1./ True or False? Time to check another claim by John Nicolson MP. You'll know John has a tendency to fantasise. Imagine my surprise when his campaign to be Rector of Glasgow University claimed, as a student on the Students' Council, he'd set up a Sexual Harassment Committee.

2./ By the way, his suggestion of an e-learning course (a 'moodle') for Freshers is a great idea. But something jarred. Was John REALLY the driving force for the committee as implied? I checked with friends from Yooni days and their memories were different. As in VERY different.

3./ They claimed the Committee was the idea of women in response to a decidedly dodgy atmosphere on a very conservative campus in which the old Men's Union, the notoriously sexist University Union, regularly showed porn and organised strip shows. John happened to be on its Board.

4./ But during the election for the Committee someone objected to its exclusive focus on women; he was worried about the homosexual harassment of male students. That guy was John Nicolson. John didn't set up the committee as his campaign claimed. He just stood for election to it.

5./ And his pitch was gays can be dangerous too. Don't get me wrong male students DO need protection from predators just the same as women do. But context is also important. In 1983 the GUU was violently homophobic and gays weren't even allowed to hold meetings there.

6./ I flicked through the old student newspaper online and discovered a letter of protest about John's comments. Some bloke called err...Malcolm Clark pointed out the Student Executive's hypocrisy of highlighting gay predators while doing nothing to protect gay rights.

7./ Let's be charitable. I'd forgotten about my letter as a young activist so I assume John misremembered the facts too. Tho it is STRANGE to major on an issue you don't check. There IS also a weird consistency. Back then John felt a women's campaign had to include men. Now...

8./ His signature campaign against Gender Harassment does exactly the same. Women aren't harassed because of their gender (whatever that word now means) but their sex. Ditto young men by gay predators. Instead John's video quickly makes clear his main focus: trans peeps.

9./ Of course trans people, like everyone, must have protection from any abuse, coercion or harassment, sexual or otherwise. But is GENDER harassment really the same as sexual harassment? Or does changing the word actually make it vaguer? And if it does ...does that help anyone?

10./ All this may seem like some dredging up the ancient past. I really wouldn't have bothered if John hadn't made such a fuss about it. But don't these tiny details also feel instructive too? In institutions across Britain a similar chipping away at clarity is underway.

11./ Using the subject of sexual harassment as a way to get elected while simultaneously inserting new, confusing language isn't good for trans people; or anyone. It only confirms the suspicion that LGBTQ+ issues are being used as a means to an end: to undermine women's rights.

12./ The good news is the University now has a woman Rector; only the second ever. Why a man would feel he's better qualified than Lady Rae QC to do the job baffles me. But then nothing has been more consistent than some men's need to tell women how best to do their feminism.