I shred comments like these for breakfast...

If you've had the misfortune to read my blogs before you'll know where this rant is going.

I am an EGALITARIAN. I believe that fundamental equality is an ABSOLUTE BASELINE of where we should be working from as a society. The fact people think there's equality when there blatantly isn't is INFURIATING.

In the interests of full disclosure I identify as agender which basically means keep your gender stereotypes and expectations out of my cornflakes.

I am also an opinionated potato meaning I can't keep my rants to myself if my life depends on it.

And no, I do not apologise for swearing.

So, I saw this comment and just had to shred it:

"How ridiculous, what inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race", she's excelled & married a Prince to boot. His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have. As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality", this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days. I doubt very much that Harry and his family will experience the problems that ordinary working class families will."

1) "What inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race"" - first up, FUCK OFF WITH THE SCARE QUOTES. How dare you imply that it's anything less than a real and valid factor in how she's been treated?! How goddamned BLIND are you that you can't see the racism in the thread you are currently commenting on??? One thing that particularly gets me in every damn thread is the microaggression of misspelling her name. Honestly, there's an article where (9 times out of 10) it's in the headline but somehow y'all type 'Megan' over and over.

Here's an example of a multitude of times Meghan has been disrespected for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS as her white sister in law: https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Catherine is disrespected in two ways - calling her Kate which she hates, and referring to her by her maiden name ten years and three kids into her marriage - but never once have I seen her called a gold-digger or a monkey.

Sure, there are a couple of other differences, Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee... but I personally have never seen one comment that has even implied those factors have anything to do with the constant stream of hate she's been subjected to.

TBH I think that the public's general loathing of Meghan has a lot to do with her cutting out her toxic af abusive father... who just so happens to be her white parent. If she was seen to be 'embracing' her white family (even though they're the worst trash) I imagine the public might be a little kinder. Which is the stupidest reason for keeping a man like Thomas in your life.

2) "she's excelled & married a Prince to boot" - you really can't see this as being the cause of a lot of her problems?! I don't know how much sh*t she got on a daily basis before she was linked to Prince Harry but I am willing to bet vital body parts that it was a drop in the ocean compared to what she's dealt with over the past few years.

3) "His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have" First up, not all children thrive... lots of minority ethnic and mixed kids really suffer, especially in an education system which expects them to fail, and often leads them by the hand to that eventuality.

Even if Harry & Meghan opt for private education Archie & Lilibet will still be in a minority. They'll be additionally othered by their royal status too.

And just go look at the substance abuse and suicide rates among the kids of celebrities. Rather than growing up in an ivory tower they tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny. Wealth provides many privileges but it causes many more problems; but more than that it's the royalty aspect... they can never escape. Wealth provides no protection or respite.

4) "As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality"" again with the scare quotes like gender equality is a thing that exists. Women are asked about babies & relationships in interviews, men are asked about their work. Women serve less time for the same crime, men are less likely to get custody of their children.

There are DOZENS of articles on the sexualisation of young female celebrities, with special attention to how gross it gets when they 'come of age':

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/millie-bobby-brown-18th-birthday-creepy-sexualized-child

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2509093/celebrities-sexualized-young/

What on earth makes y'all think Lilibet will escape this???? Even if she's fortunate enough to grow up fat and fugly enough not to be targeted that way she'll be forever disregarded and disrespected as a human being because women pretty much only have value if they're attractive.

Similarly Archie will run a very minimal risk of public comment on his looks or body type. That, my dear gammon, is why gender equality doesn't exist.

5) "this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days" Again, the 'real world' (which this guy clearly knows very little about) is rife with gender inequality but women shouldn't have to 'hold their own' like it's a goddamned battle!

6) "experience the problems that ordinary working class families will" Gatekeeping suffering is a really bad look. The bizarre idea that only the 'working classes' experience problems in life... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!! I'd rather be 'poor, obscure, plain and little' than face the wrath that the royal family, celebrities and other in-the-public-eye people face.

The idea that rich people don't suffer like poor people supposedly do is nonsensical. Take the sad, current story about footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and his partner Georgina Rodriguez. Y'all think they don't suffer the loss of their twin baby boy any differently than any working class family?! *Maybe* they're better placed to pay medical costs, funeral costs, therapy to cope with their bereavement... but that's as far as money, status, or privilege goes. The practical aspects only, the pain itself is universal.

