What’s Up With Sex Today?

Thursday, 20 September 2018

Gender seems to be causing problems these days. Some people feel that it is improper to use the terms “male” and “female”, and they support their argument using science.

But you can describe a human being in great scientific detail without actually describing the person at all in any useful or meaningful way. But because science is used to manipulate, especially when it appears very complicated, it’s worth paying it some attention.It’s not daunting at all. In fact, most people remember from early high school science or biology class that there are two types of  “chromosomes” that come in pairs – one is X and the other is Y.

The SRY gene on the Y-chromosome activates all the other male-associated genes, so males have an XY-chromosome pairing, and females have an XX-chromosome pairing.

That’s nearly all there is to know – except to consider what happens when things go wrong.

Note that mutations are random, not inherited, and extremely rare.

  • One example of such a mutation is a male with an extra Y-chromosome – XYY syndrome – resulting in the male having learning difficulties, being very tall, and having lots of acne.
  • Another is Klinefelter syndrome – XXY syndrome – resulting in reading difficulties, being very tall, weakness, infertility and growing breasts.
  • Even rarer than Klinefelter syndrome is De la Chapelle syndrome or XX Male syndrome, where the father’s Y-chromosome SRY gene somehow gets attached to the XX-chomosome pairing, resulting in physical male characteristics of varying degrees.
  • While these are extremely rare, there is an even more rare variant – they call it “SRY negative XX male” – the cause of which remains something of a mystery!

It’s the mutations that are causing the problems for some people; for them it means that it is impossible to define “male” and “female”. This is silly and quite misleading.

Mutations are the exceptions that prove the rule.


By Syko lozz – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4538118

In the vast majority of cases, females have XX-chromosomes and males have XY-chromosomes. It is silly to try to split terms and make things more complicated – for example, to suggest that you can be physically male, but a female because of an XX-chromosome pair, at the same time as genetically male because of SRY being present. This complexity is designed to confuse and confound – that a person can be defined as both male and female at the same time!

Then hormones are brought into cause further complexity – females with higher levels of male hormone are called “hormonally male”. It’s too much. It’s ridiculous.

These pseudo-science arguments detract from the message – the real argument – which is that we should be kind to people.

My arguing against pseudo-science is not an argument against being nice to people.

If a man wants to physically turn into a woman (and vice versa) that’s up to them. If a person’s sexual reference is for red-heads or people of the same gender, fine; it’s none of my business.

The problem is not about people, the problem is about systems.

We do not have systems in place to deal with this type of thing. We have tax laws based on heterosexual relationships, we have male and female bathrooms, we have greeting cards that presume babies to be boys or girls.

We do not have the etiquette to help us – what do we call someone who is transitioning from one gender to another? What is a universally acceptable term for an XX male – which bathroom should be used?

So instead of arguing for all people to be accepted, the onus ought to be on those people to help us all navigate this brave new world. The fight should be to create the etiquette and get the systems in place so that success can be possible.

What Do People Stand For?

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

It is often said that the victors write history, but today history is being rewritten by people with niche agendas, and this is usually divisive and therefore ” a bad thing”.

In the USA and post-Soviet states, passions are running high about old civic statues of long-dead people – and some people are trying to bring this notion to Britain.

Afua Hirsch has asked for a revisionist review of Nelson and Churchill from a racist viewpoint. Why? What good would come of this?

It is true that modern eyes look upon the “olden days” with amazement – back then people freely took drugs, drank alcohol all day, smoked and were sexist, racist, bigoted with poor hygiene and no chance to vote.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It is also true that some people were all for votes, equality for women, against smoking and the rest. This is because it is how things go – it is frankly silly to suggest that 100% of everyone was (for example) racist or pro-slave trade; there is always a natural spread of opinions that may well, in the end, give sway to a majority statistic in favour of racism, meaning that there will always be some percentage in opposition.

Afua Hirsch and others fail to realise that Nelson and Churchill can be “of that time” and that just because she has found some other people with different opinions doesn’t detract from that;  it is fair to say that the majority in the past did – openly and happily – have a tendency to white supremacy, however unpalatable that may be to us all today. Deal with it.

To help deal with it, I found it helpful to know that discovered and explored lands were tested against a tick box list to discover if the people were civilised or barbarian. The Indians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians and Chinese were found to be civilised, among others, and paid due respect, whereas many African tribes that failed the test were declared “barbarian” – which had an internationally agreed understanding – that these uncivilised/ uncivilisable creatures were equal to animals, and so could be owned and traded in the same manner as livestock. They simply were not considered “human”.

So let’s look again at Nelson and Churchill – yes, they were with the majority of the time, and yes there were some contemporary dissenters. But it’s not about judging them in any of the lights, now or then; it is not about excusing them nor apologising for them either.

Rather it is to know that whether these men held those opinions is unimportant because they did not become who they became in consideration of such views.

In other words, their views on racism make no difference to what they mean to us culturally; it just is not in the equation.

