The 'Gay Agenda'.

Within the last five years in the UK, the population identifying as Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual (LGB) has increased from 1.5% in 2012 to 2.0% in 2017, with people aged 16-24 being the most likely to identify as LGB. The accessibility of social media and emergence of LGBT representation in media means that discourse surrounding the LGBTQ+ identity is constant and never entirely positive or negative.

What is the relevance of these statistics on LinkedIn, you might ask?

Well, it's simple, really.

Disagreeing with the existence of the LGBTQ+ community does not abolish our existence.

Between 2018 and 2019 alone, 14,491 crimes were committed against people because of their sexual orientation. That doesn't even include the 2,333 crimes against transgender people due to their gender identity. There is a disparity in these reports between the Home Office, who claims numbers are up across the board because of more people reporting them, versus Stonewall UK's statistic of only 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ crimes being reported to the police.

For a lot of people, the existence of the LGBTQ+ community is inextricably linked to politics, to this notion of the 'far-left' pushing an agenda.

So, for all of the Barry Bigots and Christ-like Christina's, let's put some of those politics you speak of to the forefront, shall we?

The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, finding any homosexual act illegal, is an example of the discrepancies in UK legislature around the LGBT community. This law actively persecuted gay men, but not lesbians; with no legislation, at this time or for a long time afterwards, actively targeting lesbians due to a fear that acknowledging lesbianism would encourage what they assumed to be only a small population of society. Lesbian ‘acts’, as such, have never been considered illegal.

Alan Turing, convicted in 1952, subject to chemical castration and ‘died by suicide’ in 1954 (the circumstances surrounding Alan Turing’s death are still subject to controversy). That same year, the trial and imprisonment of Edward Montagu, Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood for ‘homosexual offences’, caused an uproar large enough to lead to the creation of the Wolfenden report (the main basis of which was that homosexual acts between two consenting adults in private should not be considered a criminal offence).

Section 28, prohibiting the 'promotion of homosexual relationships', and 'promotion of the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship'.

The House of Lords justified their rejection of the proposal to equalise the age of consent by claiming they were doing so for the ‘safety of children’, a gross mindset that has plagued the gay community for decades.

The leader of the campaign against such amendments, Baroness Young, stated “Homosexual practices carry great health risks to young people”, a woman who, until her death in 2002, actively campaigned against the repeal of Section 28.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 reduced the age of consent for ‘male homosexual activities’ from 18 to 16, alongside that of heterosexual and lesbian individuals; this would be the first time that legislature included ‘lesbian sexual activities’.

Then followed the Civil Partnerships act in 2004, proceeded by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act in 2013 that came into force on the 13th March 2014.

Yet, the politics around transgender rights is barely scratching the surface, in comparison, with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 still including the need for transgender individuals to provide evidence for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which there are multiple issues regarding divorce and annulments for married transgender individuals to get their GRC, or be in a civil partnership or married.

Bored of statistics, yet?

That's not even including the statistics of hate crimes, suicides and mental health amongst LGBTQ+ individuals.

People speak of a 'gay agenda', of 'indoctrination' when speaking about gender identity, but the fact remains that as a community, LGBTQ+ individuals are battling not just society but the policies put into place that police their very existence.

When growing up, we face numerous media representations of straight relationships, ranging from toxic ones to long-term, fully-committed ones. Even in media such as perfume advertisements, representing hyper-sexualised heterosexual relationships, we are exposed to the notion that we, as LGB, trans and non-binary people, do not exist. Or, that if we do, we are the ones forcing a narrative.

I still recall the first non-heterosexual relationship I saw presented in the media- Susan and Carol in 'Friends'. Even that was a mockery, with every line in the presence of the pair usually alluding to their sexuality. I have to reiterate that not all representation is good representation, but it is easy for a well-represented group to say it isn't needed at all.

The only agenda that the LGBTQ+ community has is to exist without fear of persecution.

I'm not asking for your acceptance, I'm not asking for your blessing. With or without it, I'll exist. The same way people are entitled to their faith and beliefs, I'm entitled to mine.

What we aren't entitled to, however, is the right to demonise, marginalise and harm others for not abiding by our beliefs. Whether or whether not religious scripture dictates your belief that being gay or other is an abomination, that's fine, because you aren't gay. You have no right to tell anyone else that their existence is compromised based on your beliefs.

We all have choices to make every single day of our lives, and a lot of what I'm seeing is people choosing to stomp out any conversation they don't understand. Whether it's a discussion about non-binary people, trans people or LGBT people, it can be done with respect and acknowledgement that though we may have differing opinions, we all have the right to live.

LGBTQ+ rights are human rights, and nobody likes a bigot.