The Gender Spectrum Explained

I've been following the various controversies regarding gender issues with increasing interest over the last year or so. In the process my opinions have become a little more fixed, and I feel it may be time to express them here on this blog. Some of the opinions will no doubt offend some readers, however this is not my aim, so I hope anyone reading will appreciate my sincerity if not the content.

The idea of gender-fluidity in particular seems something shrouded in confusion at the moment. I would agree that there is some fluidity regarding gender, but that the fluidity isn't quite as fluid as many of the more vocal proponents of the idea often claim.

It might be easier if we imagine a spectrum of gender. At one end extreme masculinity, at the other extreme femininity. With a slightly blurred dividing line in the middle.

(A hypothetical Gender Spectrum where 100 on the left would

represent extreme masculinity and 100 on the right extreme femininity)

Now each of us are born somewhere on this hypothetical (and admittedly crude) spectrum. For instance, I myself am male. However, I'm not the most manly male you'll ever meet. I'm not especially muscly. I don't have a very deep voice. I don't have particularly masculine features. If I had to put myself somewhere on the above chart I'd probably reluctantly put myself somewhere roundabout the 40 mark on the male side. I say reluctantly, because as well as being male I'm also straight, and if I'm being truly honest I would have to say that I'd like members of the opposite sex to see me as being very masculine and consequently more attractive.

Now this gets to the point at hand quite neatly. I could make myself more masculine. I could go to the gym every day to build my muscles. I could change my diet and lifestyle with the aim of increasing the flow of my male hormones. I could even seek medical treatment and utilise medication. Likewise I could do these things to make myself more feminine. However, there is a limit to how far I can change my nature. No matter how much I try to make myself more manly I'll never be as manly as someone who was born at the far end of the masculine spectrum. And the women that I hope to impress by my endeavours may still view me as being less manly than the more brutish, lumbering jocks I'm up against.

Now, sadly, this is just the way it is, and there isn't too much I can do about it. I may think that the women judging me are being unfair, however I can't force them to see me as more manly. Nor would I want them to pretend they see me as being more masculine just to make me feel better. Though a little sympathy and consideration would be nice :)

If I was born around the 40 mark on the male side of this graph then to some extent I'll always be around that mark, whatever I do - though there is some fluidity, and I may be able to move myself a little one way or the other. Plus, because I'm comfortably on the male side, I'll always be male. And my underlying physiology will always be male, no matter how extremely I try to change this.

So, people can become more feminine or masculine, but the only people who can truly move from the male side to the female side (or vice versa) are the people born around the middle of this chart.

Of course, it should also be noted that there are people who are born with actual physical hermaphroditism. Where their gender is physically undefined or difficult to define. There are also other genetic conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome that can result in hormonal problems. (These issues go beyond the scope of this article and my knowledge on such topics is very limited. So my apologies to anyone reading this if I've misunderstood or misrepresented these issues in any way.)

My own feeling is that people born with actual physical, biological conditions that result in gender issues are often under-represented in the debates surrounding this topic. I feel it's important that everyone on all sides of the argument appreciate that in some cases these decisions are forced upon people, and the parents of people born with such conditions, through no choice of their own.

As for the more contentious issue of people that are born with no such physical condition, but who feel that they have been assigned, or have been born into the wrong gender, this is a slightly different matter. My honest position is one of scepticism. How can someone define what it feels like to be a certain gender? Or how a female brain thinks in a way that is fundamentally different to how a man would think? How can someone make this judgement without it being anything other than subjective? I may feel I think like a man, but without experiencing life through the eyes of another man, or indeed the eyes of a woman, how can I make a relative judgement?

However, saying this, I am very much open to the possibility that some people may have this exact experience, and may feel like the opposite sex from a very early age. I know one transgender person in my real everyday life who claims to have always felt "like a girl" from as young as three years old. I remain sceptical though.