There are people bitching about why they were having more children anyway when they already have a daughter together and Ronaldo has other kids via surrogacy (er, large families are okay?), people posting crying-from-laughter emojis, people choosing to make nasty jibes at his skill as a footballer. And I know there's been worse, although thankfully most threads have been good at getting the most offensive stuff deleted fairly quickly.

Even some of the gestures of sympathy are dubious af - everything happens for a reason and it's God's will are incredibly hurtful things to say. Then there's this:

"Liverpool fans are planning a minute's applause in the seventh minute for Cristiano Ronaldo during Manchester United's visit to Anfield this evening following the heartbreaking news of his baby son's death.

Absolutely class!"

How the hell is applauding a dead baby an act of respect or 'class'?! the time-honoured gesture is a SILENCE. I hate to think how the public would react if Archie or Lilibet passed... Commemorative tat memorabilia perhaps?! Just think how Meghan was treated when she revealed she'd miscarried another child... accusations of her cashing in on the loss mama label. Speculation she was lying.

At least most working class families get to suffer their problems, bereavements, etc. etc. in relative obscurity and comparative peace.

Agender and Angry

So last night (21:30, 29 Nov 2019) I was on the receiving end of what I consider to be a gender identity hate crime - it has been reported to the police as such.

It started when I was out for a walk. I mostly only get out briefly of an evening, between my daughter getting home from work and when she needs to get to bed. Sometimes my dad will sit with my mum so I can get out for a bit during the day but that's not relaxing - that's time for banking or shopping or running errands. I hate being cooped up inside. I hate that I am regaining the weight I worked so hard to lose (in part) from lack of exercise. That little bit of time in the evenings is so important to me.

So I'm out, playing PokemonGO, when this lad on a bike cycles straight at me on the path - and this is a path about 2m wide so the turd was definitely aiming at me. I moved aside - he moved the same way, definitely trying to hit me - no idea how we didn't collide. Anyhow, I spin round as he misses me by a whisker and gave him a piece of my mind. He's cycling on the path where he has no business to be, cycling at night with no lights, acting like I'M the one in the wrong? GAH!

The row escalated and he's being really nasty and one of the things he says is "if you weren't a woman I'd f*ck*ng punch you" and that is the sort of thing that makes me see red cos it is not okay to punch a complete stranger, even if they're yelling at you (especially if they're - A - justified in their yelling at you and - B - in no way shape or form physically threatening you) regardless of how they present, their gender identity or biological sex.

I don't think you get many feminists arguing that particular point because the 'don't hit a girl' rule works in their favour but it really annoys me. It's a form of misogyny to treat females as weak / vulnerable / whatever. Males of the species are not fair game for mindless violence.

Then there's the just don't go there thing of presuming my gender. I am biologically female, I present (vaguely) as female I guess, I'm okay with female pronouns but I don't feel like I have any kind of connection with the average cis female so please don't call me a girl (especially as I'm bleedin' middle aged) and while I might refer to myself as a woman it's mostly a force-of-habit thing. This is why I am egalitarian (the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights) - I believe women's rights, men's rights, trans rights, non binary rights are the SAME rights.

So I'm like "please don't assume my gender, for your information I am agender". This was possibly a mistake cos the jumped up little twat goes from derogatory comments about my womanhood and presentation (yeah cos I am gonna dress more 'womanly' to appease a complete stranger who is taking offence at my WELLIES...I mean, this lad was completely NUTS) to full on transphobic shit. Cos obviously he doesn't even know what 'agender' is "What you think you're a man? You wanna be a man?" he's screaming at me - and I swear this is the best bit - then this little runt comes out with "it's the 21st century you're a f*ck*ng woman intcha?!" WOW someone totally missed the memo on gender identity and equality. My 77 year old dad doesn't get it but he's still more clued up than this dipshit.

