This was a question I was asked last night, over pizza, gin and wine – and not necessarily in that order.
Or, more precisely, where on the male – female spectrum did I think I was? It was never something that I had considered previously, and I wasn’t, at the time, able to give what I felt was a definitive answer.
After some thought, I am still not sure. I have never been sexually attracted by a man, so theoretically I am right at the male end, especially adorned as I am with a pretty good beard.
However, I have always been more comfortable in the company of women, Never been particularly interested in the standard banter that seems to be the accepted veneer of masculinity, and would always consider women to be more suited to the management of power than men – the present incumbant being the exception that proves the rule.
However, this is a much bigger question than a spot on a continuum. And also much bigger than whether wages, working practices, access to facilities, opportunities and other pragmatic measures display equality between the sexes.
The evolution that is happening across the globe regarding gender neutrality is exciting, fascinating, and potentially revolutionary in its outcome. Where once it was easy to deny the existence of more than two clearly defined groups, with the mobility of people, and of information, denial is harder.
But, when faced with stronger opposition, the established consensus also becomes more entrenched, more extreme, more reactionary, more divisive and destructive.
This can be seen more and more clearly in the separations appearing across the world.
And, although the splits are not explicitly along gender lines, the driving force behind the denials is rooted in the established patriarchal power framework, and the revolution is rooted in the denial of the patriarchy’s right to that power.
The power is justified by the accepted concept of the genetic imperative, but the genus man evolved past that centuries ago. Unfortunately, significant numbers of men have not.
And before this is dismissed as middle class metro meanderings around an intellectual idea, let us look at the world as it is now.
Divided, divisive, destructive, and decisions dominated by men.
If that is not a good enough reason to change, to move along the continuum, at least in thought and attitude, then humanity stands little hope in the long-term.
It is, in the end, a stark choice between peace and war, humanity and inhumanity.
And the fundamental question is how long it will take, and how it will happen.
There is, thankfully, a fundamental optimism in the generation leading the demonstration of gender fluidity, and its potential to bring about fundamental change.
Because, as a jaded old cynic, I am less optimistic. Not that there will be change, because that will be inevitable, but that it will come at a huge cost. The proxy battles are already being played out in a variety of forms, and the denial mongers have the big guns.
The word is out there, and it is spreading. But there is a long way to go to get to the tipping point. And the accessible world, the developed world, will be easier. There are huge swathes yet untapped.
And the answer to the question at the beginning? Left of centre, in more ways than one!
cherokoffdotcom 