It is all to do with separating the man from what he represents, what he stands for. Both Nelson and Churchill represent victory, the triumph of good over evil, freedom over enslavement, the continuum of Britain as Britain.

It doesn’t matter if the man is gay, red-haired, short of stature, has a stutter, walks with a limp, has debts or is racist. Yet people don’t see that these days.

Today, increasingly, what matters is everything but the heroic, the inspirational, the Thing Represented.

That’s a shame.

Knowing Rock Hudson was gay didn’t matter a lot to me, but it did to others. I like the music of Richard Wagner – he may have been a Nazi sympathiser, but that is not what he – nor his music – represents. I may agree or disagree with Picasso’s political stance but still love his work.

People like Afua want to destroy what people represent, leaving nothing but a bad taste.

I am happy to remember the good and charitable work done over many years by Jimmy Savile. Savile – it seems – was a bad person in his private life, but he wasn’t representing that, he wasn’t advocating that view. He stood for charity, raising money and awareness, and as such was a force for good. People are complex, and it may well be that the allegations of sexual misconduct are true, but his good work was not done in that name.

You have to ask yourself what any historical figure represents – because that is greater and more inspirational than any fallible mortal man. In truth, there is no such thing as a real hero, so to have a hero, we must allow the bad stuff to be ignored/ forgotten. Most of the stuff we call bad today was less bad back in the day, and our hero has to fit in.

If we dig too deep, if we invade celebrity privacy if we snoop, if we use paparazzi – we learn too much, and if we know too much, then all that is good, all that may be inspirational and positive is destroyed.

Kevin Spacey is a great actor – but now he’s being erased from existence.

I am not asking for despots and murderers to be forgiven nor encouraged, merely that we are allowed to revere in ignorance, to allow ourselves to be inspired by people from the past – and not to have to think about the strange racist world they inhabited.


How Design Really Changes Lives

Monday, 28 February 2011

IT IS often said that no-one notices good design, but everyone notices when cupboard doors collide, window latches cannot be reached, or games consoles break.  Everyone knows bad design.

It is true that we all put up with badly designed road traffic systems, and we know that cars could be designed better. There are many products, buildings, and organisational structures that could be improved upon with a little consideration and care.

Design — good or bad — is far more important than it gets credit for.  Design affects us all very deeply indeed.  It you think again about the phrase used to open this article —  if no-one notices good design, then it must be the case that it operates on an unconscious level.  So design is affecting us all the time, whether we know it or not.

Design can give us repetitive strain injury, design can help save lives. It is a wonderful thing, and I hope to show here how recent changes in design have changed us into 21st century people, and that it has affected our culture and lifestyles, and that it may continue to do so. Read the rest of this entry »

How To Be A Boss

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

[Penguin leadership picture]A LOT of people say they want to be a boss without realising what it means for them.  You always have to give up something to get something else, and the trade off here is something that comes as a shock to many.

Ask any good boss — they will tell you that they found out early on that this means no friends in the workplace, and you have to accept that as the deal, but this causes problems for a lot of folk starting out.  In any workplace, it is easy to spot the serious, ambitious ones.  They shun small talk and fun in favour of climbing the corporate ladder. They do not need friends — that is the message.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why People Stay Fat

Wednesday, 23 June 2010

[Picture of A FATTY]OBESITY seems to be a problem.  There is a solution, but vested interests means that the solution is hidden or confused by misinformation.

Before I tell you the solution, I suppose I have to qualify the above statement, and I have to eliminate all the counter arguments to clear the way for the solution to surface. Read the rest of this entry »

Who To Vote For

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

ELECTIONS for a new UK government are to be announced within the next few weeks.

My subscribers and lurking readers will know that I am not convinced that we have the best form of government, regardless of what party wins (See What is The Best Form of Government); I am not a democrat.

I know that this can be quite a stunning remark, but I try to explain that democracy is impossible to define, and a myth at the end of the day in “What is Democracy Anyway?

However, we are where we are, and we Read the rest of this entry »

How Sport is Flawed

Sunday, 21 February 2010

[Picture of Laurel Wreath]MY argument here is simple: sport is about athletes and spectators.  Human beings, individuals, and even teams — but not countries, and not political or religious ideologies. Read the rest of this entry »

How The Brits are Cheated

Thursday, 17 December 2009

[Picture of ruler with inches and mm]BRITS are hard-done by when it comes to software. This is a constant annoyance to me because I use a lot of software all day long. The problem is down to the difference between the USA and the UK — the so-called American English and British English. Read the rest of this entry »

Why Name Changes are Bad

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

[Picture of an Old Globe]I AM going to argue here that we ought to refuse to accept requests from abroad to change English names of countries and cities on the grounds that it is potentially manipulative, definitely confusing, and that it robs that country of all respect due from an historical association. Read the rest of this entry »

What is Class?

Sunday, 23 August 2009

[Picture of Low Caste women]CLASS is an emotive word, it is in common usage — yet it is often hard to pin down; everyone seems to have a different opinion on the meaning of class, and — perhaps more importantly, on the effects and implications of a class system.

There are different Read the rest of this entry »