney%20has%20a%20magical,attract%20audiences%20of%20all%20ages.

I don't believe getting up early is bad for you. I believe that generally an individual needs to get a certain amount of hours sleep in order for their body to function. This may vary from person to person but generally for those between the ages of 18-60, most people need to get 7 hours of sleep per night. Therefore if an individual has decided to wake up early at 5 am but go to sleep at 2 am, they are only getting 3 of the 7 hours they need for their body to function. This contributing to effects such as mood, concentration levels, anxiety etc.

Therefore, I do not believe getting up early is inherently bad for you as long as your body gets the required sleep it needs by going to bed earlier.

https://www.healthline.com/health/best-time-to-sleep#summary

Pressure for Children to Think About Their Futures

Firstly, there is a large pressure on children as young as Primary school to think about their future and start planning. Of course, if a child is as young as six these thoughts will not be coming from the child themselves but from the parents/guardians. This puts so much pressure on the child that they are forced to mature at a far younger age as they begin to feel the effects of competition among their peers, and the need to fill schedules with extra-curricular activities. This results in a child not being able to have time or space to be a child and enjoy the innocence that comes with this. The child does not have the time to play make-believe or run around making mud pies. This has serious effects on childhood innocence that can result in the lack of imagination and fun that comes with the innocence of childhood.

As an example, when working with children I spoke to an 8 year old who informed me of the activities they were doing in order to improve their C.V. In my opinion a child should not be thinking about this at 8 years old. Additionally, children are queueing for auditions around the country at the age of around 5. Instead they should be given the space and freedom to be a child and the innocence that comes with not having to think about the future at such a young age.

Knowledge of Mature Topics

The New York Times published an article in which a Form 4 teacher from Colorado spoke on their experiences with a student in class. As the teacher reported, ''Kids are a lot freer now. Even in the 10 years I've been at this school, there's been a change. The other day, a very innocent-looking little boy came up to me and casually asked me whether a certain sexual act was 'for real.' He used a crude word for it. I asked him to whisper in my ear what he thought the word meant. Well, he knew more details than I myself knew until about five years ago.” (Winn, 2015). Further, I worked with an 8 year old who began talking about different forms of drugs with knowledge and information around the drugs and how to use them.

By having explicit sexual knowledge and knowledge about drugs at such a young age, the innocence of a child is lost. This new knowledge about something a child has learned will just spark further curiosity to find out if this piece of information is true, and to find out more on the topic. I believe the moment children as young as 6-8 yrs start having explicit knowledge on such mature topics, they lose the ability as a child to be innocent of such adult themes that the older you get, you are more equipped to handle. This results in a loss of innocence for children.

Resources:

Jones, B. (2015). 'The Loss of Childhood Innocence', Science Leadership Academy. Retrieved from: https://scienceleadership.org/blog/the_loss_of_childhood_innocence

Mehta, V. (2019). 'Loss of Childhood Innocence: Are we Pressurising out Children too Much?'. Retrieved from: https://thewanderingvegetable.com/loss-of-childhood-innocence/

Winn, M. (2015). 'THE LOSS OF CHILDHOOD.', The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/08/magazine/the-loss-of-childhood.html

I completely agree that there needs to be better awareness and more societal understanding for the needs of SEND individuals. In theory it would be beneficial in terms of raising awareness and understanding however, I do not think that the merging of SEND schools and mainstream would work in practice.

I currently work as a waking night support worker in a SEND school, primarily working with college age individuals with autism amongst other needs. For the majority of the learners I work with it would not be practical or wise to put them into a situation in which there is a lot of noise and people. This can trigger major incidents such as the destroying of property, hitting and other incidents such as smearing. These complex needs can also be coupled with other mental health issues that then result in behaviour that is challenging such as anxiety. Therefore the environment of a mainstream school can firstly put the learner in an uncomfortable and anxiety inducing situation leading to incidents, and also put other students at risk if there is an incident.

I also agree that this will put further pressure onto the teachers and further complicates the issue of funding and number of staff as currently in the school I work in there is one teacher or member of education to one or two learners. Additionally then there is the issue of medication for some learners, access to food and what food is available etc. the lack of certain foods and a routine can lead to anxiety for the learner and therefore the risk of an incident which the mainstream schools may not be equipped to deal with due resources etc.