Anyway, the encounter concluded with him punching me several times in the head and giving me a good solid kick in the ribs. I was bloody tempted to hit back but smacking other people's children is frowned upon. Actually surprised the scrawny little asswipe had it in him - definitely had him pegged as the all-mouth-no-trousers type, not least of his (largely incomprehensible) ranting seemed to have something to do with his mummy. I'll add here that he identified himself as being FIFTEEN - 15 and he's on about his mummy and assaulting middle aged pedestrians for being angry he tried to hit them with his bike...what even?!

So I called the police and made a statement. I don't expect anything to come of it but maybe someone caught something on their dashcam...or maybe it'll get linked to the next person he lays into...or maybe he's enough of an asshole to actually upload the video he was taking of me while he was being a d*ck to me.

If feels weird to have been on the receiving end of a hate crime. Fortunately, although I haven't known the term 'agender' all that long in the great scheme of things, I am confident enough in my own identity to own that identity and not back down from it in the face of jumped up little chavboys who obviously aren't mature enough to be out on their own. What this would do to someone who is struggling with their identity, suffering from dysphoria or insecure about themselves doesn't bear thinking about.

INJURIES

• Swollen left ear & bruise* on bone behind
• Very tender lump on left temple under hairline
• Bruised* underside left cheekbone, down face to under lower jaw
• Bruised* lower left-hand ribs

(* all bruises are felt, but still not visible at 24 hrs)

Not that it matters but as the gender identity abuse because he was belittling my presentation as (he assumed) a woman I'll include here a run-down of how I appeared:

HOW I WAS PRESENTING AT THE TIME

• Hair close cropped (went over it at a grade 6 about a week ago), usual piercings (nose, helix, multiple lobes and 10mm tunnels) & jewellery (copper bangles, mala beads, snake ring), no make up as is standard - I generally resemble a potato
• Baggy dark green tunic under unisex FVK hoodie
• Black leggings
• Black wellies with white spots

Not feminine, not masculine, just Heggie. Probably the most 'feminine' thing about me is the fact I have boobs. It honestly appalls me the shit transgender people have to face and having had the tiniest taste of it I am LIVID at how badly educated even young people apparently are cos if this turd is the future we're all fucked.

Women In Music

In response to a video by Brian Blessed / LadBible / Smirnoff Vodka available from

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ladbible/status/1119261875550613504/video/1

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BwcPvTtHfWu/ and Facebook.

*SIGH* Now I'm not saying there's no gender inequality behind the scenes of the music industry or that sex discrimination never happens... but lack of opportunity for female talent? REALLY??? Women can and do and have FOR GENERATIONS stamped their mark all over the music industry.

Simplifying music down to gender (or more specifically sex cos we're not even considering if any of these people identifies as agender, non binary, gender fluid etc) is pretty damn idiotic - festivals book acts based on bums on seats; compilation albums are linked to 'record' sales. Anyway, who buys music because of the gender of the artist, the gender of the songwriter, the gender of the producer??? Maybe men win more awards - but were they decided by gender?! It's also pretty dumb to imagine that because the split male and female sales or awards won isn't 50/50 there's inherent inequality as there are a whole bunch of factors at play...including the unpopular concept that not all female artists are any good! Maybe some women haven't received the support and promotion they feel they deserve from their agents / managers / record labels but is that gender discrimination or savvy business sense based on the sales of other comparable artists? If men are more successful so be it. Got a problem with it? Get out there and DO something to change things.

There are more male acts in the lists of best-selling music acts but does that mean inequality or does that reflect more on who is buying music? As children boys statistically get higher allowances than girls; young women go on to have less disposable income - now THERE is some serious inequality - although maybe people just LIKE songs by guys more. Thinking back through the music I've bought less than 5%, maybe not even 1%, was by female artists - not because the music isn't there but because I personally just don't like it overmuch, generally speaking.