What I would say is that I think it's fundamentally wrong for parents to allow children to be given gender reassignment medication or medical treatment if it's simply based on such feelings. To base such important and serious decisions on something so subjective, without any objective physical evidence to back that up is very dangerous and irresponsible in my opinion.

Of course, that's not to say that I have an issue with adults doing such things for the same reasons. In a free society adults should always have the freedom to change their own body as they wish, and I would always defend a person's right to do so - though I may disagree with their choices at times myself. However, to put an otherwise physically healthy child through such treatment is something I'm very much opposed to, and I can't stress that enough in this article.

I also feel uncomfortable with the idea of telling children that their gender is fluid in school lessons. Especially if it gives the impression that it's perfectly easy to transition from one sex to another. I think gay and lesbian children will be particularly confused by such talk. It's not too hard to imagine that a young girl, noticing that she's attracted to other girls and not boys, could easily come to the erroneous conclusion that she's a boy trapped in a girl's body. The idea that it's easy and completely routine to make such a transition would no doubt make the temptation to think such thoughts even more likely.

People often point out that sexual preference and gender are two different things, and they're quite right to do so. However, there is a little bit of correlation between the two. Obviously sex and gender are quite heavily linked - the very purpose of sex in nature being to procreate. So the two issues can't ever be completely separated.

It's also interesting to note, though I may be wandering a little off topic here, that there are benefits and disadvantages to being born on all parts of the gender and sexual spectrum. It could also be argued that it's beneficial to society to have people from all parts of it.

In my general experience there seems to be a bit of a balanced relationship between sex and creativity. For example, at both ends of the spectrum we have the same stereotypical image - at one end the dizzy, ditzy, but attractive woman, and at the other end the ape-like dominant male. The stereotypical bimbo and the stereotypical jock. Now both these stereotypes are generalisations and perhaps a little bit unfair as well. However, there is some truth to these generalisations, and in a general sense at least I think most people would agree they recognise these stereotypes. The people at the extreme ends of the gender spectrum also tend to be the people who are more successful with the opposite sex, and more likely to settle down and have children. A very important job in society of course.

Alternately we can also see that people towards the middle of this spectrum tend to be more creative and academic. Most pop stars and musicians, both male and female, have a tendency towards the androgynous. This is quite clear to see from Bowie to Lady Gaga and so on. Also, if you imagine say, a science laboratory, you'll probably notice that most the men working there are a little more on the geeky side than the musclebound. And likewise the women there will tend to be more serious than girly. Again these are stereotypical generalisations, and there are of course countless exceptions to the rule. There is though a certain truth to these observations.

Returning to myself. Though it's a little disappointing that I'll never be considered the most rough and manly of males to many of the women I meet. At the same time I probably wouldn't be sat here writing this article if I was more of a stereotypical unthinking hulk. There are benefits to both positions, and neither are necessarily right or wrong - just different. Wider society probably benefits from having this variation too.

The natural influence sexual desire has on society means that it can be hard for people outside the statistical norms of both sex and gender. We all have this innate desire to be found attractive. Or even just to simply fit in. So if we don't fit the norm it can be difficult, and the further from the norm the harder it often gets. Consequently the small fraction of people that are born on the blurred line of the gender divide often have it hardest of all. So it's important that such people are given the utmost consideration by wider society. However, it's also important that honest consideration is given. The reality is that there may be no easy answers for people born in such difficult positions. Pretending everyone is equally normal doesn't really work in real life. It just creates a false facade over an already existing reality.

I also worry that our desire to normalise people that are statistically-speaking not normal is kind of missing the point a little bit. Maybe this otherness should be acknowledged as other and celebrated as such. Androgynous rock stars are not normal people, and if everyone was normal there would be no such rock stars. Or poets, or painters, or original thinkers.