Personally, I do not believe that audiobooks are reading. I think both reading books and listening to audiobooks are beneficial in different ways, they are still different. To me reading is the act of getting a physical book and putting eyes to paper, or fingers to paper in the form of braille. However, with audiobooks I purely consider that as listening, much like listening to a podcast. Once I have finished listening to a podcast I don't consider myself to have read the information on there.

I think audiobooks are incredibly beneficial in terms of time, when you don't have the ability to bring a book with you or read a book e.g. the gym and for all the great points you have mentioned, but I myself just don't consider it as reading but more listening to the information.

I completely agree that ghosts exists. Since I was a child I have seen spirits whether it be people standing by my bed, or a person/animal standing next to me as I leave a building. Whilst there is no concrete scientific evidence, for me the only thing that explains the things that I see is that they are spirits/ghosts.

I do agree that there is a world beyond death and that ghosts are the soul taking the form of the body that was left with trauma or (as some people call it) 'unfinished business'. I do not believe the soul and being of a person or animal dies when the physical body does but goes somewhere that is probably completely out of a humans ability to imagine. However, some souls are still stuck on earth for whatever reason meaning that they are the embodiment of the body they left behind.

Th ability to act as straight within the queer community has existed forever. It serves as a mask in order to protect an individual from discrimination and targeting by others within society due to their identity. Unfortunately, an individual acting straight means they are rendering their sexuality invisible in order to further themselves within a society that doesn’t accept their identity. This can be by changing minute details such as hand movements, crossing legs, or lowering voice registers, things that people outside of this community do not have to be aware of. However, some people within the LGBTQ+ community do not have the ability to be able to hide their identity as other people can. They are therefore more likely to experience discrimination and violence due to their identity. This results in it being a privilege to be able to act as straight in order to protect oneself or further career prospects.

Protection from Violence

Within the UK, according to Stonewall, 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ people experience hate crime against them or violence of some form. If you would like more statistics I will link the research, however I will include some statistics here. More than a third of LGBTQ+ people do not feel comfortable holding their partner’s hand, 1 in 10 LGBTQ+ people were discriminated against when buying/renting a property, and 4 in 5 LGBTQ+ people experienced a hate crime last year but did not report to the Police. These figures are very bleak, so to protect oneself and feel protected in an environment, many people act straight. This can protect them from verbal discrimination, stalking and physical violence such as being beaten up. In certain societies, gay women or suspected gay women are correctively raped. The ability for someone to act as straight can result in them protecting themselves and their loved ones from experiencing discrimination or being a victim of hate crime due to their sexuality or gender.

Career Prospects

Passing as straight also benefits those in the work environment. An article by Adrienne Rich named ‘Complusory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’ notes how much further a lesbian woman can get in her career if she acts as straight. This goes to changing clothes that they wear, or vocabulary that they use in order to further themselves in their career. In addition, this can create an environment of safety for LGBTQ+ individuals. According to Stonewall, 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ individuals have received negative comments at work due to their identity and more than a third have hidden their identity. This can result in furthering of career prospects and further protecting oneself from abuse and discrimination in the workplace.

As can be seen, the ability to hide ones sexuality or gender by 'acting straight' serves many purposes. Protection from violence and discrimination, career prospects, a safe environment and many more. However, not all people have this ability and are therefore at an immediate disadvantage and are more likely to experience hate crime and discrimination. Resulting from this it can be seen as a privilege, although incredibly sad, to be able to act as straight and hide ones identity.

References:

Bachmann, C. & Gooch, B. (2017). 'LGBT Britain- Hate Crime', Stonewall. Retrieved from: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_hate_crime.pdf

Bachmann, C. & Gooch, B. (2017). 'LGBT Britain - Workplace Report', Stonewall. Retrieved from: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_work_report.pdf

Rich, A. (1980). 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence', Women, Sex and Sexuality, Signs, 5(4), pp. 631-660.

Thank you, that is a good point! I do however think it is a privilege to be able to have the option to make a choice between to horrible scenarios. Whilst both scenarios, as you say, are bad options, some people have that ability to choose the option that makes them feel safest/most comfortable. The people who do not have this option due to the inability to 'act straight' or 'pass as straight' have to contend with the consequences of their position without that ability or privilege of choice.

The privilege isn't the mask itself or hiding your sexuality, the privilege is the choice to do so in order to protect oneself. Those people who don't have the ability to wear the mask and 'act straight' do not have this privilege of choice. This is something I should have made clearer in my initial argument now I have read it back.

Thanks for your comment!

I do not think people who have the ability to ‘act straight’ are causing damage to the community and that they should not ‘act straight’. Additionally, much of the time this isn’t necessarily a conscious choice or something an individual realises they are doing.