There are loads of amazingly talented AND SUCCESSFUL women out there...and always have been, fighting against worse gender stereotypes and inequality than society is dealing with now - not to mention racism and other prejudices. I feel like claiming a lack of opportunity for women somehow diminishes the INCREDIBLE achievements of artists such as (in no particular order) -

• Sister Rosetta Tharp
• Barbra Streisand
• Ella Fitzgerald
• Lady Gaga
• Aretha Franklin
• Joan Jett
• Nicki Minaj
• Billie Holiday
• Celine Dion
• Beyonce
• Siouxsie Sioux
• Pink
• Tori Amos
• Mary J Blige
• Nina Simone
• Dolly Parton
• Asha Bhosle
• Adele
• Seiko Matsuda
• Rihanna
• Marie Fredriksson
• Madonna
• Tina Turner
• Taylor Swift
• Whitney Houston
• Cher

Where the hell would the music industry be without these incredible artists - representing different nationalities, ethnicities, music genres, and noted for a wide variety of achievements such as biggest selling / most recorded / award wining / voted most popular etc etc etc?! They are each an embodiment of what talented females can achieve if they get out there and make it happen. They weren't handed their successes on a plate but they clearly weren't blocked from making it to the top either. And these women are just the tip of a metaphorical musical iceberg - a huge number of women who've worked hard to achieve various degrees of success in their particular field.

As for behind-the-scenes... just take a glance down the list of songs written by Diane Warren - and the artists who recorded them. There are lots of female songwriters; lots of female record producers too - Cathy Dennis for example? Or Linda Perry who has founded two record labels? Sure, these are just a handful of names. Try looking on Wikipedia under 'women in music', 'female songwriters', 'women record producers'... go back further with 'female composers' and 'women hymnwriters' too. There are women in every branch of music, many of them immensely successful, many pioneering. Maybe there ought to be more, maybe we need to do more to support the ones we have but please don't say there aren't opportunities or imply insurmountable obstacles.

See also: "10 'lost' female musicians who deserve more recognition' (BBC 2018) https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/343718ed-4caf-44a2-8291-4aaa18d48c2c

Unequal Equality

Over the last few days I've been getting a fair bit of hassle over a tweet. Specifically:

Somewhat vexed that the disappearance of Libby Squire (21, Hull Uni)

seems to be getting more coverage than that of

Daniel Williams (19, Reading Uni). Everyday sexism?

- @HeggieTBK; 10:24pm 4th February 2019

I have been called disgusting, despicable, bloody awful etc for it...why? Because I dared to suggest a man might be disadvantaged based on gender. Equality, it seems, is only attractive if it applies to our preconceived ideas of the underdog.

First of all lets just go over the facts. Both disappearances involved young white British university students. Daniel disappeared first - he was last seen alive around 1am on Thursday January 31st 2019. Sadly his body was found in a lake on campus five days later but he was still missing at the time of the tweet. Libby vanished less than 24 hours later - last seen at 11:40pm. At the time of blogging she remains unfound. 

Let me go through a few key points for a moment here...

• Neither student has been flagged in the media for being an especially at-risk individual (eg. medical issues or disability) which would be an acceptable contributing factor to the discrepancy in coverage. In short, both cases are strikingly similar and noteworthy for being the same day - making an assessment of the coverage that bit easier. However, I certainly acknowledge that what I personally have seen is just a partial sample. I deliberately wrote that it 'seems' to be a difference in coverage, not an absolute statement that this was the case.
• Contrary to what people inferred I never stated that the reason for any discrepancy was sexism. The question mark after 'everyday sexism' is significant here; I was SUGGESTING it as a cause or at least a contributing factor.
• A few people claimed that Libby's case got more coverage because she had gone missing more recently. At the time, Daniel had been missing 22 hours longer, not that a matter of hours should matter - if one had been already missing weeks or months it would be different. Indeed, at least one person claimed Daniel had been missing since New Year's Eve, confusing his case with another. A genuine mistake or perhaps another sign that Daniel's case really was less reported?
• Several people asserted that Daniel's family wanted privacy and that was the reason his case got less media attention. This may be so - but is it acceptable that a missing young person should get more or less attention based on their family's interaction with the press? I certainly understand that some families actively drive media campaigns, especially after the first flush of interest dies down but just because a distressed family aren't keen to talk to journalists or make TV appearances doesn't mean their loved-one shouldn't still be front page news. The missing person should take precidence over their family's actions / inactions.