There are benefits to being different as well as negative consequences. Maybe both these aspects need to be considered when we think about the type of society we'd like to live in. I often think of how in India people born with physical differences are worshipped as gods. I'm not sure how true this is, or how practically useful this would be in reality, but in some ways it does seem like a more healthy attitude to have. Maybe it's because of our inherited western mindset that we have this situation where if a child is born, let's say hermaphrodite, we see the need to medicate the "problem" away so no one ever sees it, and so that the child can go through life appearing perfectly normal to everyone else.

Maybe if we had a different cultural heritage having a friend that was hermaphrodite would be no different to having a friend that was gay or lesbian. Maybe it would just be another natural variation of the human type.

A non-VaporWAVE Election Manifesto

Okay, so we're now firmly in the run-up to #GE2017 and it's all a bit backwards looking. Jeremy Corbyn, though he seems like a perfectly honest guy, seems to want to take us back to the 1970s, and the Tories seem to be offering nothing but the status quo ..plus Brexit, which I hope they're sincere about, but have my doubts.

It's like being given the choice between going back to the 80's or going back to the 70's. It's a retro-election of sorts. A cut and paste rehash of all the old stuff - #vaporwave 2017.

I genuinely have no idea how I'm going to vote at the moment ..or even if I will at all.

Anyway, in my frustration over the last couple of days I've been thinking about what my manifesto would look like were I to run. There's no doubt quite a lot of stuff I've missed out and a few things in here I maybe haven't quite thought through enough yet, but here's what I've come up with so far.

I have six main pledges;


#1 Abolish the BBC License Fee

This is an easy one. Everyone saves money, private enterprise can then expand into all the areas that the BBC is currently dominating with its huge unfair state subsidy.



#2 Parents given the Right to Choose their Child's School Hours

All parents will be given the right to send their children to school as much or as little as they see fit.

For example, if a parent feels the school day is too long and would prefer their child to only attend on the mornings they would be free to do this. This would give parents greater control over their child's education and well being. It would also help to free up time and resources. For example, if the parents of a class of 30 children all opted to only send their child to school on the morning or the afternoon it would effectively half the classroom size to 15 - meaning that the time spent at school, though shorter, would be calmer and more beneficial.

It would also mean that parents wishing to home-school their children, but unable to do so because of work commitments would be able to divide their child's education between home and school. For example, sending their child to school on the days that they're in work, but home-schooling on the days they have free.



#3 A "Living Space" Initiative

I would implement a massive building boom, paid for by the taxpayer and managed directly by the government. The housing would be made available to rent or buy at dirt-cheap rates. Under-cutting the lowest rents and market values in any given area that the housing was built. They would be made available to anyone to rent, but only UK citizens, born in the UK, who own no other residential property would be entitled to buy them. People in the age group of 20-40 would be prioritised, though the option to buy would be open to anyone meeting the above criteria.

The building boom would be a deliberate and continual one. The aim being part of a wider plan to extend the "living space" rights of UK citizens. The idea being that everyone should be entitled to own enough land/space to live on, and that no-one should be forced to pay another person, by rent or otherwise, to simply have a place to sleep at night.

"Living space" in effect can be seen as an extension of "personal space". A basic entitlement which we all intuitively understand.



#4 Homelessness Winter Pledge

Every year, between the months of September and April, any homelessness in any UK city or town would be considered a "national emergency" and funding would be prioritised accordingly. Plans would also be put in place to share such costs fairly in order to stop boroughs and councils from simply shifting homeless people from one town or city to the next as often happens now.



#5 Benefits Sanctions to be Capped at 50% of the Benefit

Any sanctions imposed on job-seekers to be restricted to at most 50% of the benefit. This would effectively create a bottom line safety net that any unemployed person would be entitled to whatever their circumstances or compliance.

This initiative would also act as the starting point for the gradual introduction of a citizens income for all UK citizens. However, this would be a long term aim beyond the scope of the next parliament.

Most would agree that all sanctions imposed on unemployed people are abhorrent, and even those who advocate their use and effectiveness generally view them as a necessary evil. The idea that sanctions, as they currently stand, mean the loss of someone's entire benefit and sole source of income is simply unacceptable. The above initiative would hopefully be something of a halfway house.



