Britain’s first openly gay Member of Parliament has gained a gong for decades of fighting for LGBT fairness. Chris Smith, 66, gained the PinkNews lifetime achievement award at a star-studded bash attended by Prime Minister Theresa May.
In a comment before arriving to give the honour, Jeremy Corbyn attacked Donald Trump of inciting hatred upon gay people and rebuked a surge in hate crime in Britain.
The ceremony was portrayed by Stephen Fry and notable guests were scheduled to include TV host Lorraine Kelly, Corrie star Brooke Vincent, Doctor Who’s Pearl Mackie and fellow actors Simon Callow and Rupert Everett.
Top Labour politicians including Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and London mayor Sadiq Khan were scheduled to join the bash alongside Tories Nicky Morgan and David Mundell and Commons Speaker John Bercow.
Labour’s leader praised Parliament for having 45 LGBT MPs the greatest of any legislature in the world and called Lord Smith a powerful champion for equality.
Jeremy Corbyn rebuked the terrifying abuse of gay men in Uganda and Chechnya, continuing that in America we have observed a Trump Presidency which rejects gay marriage and has incited hatred and bigotry upon LGBT people.
Here in the United Kingdom, we have observed a spike in the homophobic hate crime, as well as other sorts of hate crime.
Ex-MP Lord Smith famously came out in 1984 by stating: “Good afternoon, my name is Chris Smith. I’m the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, and I’m gay.” And in 2005 he broke the mould again by announcing he had been HIV positive for 17 years.
The ceremony was also attended by Equalities Minister Justine Greening, who came out as gay on the day of a gay pride march in London.
Most people and I say most because that’s not all, but some people exist and flourish on arrogance and for those that do, they exist on the thought that homosexual people should not be permitted to live, net alone mate with each other. The same as there are egotistical people that don’t accept that blacks and whites are the same and choose to treat them negatively.
There is just no room for them, it’s them or us because they are not identified as normal human beings, but then what is normal? Normal is what our culture says or makes us accept as normal.
It is past time that we rethink what we determine by the concepts normal and abnormal as those concepts refer to the mental and emotional states and responses of human beings. Certainly, it is a real topic as to whether those terms can be sensibly used at all, given their enormous baggage and built-in prejudices and the common uncertainty they generate.
This is not an empty topic without real-world outcomes. The treatment of every individual mental disorder that mental health experts diagnose, from depression and attention deficit disorder on through schizophrenia emerges from how culture defines normal and abnormal.
This stuff touches tens of millions of people yearly and concerns everyone because a person’s mental representation of what is normal is largely shaped by how culture and its customs determine normal.
The focus of what is normal can’t be and must not be a mere statistical distinction. It can’t be and must not be normal to be a Christian simply because 95 percent of our population is Christian. It can’t be and must not be normal to be drawn to someone of the opposite sex simply because 90 percent of the overall community is heterosexual.
It can’t be and must not be normal to keep slaves simply because all the landowners in a country own slaves. Normal can’t mean and must not mean what we see all the time or what we see the most of.
It needs to have a distinct meaning from that for it to determine anything of importance to right-thinking people.
Neither can it mean free of discomfort, as if normal were the equivalent of oblivious and you were somehow abnormal when you were conscious, human, and real. This, nevertheless, is precisely the game presented by the mental health industry and it makes this specific, illegal switch.
It announces that when you feel a particular level of discomfort you are abnormal and you have a dysfunction. It associates abnormal with undesired, turning into “I don’t want to feel sad” into “I have the mental disorder of depression.”
In this illustration normal is existing clear of unnecessary distress, abnormal is feeling or appearing significantly distressed. Normal, in this way, is slaying a hamlet in wartime and not feeling anything afterwards.
Abnormal is feeling something, and for a long time thereafter. The consequences of morals, understanding, and knowledge are marked unnatural and robotic loyalty to wearing a pasted-on smiley face is designated normal.
Is that what we actually mean? Is that what we actually need?
Sorrow, guilt, anger, regret, uncertainty, apprehension, stress and other comparable encounters and situations are all expected and normal, given the reality and needs of the world, but, that is, to mental health experts, where those events and experiences become trademarks of abnormality and cash cows, after all, mental health generates a gross income for many…
It is just not right to call the deficiency of significant anxiety normal and the appearance of significant suffering abnormal, that simply isn’t correct.
If normal mustn’t be what we see the most of or the absence of significant distress, how else might it be imagined or defined? Is there maybe a way that the terms healthy and unhealthy capture what we might like normal and abnormal to determine?
Maybe normal could equate healthy and abnormal could match unhealthy? Sadly, that ruler is likewise unprotected.
It is fair to state that if you catch tuberculosis or manifest cancer you have gone from a normal state to an abnormal state. However, it is not fair to assume, for example, that it is healthy for you to endure no harmful outcomes from shooting defenceless noncombatants and unhealthy of you to endure distressing results.
In the last case, you are suffering, but PTSD in this situation is not like cancer. In this case, it may, in fact, amount to the healthy and nonetheless very distressing functioning of your conscience. This PTSD may, in fact, be evidence that you are healthy, evidence, that is, that you are a person with a functioning conscience, sooner than evidence of any unhealthiness.