The consequences of being in the queer community in western and non-western cultures can be dire. Including conversion therapy, corrective rape, forced impregnation, being stoned, murdered, losing job, home and family. Therefore, if you had the ability to take away the thing that an individual unjustifiably hates you for and targets you for then many people would want that danger to be taken away. This is not necessarily a conscious choice to ‘act straight’ it can be a subconscious choice like a survival instinct to stay alive. Much like the fight, flight, fawn and freeze response. An individual can fawn into to make themselves a part of the straight community which has been developed since childhood. Therefore, if an environment wasn’t created through which individuals within the community were under threat and unsafe, then the concept of ‘acting straight’ wouldn’t exist.

Resulting from this, the damage is not done by people who ‘act straight’ as this is a survival response to the threat of wider society. However, this ability to hide one’s identity, whilst incredibly difficult, does offer protection and a greater chance of survival from both threat to life and further physical and emotional violence. This means that is a privilege to ‘act straight’ as a form of survival compared to those who do not have this ability.

There has been much debate around whether the voting age should be increased to 21, decreased to 16, or stay the same. However, I believe the voting age should be kept at 18.

Firstly, 18, technically speaking, is the legal age of an adult. This is the age in which an individual is legally independent rather than being a dependent on their parents or guardians and resulting from this is the age of acceptance of responsibility for your actions in society. Therefore at the age of 18, many individuals are beginning to decide on their futures, getting permanent jobs or going to university. Furthering this, due to this new found independence, 18 is the age in which some people begin to move out of the family home. Therefore any decisions made regarding the leadership of the country affect 18 year olds more than that of a 16 year old. Whether it be university fees, rent prices, interest, income tax, at this age the impact of these decisions have more of a notable difference on the majority of 18 year olds than 16 year old dependents who continue to reside in the home of their guardian. According to The Student Room 79% of university students who took part in their poll wanted the voting age to remain.

Additionally, at the age of 16, individuals are still going through puberty and finding out who they are. The added responsibility of having to vote for the next leader of the country may be too much for all 16 year olds to fully comprehend. Undoubtedly there will be 16 year olds that exist who may be able to make a more informed choice. However, the majority will not and would tend to vote dependent on how their parents or friends are voting rather than fully understanding the procedures, policies and proposed measures that are part of an election.

Would love to hear opinions on this really interesting debate!

Resources:
Young, D. (2020). 'Why the Voting Age Should Stay Put', The Advocate. Retrieved from: https://www.advocate-online.net/voting-age-restrictions/

The Student Room. 'The Voting Age Should Stay at 18'. Retrieved from: https://tsrmatters.com/blog/the-voting-age-should-stay-at-18-says-students/

Whilst I understand some of your points, particularly the points about children from vulnerable homes and the impact of Covid restrictions on children, I do have some counter points.

For me, children are statistically less likely to die or be heavily affected by Covid. However, they can still pass on Covid to the people they come into contact with. So for example, if they live with vulnerable adults, children going to school may increase the likelihood of transferring the Covid virus to this adult. Therefore, whilst the children are less likely to experience major effects from the virus, the people the children come into contact with may be more likely to experience the effects from children being able to pass on the virus through going to school.

Additionally, this also puts the teachers at risk. Obviously, if children are in school, teachers need to be as well. This means children may be more likely to pass on the Covid virus to those teachers. Furthering this, if these teachers get the virus and have negative effects, in some cases whole school years have not been able to return to school anyway due to the lack of teachers. This also puts even more pressure on teachers that are left to cover absences as well as crossing school 'bubbles' furthering the risk of the spread of infection and also putting unnecessary pressure on the teachers to teach in person as well as putting resources online for the children who have to isolate due to a teacher contracting Covid.

I really enjoyed reading your opinion so thank you!

I am not a particular fan of 'How I Met Your Mother' and I used to be such a fan of 'Friends'. However, I found out the concept of 'Friends' was taken from a show called 'Living Single' which had an all black cast. From then I haven't been able to watch 'Friends' as it was a show that was a 'whit rip-off' of an all black show, with 'Friends' also having no representation of different races. Due to this I believe that 'How I met Your Mother' is better than 'Friends'.

Before getting into this opinion, I just want to warn that this may be triggering for people who have recently experienced loss.

Time does not heal all wounds, in fact time can allow for either the worsening of the effects of a wound such as grief, or can result in individuals learning how to cope with the loss of a loved one; but is coping healing?