#6 Any Future "QE" Stimulus to be Fairly Implemented

In the event of any serious economic slump, if the government or the Bank of England deems it necessary to introduce another round of "Quantitative Easing", then the money will be filtered into the economy directly through the public, instead of being used to purchase financial assets.

Any "new" money created will effectively be "given" to the public. Every UK citizen over the age of 16 will have an equal share of the total deposited directly into their bank account. It will be deposited in installments over monthly periods for however long is deemed necessary. This will increase spending in the economy in a fair and democratic way. It will also help stimulate areas of the country in proportion to their general population.

EU by Stealth: How the Mainstream Media are Systematically Destroying UK Parliamentary Democracy

We all hate politicians right. They're just the worst. The biggest crooks. The bane of our lives. If only we didn't have them things would be so much better. Correct?

Well, actually, no. Why do we all hate politicians? - and universally so. Everyone, from left to right, from the most asleep mainstream sheeple to the full on "conspiracy theorists" like myself, we all share this common hatred ..and I think we may all be falling for one of the biggest psy-ops the Media-Intelligence Networks are playing on us.

First up we need politicians, we can't have representational democracy without some people filling the role of politician.

Secondly, is it fair to decry all politicians as bad, dishonest and dishonourable? Surely we the electorate should be discerning between the good and the bad politicians; the honest and the dishonest. And if necessary even standing for election ourselves - in which case we would hope that potential voters would judge us on our individual record and not simply revert to the mantra; this person is a politician, therefore this person is de facto bad and deserving of hate.

The successful functioning of democracy depends upon us voters using our judgement and discernment. When we decry all politicians as bad, or wash our hands of the political process altogether we're failing in our duty as citizens.

It's my belief that the mainstream media have played a big part in fomenting this collective apathy we have. So let's look at the many ways in which the media are undermining the political process. (In this article I'm writing from a British perspective, but I'm sure the same or similar applies in most other countries as well.)

One large event in Britain was the MP expenses scandal. Now I can't defend some of the ridiculous things MPs were claiming on their expenses, nor would I want to, however, the collective effect on the public consciousness was to deem all politicians feckless and greedy.

On top of this there are the endless scandals surrounding the fact that MPs often employ members of their own family as aides and secretaries (in fact, in France at the moment many politicians are coming under media scrutiny for this as well). Now again I wouldn't want to defend every instance of this kind of nepotism and I'm sure there have been numerous abuses, however the practise of employing relatives, if lost, will badly damage democracy. It will make individual politicians even more dependant on the state and the media, increasingly less independent, and consequently much worse at representing you.

In order to understand this you have to put yourself in the position of a politician. Let's say you're a decent, honest politician that has entered politics for noble reasons by getting yourself elected. You're something of an outsider and are new to the corridors of power. Now you need a secretary to help you do your job properly, however you need someone you can trust. You can't just put out an advert and hire anyone that walks into your office, you're doing a quite serious job.

Sure, you can get the person vetted by the intelligence agencies, but what if you don't trust the intelligence agencies? What if you're a politician that the state isn't too keen on? You're an individual politician in a complex political world - the only people you can truly trust and rely on are the people that you already know, in particular your close family members and friends. It would make perfect sense to employ these people in some capacity.

If I was a politician I would most definitely employ a family member as my secretary and confidant.

Not to enrich that family member, but because I would want trusted people around me. It would strengthen my position and make me more able to achieve my aims. I know for a fact that I would be weak and vulnerable if I allowed myself to be isolated and alone in the murky world of politics. I certainly wouldn't want to risk having a shill or spy working alongside me managing all my personal and business affairs.

Now however, thanks to the mainstream media, politicians are unable to utilise their own family members. Individual politicians are therefore more isolated and much more easy to pick off by their enemies than otherwise would be the case. They have to be state functionaries now. Professional employees of the state who are expected to act as such. They can't have an individual power base from which to challenge the state itself.

