What's wrong with sex?

If ever a word was discriminated against by the modern broadcasters and politically correct journalists it is the word SEX. A very short word. It is not even a four-letter word. It has an absolute meaning, which for whatever reason, is being usurped by a prattish lot of poseurs and pimping politicians. As the late Lord Hailsham said, "sex is what you are, either male or female, nothing more!".

But it does mean more. "Having sex" is a popular expression, or it was. By popular, I mean it was frequently used by many in the populace. A fairly meaningless piece of English but well understood by everyone. Sex became a dirty word. So dirty in fact that it could not be cleaned up to impress the new-fangled lot who now infect every inch of the airwaves with their newfound word "GENDER"!

Gender is a far better word for them. It has no foul connotations. Anyone heard of "having gender"? Try shoving that one into a Hollywood blockbuster. Sex is on a backburner wordwise. This morning on the Today Programme Evan Davis asked about gender as if six or seven varieties were a possible answer. And that is the thing. Gender is so maleable as a word, whereas sex is not. "I'm a lady, yes I am!" "Come on, sir, what's yer name?" "BRIAN!"

All government forms ask about gender. Sex appears nowhere. It has been expunged from the forms, only to appear in the nether regions of a rusting computer's database. The same happened to Christian names. My mother got the frosty reply, "well, not all people are Christians!" when she once had the temerity to enquire about that. I suppose I would get a similar response if I tried to solicit an answer about sex. "Well, not all people are having sex, sir". Quite!

Sorry Bishop, no actresses!

Yes, it seems official. There are no more actresses. At least, that's what BBC News would have us believe. Every thespian is now an "ACTOR" regardless of "gender". Of course, it is this political correctness thing. An actress is probably deemed to imply an airhead. Can't allow that.

It is all getting horribly muddled. Everyone is having to appear on a scale of sexuality from the campest of the camp to the tightest-lipped straight guy. We all have a sexuality from the Twilight Zone as far as the authorities are concerned.

So, with certain elements of the Church of England clamouring for female prelates, the old joke about the actress and the bishop is moribund. It will in future entail sexually dubious bishops with sexually dubious thespians.

Of course it is all nonsense. As Lord Hailsham famously remarked, when telling Norman Fowler about grammar (re AIDS leaflets), "You can't "have sex" - sex is what you are, either male or female". In today's world, there are plenty who wish to deny this fact. For their own reasons everyone has to have an occupation of sexless recognition and we are actually supposed to have no definable sex. Male and female is too easy. Gender (a word hijacked from the grammatical sense) is now supposes to give the impression that there are several genders available.

Whilst there may be quite a few lifestyles practised, only male and female humans exist. Anything else is a figment of the imaginations of those that peddle these ideas.

Students' union in bizarre mental breakdown!

What is it with some students' unions. The one at the University of Manchester has gone into some kind of mental loopiness. They don't seem to know much and don't appear to have learnt much. For a start they don't know the difference between sex and gender. Of course gender is a hijacked word. No longer a grammatical term to distinguish between the male and female in the written language, it has become a word to mean any form of sexual proclivity on a scale of 1-100!
Not content with talking nonsense about "gender", they are also into the Humpty Dumpty world of making up words to suit themselves. "Transphobia"!!! Ever heard of it. Is it a phobia of going across something? No, it's a word they made up to have a go at the people they think are against trans-sexuals and trans-anything else. I imagine you could be transphobic on transport, transit systems, transatlantic flights, or maybe with transfatty acids. Transphobia could be catching.

These people are absurdly stupid. They have come up with "toilets with urinals" to say where "gents" go. The "ladies" simply go "toilets". Why stop there. Heavens, don't they know that TOILET is terribly non-U? It's LAVATORY!! But why should they care? They're on a mission for zealots.

Some years ago, on the BBC News Quiz, Willie Rushton said, (apparently overheard), "A vacancy for a gentlemen to clean the toilets at Victoria Station!?! Hardly a job for a gentleman!"

Times change, eh?