Worsening of the Wound

Much like a physical wound, the wound of losing a loved one can have a variety of outcomes. Firstly, over time the wound may be able to heal by itself, much like a scratch or a gash. However, some wounds are so great that they require further help and support in order to treat the wound. This could be due to the wound getting worse by becoming infected. Therefore, in terms of grief, the wound left in some individuals may fester and worsen the psychological effects an individual is experiencing due to this grief. Resulting from this, any amount of time can pass, be it five, ten or twenty years, and the wound may still be there or be worse than before. The individual may need support in the form of therapy, for example, and without this support for the loss of a loved one, time will have no positive effect on the pain an individual is in from this loss.

Is Coping Healing?

When grieving, I have found that grieving is about learning to cope with the loss of a loved one and with that person not being in your life anymore. But I do not consider that healing. You can still see pictures, books, or listen to music that reminds you of that special person. When you do a variety of emotions may surface such as happiness in that memory but also sadness in never being able to share more memories with that person and missing them. Learning to cope when all these emotions surface is, in my opinion, a part of the grieving process but that hole is still there and the scar left from that wound still exists. So no matter how much time has passed, that wound can still slightly re-open and the reminder of those feelings of loss still exist which is why I don't consider coping with those emotions as healing. To me healing means complete restoration where as coping is coming to terms with all the emotions you will feel throughout time that will remind you of the person you have lost.

No individual has the right to tell another individual what gender they are and what pronouns they should use.

People don't have the right to enforce the they/them pronouns on everybody e.g. gender neutral

There is an argument within this debate that advocates for the complete gender neutrality of society by only using gender neutral pronouns such as they/them. The argument then is that this will include everybody and avoid gender discrimination. Whilst I understand where this view is coming from, I find it inherently problematic. He/him and she/her as identities and genders still exist. To enforce the total use of they/them pronouns is to completely ignore and remove the pronouns and resultant genders of she/her and he/him. Additionally, this will also ignore the gender fluid individuals who identify as she/him or she/they or he/they. It does not respect the right of those who are cis (identify as the gender they are assigned at birth) or the other identities of gender outside of the they/them pronouns. If somebody says they would like she/her pronouns to be used as that is how they identify, nobody has the right to tell them that those aren't the pronouns they should identify as, rendering their identity as non-existent. By putting all people under one pronoun category, and therefore category of gender, it completely ignores the fact that different genders still do exist. A system of two genders resulted in the expansion of other genders and pronouns as differing genders exist, so surly the same thing will happen if everyone is put under one gender and one pronoun umbrella.

People don't have the right to say the pronouns they/them should not be used

On the other side of the debate is the denial of they/them non-binary pronouns as existing or the refusal to use the pronouns due to the construction of language. Firstly, in my opinion, if an individual identifies as non-binary and prefers the they/them pronouns, I am in no position to tell them that their identity doesn't exist. I am not in their head, I do not know their thoughts and therefore I am in no position to make a decision on their identity. Th best person to make that decision is the individual themselves. Therefore, that individual should not be told their identity does not exist and that their pronouns should not be used. Furthering this, an argument that has frequently been raised is the English language and that the English language does not have the construction to be able to accommodate the they/them pronouns due to the plurality of these pronouns. However, the non-binary identity is essentially plural. It represents both the gender of the woman, the man, and the beyond. Therefore, it in itself is a plural identity. Additionally, reasoning such as language for the lack of acknowledgment of a person's identity is obsolete. As, due to people identifying as non-binary and they/them, the identity does exist already and carries on existing as people are identifying as they/them. Therefore, nobody can say that the identity categorically does not exist.

In summary, neither side has any right to enforce their preferred pronouns on any other individual. In my opinion, a person's identity and preferred pronouns should be respected whatever an individual's views on gender or pronouns.

I really enjoyed this opinion and would love to hear other views as I find this an incredibly interesting topic and discussion.

