Outrage at the weekend over the Human Rights Commission. 

The Chief Human Rights Commissioner has been announced as Dr Steven Rainbow and he was once accused of being transphobic or anti trans. 

And it's one of those terms that can quickly change the tone or the perception of an article that you're reading. 

I remember this from the university college campus protests over in the States. 

You would read the CNN copy on the story and it would say they were pro Palestinian protesters, then you would read the Fox News version and it would say they're anti-Israel. 

Who decides what you are? If you're pro one thing, does it automatically make you anti the other? 

Women's rights campaigners, and this was the point that I think was being made about Dr Steven Rainbow, the women's rights campaigners, do they hate or are they anti trans people, or are they just pro women's rights as they would claim that they are? 

And equally just because you want a ceasefire in Gaza, it doesn't mean you're anti Semitic, does it? 

There seems to be a polarization happening here. You're this you're that or you're all your, or you're nothing or it's black and white and we do it in the media all the time - we're probably the most guilty of it. 

And whoever is shouting the loudest I think tends to dominate the news cycle. 

But then again what's that based on, tweets? Is that really how you decide or define what someone feels about an issue? 

I always found it odd when it came to abortion, which is a very divisive issue, obviously, people feel very personally about this issue. 

Are you pro life or anti abortion? Are you women's choice or pro abortion? 

Is anybody really pro abortion? You know what I mean? 

You might want women to choose but surely nobody's actually pro abortion. 

I've really got no idea how to resolve this problem of labelling in the media, other than when somebody's labelled anti something nowadays, I'm inclined to find out why, how and if to my mind at least, their motivations aren't just pro something else.