Another way the media continues to undermine the role of the British politician is by constantly denouncing any plans that there may be to increase their pay. In the aftermath of the expenses scandal it was suggested that MPs should have their pay increased - a perfectly logical response. The reasoning being that an adequately paid MP wouldn't need to claim on their expenses. In fact, the general view at the time was that MPs were claiming on their expenses under the impression that they were justified in supplementing their relatively meagre pay packet that way. In effect it was a fudged system where the expenses perks were off-setting the perceived low pay.

Now again, the pay that MPs receive may seem like quite a lot compared to the average pay of a UK worker, however if we value the democratic process we need to pay MPs accordingly. If democracy is important to us then the job they're doing must also be important and worthy of decent pay. They need to be financially comfortable enough to concentrate on that job ..AND they need to be relatively un-'bribe'-able.

Also it must be kept in mind that a politician may only be in their job for a few years  - if they're fearful of losing their job at the next election because of personal financial worries then moral purpose and dedication to duty may take a backseat. Even for relatively honest and decent politicians this may be the case, especially if they have a family to take care of.

The mainstream media also has a habit (in my opinion a deliberate habit) of attacking all honest and independent-minded politicians and giving shill or "career-politicians" an easy ride. Just look at the treatment politicians like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage get from the media compared to their more scripted colleagues.

The media also gives UK politicians ample opportunity to look like complete idiots. Take Ed Balls and Ann Widdecombe on Strictly Come Dancing for instance. Ed Balls was once one of the stronger figures in the British Labour Party, and he always comes across as one of the more decent ones whenever I read up on the Blair/Brown years (though his wife seems like an Orwellian schoolmarm XD). Now though he's dancing around on TV in spandex. George Galloway meowing around on Big Brother dressed as a cat also springs to mind.

It seems to my eyes that the British Parliament is being systematically undermined by the media, and that any genuine independent voices are being purged from within it.

We really need to start using our discernment, and to start believing in the role of the politician even if not in the politicians themselves.

The Billion Dollar Mouse Problem

This may seem like quite a mundane post, but it's actually quite an important one to me, and one I've been meaning to write for a while. It concerns the problem of mouse infestations - I know, quite a prosaic topic. I've worked at quite a lot of normal jobs over the years and I've noticed that this is a big problem pretty much everywhere, especially in retail and restaurant work.

I'm a vegetarian and quite hostile to the idea of killing innocent animals, however, at the same time practical experience tells me that this is a real problem, and one that companies and small businesses can't not deal with.

If you have a problem with mice, but aren't prepared to literally kill these little animals what can you do? The answer is, at the moment, very little. Apart from keeping things tidy and making it hard for mice to get access to food, it really is pretty much a case of exterminate or let them run riot. This is especially the case for businesses that can't afford to devote hours of man power doing all the little things that might help keep mice at bay - and this is pretty much all businesses these days.

On top of this extermination is never a complete solution - as mice will keep coming back as long as there's an environment in which they can thrive, no matter how many are killed.

It's like throwing down bird seed in the garden. You could get rid of every bird in your garden one day, but as long as there is food on the floor more will keep coming no matter how many you get rid of.

Now the obvious solution is to run a tidy ship and keep things nice and clean. However, in our bustling, interconnected world no business is an island. You can do everything in your power to limit the conditions for mice, but if the businesses next door are not following the same strict protocols you'll still suffer from their negligence. And more to the point your business will suffer more as the added expense you're going to in trying to tackle the problem is making you less competitive than your more cavalier neighbours.

So for me this is a very big problem that needs a solution. For personal and moral reasons I deem it an absolute tragedy that so many innocent and sentient mice are being killed daily. It's an endless cruelty that underpins our entire economy and is unacceptable in my opinion.

There's also the business imperative. Think of how much stock is written off on a daily basis due to mouse damage across the UK. Add to this the sheer number of man hours spent everyday trying to tackle the problem, not to mention the cost of the resources needed. I would love to see the figures on what it costs the economy on a yearly basis.