Resources:
Cahill, J. (2019). 'Why I will not b Using your Preferred Pronouns', North Coast Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/why-i-will-not-be-using-your-preferred-pronouns/Content?oid=13044445

Callaham, S. (2019). 'Gender Neutrality: Language, Like Culture, Ever-Evolving', Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2019/12/22/gender-neutrality-language-like-culture-ever-evolving/?sh=3d464f4f5f2d

Saguy, A. & Williams, J. (2019). 'Why W Should All Us They/Them Pronouns'

I agree that classes for children on racism and sexism would be beneficial. However, I also believe that the current educational system needs to be de-colonised. For example, if you look at History as a subject. The topics you learn tend to be the topics that make the U.K. (as an example) look positive and heroic. However, there is no inclusion of colonialism (European invasion and colonisation of other lands), the mass genocides of indigenous people, stealing indigenous land, deletion of indigenous culture and cultural understandings, slavery etc. at the hands of the U.K.. With the inclusion of this in classes that currently exist, rather than separate classes the whole of the education system will be striving for a de-colonised education. Rather than children going to a few classes on racism and sexism and then returning to a whitewashed, predominantly male syllabus, the whole education system will be actively challenging and teaching about these issues.

My same view applies to teaching about sexism/homophobia etc. If there was an active inclusion of the HIV epidemic, famous LGBTQ+ figures such as Martha P. Johnson or lessons on Stonewall as part of History or English or the inclusion of more women mathematicians, or mathematicians of colour in Maths then the whole education system will be teaching about racism and other issues whilst actively combatting it.

I really enjoyed reading your piece, so thank you!

You make extremely good points and I agree. I do however think there also needs to be more of an emphasis on the inclusion of LGBTQ+ sex education. I believe this will firstly create a safer environment for those young people who are navigating their sexuality or gender. Secondly, in my opinion there is much more focus on heterosexual sex and relationships meaning those young people who are within the queer community have even less tools to explore themselves.

I completely agree with everything you have said. I also see gender as a social construct.

Prior to European colonial influence, gender existed in pre-colonial societies as a completely different construct. If gender wasn't a social construct and was biological, then cultures around the world before this European imposition and influence would have had the same understandings of gender as the Europeans. However, Native American tribes had third and fourth genders (currently named as Two-Spirit), the Yoruba community in Africa used age as pronouns and only had sex i.e. can/can't bear children. However the roles within society were not assigned by a concept of gender, as gender did not exist in the way that we understand it.

I recently re-watched Twilight for the first time since I was young. I was never a massive fan when I was younger but watching it now I am 24 years old disturbed me. Twilight promotes abusive relationships and creates an environment that makes these kind of relationships normal and accepted.

Gaslighting/emotional abuse

The first moment that stood out to me was the moment in which Edward denies saving Bella, despite Bella telling him she saw it. He quite literally told Bella she had fabricated the story due to her accident, which obviously wasn't true. This is a classic example of gaslighting, trying to make the other person question themselves and reality. This can have extreme psychological affects on a person's confidence, and their understandings of reality which can lead to severe mental health issues as they constantly have to question their reality. This was the moment warning signs started going off in my head.

Sexual assault/manipulation

Secondly, Jacob sexually assaulted Bella by forcing her into a kiss and forcibly holding her head.

Bella repeatedly stated to Edward she would not marry him if they did not have sex whilst she was still human. This is manipulation into Edward having sex with Bella and can also be classed as sexual assault .

Isolation

Edward isolated Bella from her family. Once Bella turned into a Vampire, he told Bella she couldn’t see her father anymore and they had to pretend she was dead. Shouldn’t that have been Bella’s decision? Another red flag, your partner making decisions on your behalf without your input, especially when these decisions are yours alone. Edward also forces Bella to stop hanging out with her best-friend due to him being a wolf and Edward not liking wolves. Again, this should be Bella’s decision and not his. But he loves her right? So it is okay. No, abuse is abuse.

Emotional Manipulation

Bella had to drop her life to go to Italy to stop Edward from taking his life by Vampire. Any individual who threatens to take their life so the other saves them/returns to them is emotional blackmail and manipulation.

Physical abuse/Coercive control

Finally (despite there being many more incidences of abuse,) the abuse is not just between Bella and Edward. The leader of the wolves struck his partner after *She provoked the change into a wolf. So the insinuation then is that she was at fault as she provoked this reaction. Therefore, she had to change herself and her reactions to things in order to not provoke him so he doesn’t hurt her. The threat of this incident happening again can be seen as a form of coercive control as the survivor changes their actions in order to diminish the likelihood of mood swings and abuse by the perpetrator resulting in the perpetrator having control over their partner’s actions.

I remember when I was younger, these relationships were idolised, and still are. The relationships children were watching glorified emotional abuse, coercive control, physical abuse and sexual abuse. People in my class were dreaming of having a relationship like Edward and Bella. I personally would not want my children watching Twilight for anything but as an example of what abusive relationships are and to spark a conversation in a safe environment about abusive relationships.