A fantastic rebuttal as always Teed — but it doesn’t get to the heart of the question. Having worked as a child advocate, I can assure you that 7 year old boys are a more marginalised group than middle aged white women. They have less employment opportunities, they’re discriminated against in modern employment laws (being forced to attend mandatory education facilities). They lack the capacity to vote and are excluded from many aspects of privileged society — such as being allowed to drive, employ others, they don’t have their own medical freedom and are locked into a state of perpetual servitude in which their financial freedom is curtailed. When historically they have earned money, we can see they rapidly become the victims of financial abuse; Jackie Coogan, McCauley Culkin etc.

So considering all human beings to have equal consideration under the law and take their place in society… could we not argue for children to be a marginalised group? Remembering, of course, the term ‘childhood’ has been created by adults specifically to create a separation in Western society. It doesn’t necessarily have a universal definition across the world now, or across history more generally

If we can argue that there’s some discrimination on the grounds of age, then can we award this marginalised group any specific rights and grant them specific employment equalities? I know this argument is somewhat facetious, but that’s where I get my name from. I enjoy stretching the arguments and seeing where they stop.

This isn’t really a criticism of what is happening with marginalised voices, it’s a questioning of the methodology and where it stops. It’s about how we define ‘marginalised’ and how we go about defining it. Where does the definition stop? This is the crux of the issue I have with identity politics. Where does the defining stop and social engineering on spurious grounds begin? If we allow one group the right do we have to allow all groups if they can demonstrate harm?

Will Helen Lovejoy need to be played by a Trans actor? https://twitter.com/snakmicks/status/1224506455807557632?lang=en

You’ve made some excellent points — and I broadly agree with you, but I don’t think you’re being clear enough where the rules start and stop. That’s really what this piece is about. As always, getting claps and being read is lovely — but the arguments themselves are really what I’m interested in.