One of the weirdest accusations leveled against me was that I was "trying to score points" off these people's disappearances. What the hell is that even supposed to MEAN? It's not a game. I was commenting on my perception of current affairs. I could comment until the cows come home on how historically the disappearances of various young people have been handled in the press - girls and young women getting far more attention than boys, men and older women; whites getting more attention than other ethnicities; well-off getting more attention than the poor. I have nothing to gain from my speculation, it merely bothered me that the lad at a university geographically close to me seemed to be getting mentioned as a footnote to a girl's disappearance. I would not be happy if my child's disappearance only seemed to be mentioned as an afterthought in the coverage of another person's case.

For many the problem seems to be applying the word 'sexism' to a scenario where the male is disadvantaged on grounds of gender. Men ARE disadvantaged in many ways in our society; they are inherently distrusted, a woman's word is valued more highly; men are disadvantaged in many careers and in custody hearings. But people seem to find acknowledging this distasteful.

Now, those of you who have read my blogs will know that I am agender. I am biologically (and presenting) female but I don't identify as such - my sex has nothing to do with who I am as a human being. I don't expect to be treated better or worse for being biologically female; the only reason that should matter is in terms of sex-differentiated medical conditions. I am also the parent of two biologically female offspring - one is at uni, the other has graduated. I don't expect them to be treated any differently based on their biological sex or gender identities either! I am not beyond imagining myself to be the parent of male offspring who I also would not want treated any differently based on gender. This is what equality means to me.

The only reasons to treat people differently in this scenario is if one was at more risk than another - one is an insulin-dependent diabetic, for example, or if there are specific indications of foul play. It makes me mad to think that a young woman is considered to be at greater risk than a young man purely because she is female. Like men cannot be victims of sexual assault or violence. It makes me mad that people think their fathers / brothers / husbands / sons deserve anything different than their mothers / sisters / wives / daughters.

I have commented a number of times that I dislike 'feminism' and prefer the term 'egalitarian'. Strictly speaking the one is a branch of the other but to me, feminism implies firstly the necessity of a female identity (and there are self-identified feminists who disregard non-cis females - there are also groups of feminists who disregard the problems specific to women of colour - feminism is not especially inclusive) and also a strong suggestion that women are inherently disadvantaged and victimised. On this second point I disagree. I know that my own experiences of being female aren't an absolute but I cannot relate to issues such as cat-calling or being disrespected on ground of gender. I am not saying these things are not common but at 40 years old I can only say that I have not experienced them - I can be indignant that others have suffered but so many interpretations of feminism start from a position of victimhood that I cannot identify with...and even if I could, I do not find strength in victimhood. I prefer to assume I have power; that I am equal to anyone else.

Now obviously, that is all about me and why I look at things the way I do. I understand that others are different, of course I do. But I find it confusing how my tweet calling for actual meaningful equality resulted in personal attacks on me. That their are women who think wanting males to be treated equally is unacceptable is both weird and disturbing but the fact that men responded angrily to my tweet I find utterly baffling. Is that toxic masculinity - men who are offended that any man could be considered as vulnerable as a female? Or is it toxic feminism - convincing men that their needs are less than those of women?

Maybe Daniel and Libby's disappearances were treated equally in the press...but why are people (of a non journalist persuasion) so offended by the suggestion that they weren't? In my humble opinion this is why true equality is a long way off for our society - because we still can't acknowledge that certain forms of inequality even exist. I for one only want equality if it really is the same set of rights and privileges for everyone.

UPDATE
Libby Squire's body was found in the Humber 7 weeks after her disappearance and is being treated as a potential homicide.
Daniel Williams' death was considered misadventure - drowning under the influence of alcohol.
I'm not saying Daniel didn't die in a tragic accident or that Libby wasn't murdered but it still seems odd from my outside perspective that the cases STILL strikingly similar seem to be considered so differently - that the male caused his own death but that the girl must've been hurt by someone else? Presumably there is some evidence but what evidence would there be if a drunk lad was pushed into a freezing lake? I also wonder what evidence of foul play they might have in Libby's case as nearly 2 months in the water isn't good for preserving traces...

Cleaner Controversy

This is an old news one but it popped up on Facebook again today and although I ranted about it elsewhere I decided a blog post was probably still called for.

The story in question surrounds a 'controversial' photograph of a female cleaner being 'made to' remove pro-International Women's Day graffiti from steps at Oxford University; and the university being 'forced' to apologise for their 'gaffe' (please pay attention to all the sarcastic quote marks here)

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43335030

1) The cleaner's gender.