It will not prove legitimate to declare that a person is healthy because she is not appearing distressed and unhealthy because she is feeling distressed. Being down because you discovered your partner cheating on you doesn’t make you unhealthy.
Becoming concerned because you can’t pay your bills doesn’t make you unhealthy. Becoming jaded and restless because your job underutilises you doesn’t make you unhealthy. If you jump from being distressed to being unhealthy you are jumping into the arms of the medical paradigm, a position you do not want to dive for no good reason.
Whole industries earning billions of dollars are created on the terms normal and abnormal and on the concepts of well and disordered. It is consequently impossible that the correct thing can be done and that the circumstances can change.
Even right-minded and high-minded mental health professionals can’t really conceive of doing away with the current idea of “mental disorder.” If they did away with it, what would they have and where would they be? Given that even the best and the brightest in the field are attached to an illegitimate naming game, there is probably no hope for change.
What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to choose, and what are the consequences? When do we praise variations from the norm, when do we denounce them, and why?
Differentiating between the definition of normal in a statistical sense and in a normative sense. Statistically, normal is the average or middle of a set of data. In a normative sense, norms are the criteria by which our conduct is measured, such as honesty and understanding.
What people generally do becomes what they ought to do, in other words, statistically normal behaviour becomes the social norm for behaviour. Alternatively, the common practices and approaches that successful people use, those on the leading point of the statistical bell curve frequently become social patterns to which others are required to comply.
If we start by ascertaining the elements of the word normal. The ancient Greek origins of normal mean well-known. Normal further used to mean a rule, such as a carpenter’s square. In English, normal was first used to illustrate the conjugation of regular and irregular verbs.
How did normal achieve its present usage? If we investigate the significance of normalcy, especially in religion, mental health, and honesty, why is normal greater than abnormal? The actual value of normalcy is that norms give social integration and regulation.
The negative side of normalcy is the marginalisation of those that don’t fit inside the norm.
It could be pointed out that artists are more imaginative because they work outside of the normal, mainstream culture and that creative force influences culture forward and alterations in social norms happen because of differences from and tensions with actual norms.
Societal transformation happens when opportunities for behaviour are presented that vary from or interrupt the jurisdiction of normal standards. We could further ask whether normalcy is context dependent, indicating the developing treatment of blacks and homosexuals in America. This context-specific meaning of normality shows the relativity and changeability of our thoughts of normal.
Nearly all of us consume some part of our lives questioning if we’re normal. Not a bad question, since the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) concludes that more than 1 in 4 Americans have a mental disorder.
Someone with a mental disorder has reactions, responses and ideas that differ from the norm. In these situations, someone who isn’t normal doesn’t match up to what society and medicine views as the norm.
When we consider what’s normal, it’s frequently in the sense of defining whether the way we evaluate and act is the same as or at least comparable to the preponderance of other people.
In a social situation like a party, for instance, you would probably make friendly discussion with a stranger about the host, the food and weekend plans. However, a person with Asperger’s syndrome might have a 30-minute chat with someone about engineering, not seeing jaded emotions or impatient shifting from foot to foot.
This behaviour is outside established parameters of what’s reflected as acceptable, or normal, social behaviour.
When it comes to assessing our own behaviour, we normally choose how to respond based on our own understanding of what’s normal. If you gamble compulsively and feel it’s an unusual behaviour that you’re one of a very rare people in the world who can’t quit gambling you might feel uncomfortable and cover it up.
However, if you were to discover that millions of people in the United States struggle with a gambling addiction and help and therapy are possible, you might be more inclined to seek to change that behaviour.
At the same time, social norms have a powerful impact on the notion of normal. In a Western society, what a person views as a gambling addict might be viewed as a typical adult in a society that considers unstoppable gambling to be a rational behaviour.
We can look at a society’s laws to see what’s culturally deemed normal, but that doesn’t always give us the best clues. For instance, smoking marijuana recreationally is prohibited in the United States, yet millions of Americans have indulged.
In another sense of the term, normal means average or standard. So while an alcoholic may crave to lead a normal life, a bored high school student may crave to lead anything but. Normal, observed through the eye of the observer, and is purified through the microscope of our civilization.
Therefore, there is no such thing as normal or abnormal, it is how others portray it. However, some people appear to use it to their benefit, shifting how people think, and normal and abnormal are overused.
It is a keyword that is applied to make people think that they are worthless and other people to think that they are beyond everybody else.
Normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy are central to our everyday lives and act as a determining factor on who and what we are and it is the liege of our common vocabulary towards an inferior position or a greater one and this seems to be a game strategy.
Gay people might not be seen as normal to some, but to others, they are very normal.
All of us are of course a tad peculiar in one way or another, it would be ridiculous to say that we should all be identical, that would lead to a really monotonous society and oddball some of us might be, but that does not imply that we are normal or abnormal, it simply suggests that we are all individual in our own way.
There is no one stranger than folk!
There are two kinds of male oysters, and one of them can switch sexes at will. And before man slithered out of the muck, perhaps he had the same possibility. Perhaps originally we were supposed to be able to change sexes, and being born with merely one sex is a mutation.