There's also the simple fact of how unfair it makes the marketplace. Companies that spend money dealing with the issue, or that go the extra mile to deal with the issue in an ethical way suffer, whilst laissez faire, profit obsessed companies fuel the problem for everyone else.

All the discount chains and takeaways that now proliferate on our high streets are creating havens of mice and rat infestation. It's impossible for any conscientious business to insulate themselves from this.

So what can be done? Surely we are intelligent enough to find more elegant solutions to this problem. I would say that first of all the problem needs recognising and raising to public discussion. Although it's not a glamorous topic to talk about I think politicians need to bring it to prominence. I also think that governments should allocate much more money to not only tackling the problem, but also to pushing new technologies and ideas to take things forward. We need a smarter attitude to this problem.

There should also be policies in place that reward businesses that try to deal with this issue in a progressive and ethical way. Likewise the interconnected nature of the problem needs recognising.

For my two cents one simple and practical thing that could be done is to regulate the packaging that pet and bird foods come in. Often the packaging that say a large bag of birdseed comes in is very flimsy and easily ripped (or nibbled through). Such poor packaging makes it very easy for mice to get access to food. Obviously most people are much less fussy about the food they buy for outdoor wildlife or household pets than they are when it comes to food they buy for themselves and their family. This means there's much less of an impetus for companies to go to the extra expense of providing decent packaging for these products.

It may sound like a small inconsequential thing, but at two separate places I've worked the mouse problem has started around the pet and bird food section. It's a real weak link in the chain. It could be so easily plugged.

To conclude, it seems no-one really appreciates the scale of this problem, or the potential reward of working around it, but it's costing the economy a lot of money, and leading to the endless unnecessary suffering of countless mice.

The daily mouse massacre is an unseen added cost to almost every transaction we make.

Homeless White Males.

The other day I was dropped off in town after finishing work. It was late-ish, about 8:30 pm and pretty cold. I popped in Tesco and outside there was a homeless guy that had fallen asleep whilst begging - he was still sitting up. It was a pretty harsh sight, but not an uncommon one these days.

A few weeks previously I'd decided to walk home at a similar time rather than wait for the bus (it was quite a mild night for December). It was a Friday and the bars and clubs were heaving, but outside every single one I passed there was at least one homeless person begging. It really was quite bad, and the contrast between the people in the bars having a good time and the people outside on the street was stark. I don't ever recall seeing this sort of homelessness at anytime in the past. I'm sure I can't be the only person noticing it.

I also can't help but contrast it with the Women's March on Washington that has recently taken place. It does seem like white males really have it pretty bad at the moment. Now I'm not saying that women, or non-whites, or any other group you care to mention don't have it bad as well. However, I do always try to gauge what's happening in society by using my own eyes and my own primary evidence, rather than being led by images in the media. And what I see is a lot of white males sleeping rough on the streets. The night I walked home I noticed one homeless white girl and the rest were all white guys.

So why is this issue not media worthy? Are white males such a problem that even homeless ones are undeserving of sympathy? Are people blinded even to the very possibility that white males can be victims in our society as well?

I would suggest that it's not deemed media-worthy as it doesn't serve the agendas our elites have planned, but that's another topic. At the moment I just want to simply highlight the issue and point out how unjust it is.

How can we tolerate people sleeping rough on the streets? Especially on nights as cold as these. Surely it's the birthright of all human beings to have a roof over their head. How is this issue being ignored? Why no protests over this?

I must admit I do feel a little uncomfortable mentioning that these homeless people are white, however it is what I see with my own eyes, and it would be remiss of me not to report honestly. There should be no taboo topics. If we can talk about white males when issuing blame, we should be able to talk about white males when highlighting injustice as well.

[I should mention for context that I live in the town of Middlesbrough, in the north of England. From what I've heard secondhand the exact same issue is common to most other towns and cities in the UK.]