• Cleaners are stereotypically women as more women take part-time low-paid work. This is not a marker of social class, intelligence, capability or 
• Has anyone asked the cleaner what their gender identity is? I am biologically female and I am agender. I will use female pronouns in this blog to avoid confusion but this is an important point.
• The assumption that as a woman she would support International Women's Day and be offended by being 'made to' clean up the graffiti. Or perhaps conversely the assumption that a male cleaner would NOT support IWD and would not be offended by the task. personally I would have been 'offended' by the twat who wrote the graffiti that I then had to clean off.

2) Being made to clean up the graffiti.

• Literally complaining about her doing her job here. 
• I've seen comments assuming that she has no choice but to work as a cleaner - assuming she has no choice in her employment, assuming she has no qualifications or skills - that may indeed be the case, many cleaners ARE unskilled and most are not earning a decent wage BUT it's still a gross assumption. I earned a degree while working as a cleaner. I have known cleaners who do the job as 'pocket money' and a way to keep fit and active. Some are mums who just want something outside the home, some are older women just killing time before claiming their pensions, others have a well-paid spouse but still want independence.
• I've seen comments that a cleaner works INDOORS ONLY...obviously the commenter has never done cleaning work. I worked in a school and did tasks such as carrying classroom furniture into the playground to scrub it all down. There were also comments about it being one of the coldest days of the year which I find incredibly condescending - like women, by biology or gender identity, shouldn't be working outdoors in the cold; this is not equality.
• I've seen comments about it being 'the patriarchy' in action - men making a woman do a menial task. See above comments about the irrelevance of her gender in the argument. Also, we do not know whether she was told to clean it off or did so as part of her regular duties, we do not know the gender of any person telling her to clean the steps, we do not know the gender of the person who wrote the graffiti.

3) The acceptance of the graffiti.

• Apparently writing in chalk all over stuff is an 'Oxford tradition' and therefore acceptable. I thought Oxford was supposed to be a world's best educational institution so why are they legitimising childish and illegal graffitiing?! Next it'll be defending pub brawls as cultural property...
• Somehow being chalk rather than spray paint makes it acceptable.
  Yes, chalk is a better medium for drawing on a surface that isn't yours - for the very relevant point that it's EASIER TO CLEAN OFF - but mostly I think that if you want to make a political statement you should be doing it without defacing someone else's property. I REALLY don't like graffiti, can you tell?! I think it can be an amazing artform but unless it's done well and with consent I do not approve.
• The fact it's "Happy International Women's Day" rather than an expletive or a crude outline of a penis makes it acceptable. IWD is not a greetings card holiday which people go around saying this phrase to each other. I wonder if there would have been a similar outcry if it had been a black cleaner scrubbing off the phrase "Joyous Kwanzaa" or a Muslim cleaner removing "Eid Mubarak"?
• Being a political statement doesn't make it somehow better than other graffiti - "Loz woz ere" or whatever. I believe in equality but the presumption that women are somehow inevitably disadvantaged in a world of men is not something I either agree with and I think it is potentially very harmful. I literally just read this article* where a man is making light of his experiences as a domestic violence survivor and I can't help but think that's because of the way men are disadvantaged in our society. Men are frequently not taken seriously regards sexual assault and domestic violence, they are less likely to win custody of their children, they get less support during many scenarios such as when diagnosed with breast cancer. Inequality works both ways and cannot be resolved by feminism.
  *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/girlfriend-sword-attack-scared-living-poop-article-1.3876246
• Mostly I think that you do not draw or write, in any medium, on something which is not yours. My dad is arguing against me painting a mural on the side of his shed despite the fact that it's an ugly breeze block wall which forms part of the boundary wall of my garden. I wouldn't dream of painting on his property (in the sense of (i) on the grounds of his property or (ii) off the grounds on a side that isn't mine - like the roadfront side of his garden wall) but I have doubts as to whether he can control what I do on my side of the line. It's HIS shed but it's also MY boundary. If I wanted to drill holes in it and put up trellis I'm reasonably sure I could... It'd be the same with painting your side of a garden fence on a boundary you do not own.