A Grain of Truth

It always amazes me how some transgender folk behave (as exemplified by their posts on Facebook, which I assume reflect their real-life character). You’d have thought that there’d be a little charity and understanding in their souls. I mean, being a member of a much-put-upon group, one might have thought that being at least tolerant was a default position. Yes, we all have our likes and dislikes. Yes we do come across a number of ‘unhappy’ folk within social media. But the active hate spewed by some of our own ‘kind’ is just beyond belief at times.

In particular, so-called ‘cross-dressers’ seem to get a lot of o flak for no other reason than some of the more exhibitionist fetishists amongst the group get a lot of undue focus. Well here’s a thought: don’t blacken everyone based on the behaviour of a small minority! And especially, differentiate between behaviour (what people do) as opposed to character (how people are). I’m constantly surprised how often these two get confused. I guess it’s lack of thought. It’s so easy to jump to conclusions, and much more satisfying than living with contingency. I know how it feels. Been there. Wore the T-shirt.

What’s more interesting is that the old joke ‘What’s the difference between a crossdresser and a transsexual? Ans: Five years!’ has just a grain of truth. Many of us started off (in our youth perhaps) by favouring the term ‘pervy’ rather than ‘transgender’. After all, it’s less frightening. But eventually one has to wake up and smell the Chanel. Maybe it’s longer than five years, and damnably more hard work than it looks, but I think in most transperson’s past there is a hint of the things we now tend to look back on with amusement… or disdain, depending on our sense of equity.

On the other side of the fence there are the ‘holier than thou’ brigade. They spend every day being professional transfolk. They don’t seem to do anything else except fight a self-ordained war with the rest of the world whilst preaching about ‘privilege’ and looking for things to dislike. It never occurs to them to cut people a little slack; especially those around them who are getting terribly bored at their fractiousness.

Too many walls, not enough bridges. Too many inflexible rules and not enough human politesse. Too much knee-jerk spitefulness and not enough cautious care. Too much narrow thinking and not enough breadth of knowledge.

The Great Ransomeware Debacle

Or, How the NHS was screwed by free market policy

So here’s the issue: WHY was the NHS so easily attacked by the recent penetration by ransomeware? In order to answer that, let me describe another (relevant) scenario.

Suppose farmers only had ONE strain of potatoes. And suppose those potatoes were grown everywhere in large amounts. Then suppose a virulent strain of potato blight attacked the tatties. What happens? Well, epidemiology would predict that the blight cuts a swathe through the entire potato population, destroying whole crops. There is (at best) a great shortage of potatoes, or (at worst) mass starvation. Perhaps governments then investigate the problem, and decide to blame the farmers (“didn’t secure their crops adequately”) and the potatoes themselves (“too old… we need modern potatoes”). The public laps it all up, not realising that the true issue is staring them in the face: monocultures.

A monoculture has no genetic diversity built-in, and therefore is unable to resist infections, and is inherently ‘unhealthy’ due to its sensitivity to local conditions and the management of the growth environment.

Now let’s return to the computer world. We have an almost identical situation, where Microsoft’s operating systems dominate the world personal and administrative computer domain. This is a software monoculture, which is HIGHLY vulnerable to attack because of its very ubiquity. Since Microsoft is everywhere, sold to you with your computer, taught in schools, used at work, and in our public services, the chances of a single carefully-crafted worm or virus spreading throughout the connected world is very high indeed. It is the monoculture that is to blame for the recent panic-ridden events striking the NHS, not the machines or the people concerned.

Of course, our government will not come clean and say this. They’re so embroiled in the ideology of the free market that to blame Microsoft’s counter-productive business practices is almost beyond their thought. Instead, they advise ‘tightening security’ — which is a stop-gap that cannot defeat a continually evolving threat to the monoculture itself.

A friend recently said to me that “all computers, even Linux ones, are threatened” by viruses (etc.). This is true, but only up to a point. In fact, if you consider computer usage throughout the world it’s because of the very success of Microsoft’s marketing practices (not their software) that we’ve got a problem in the first place. And like junkies, we’re too ‘hooked’ on their systems to realise this. Our very lack of awareness of the political situation is causing the issue we wish to avoid.

There’s a solution: diversity. Don’t simply use what you’re given. Choose a Mac, or a Linux-based machine, or Android, or ChomeOS, or even a Microsoft machine… but for the Gods’ sake, don’t just use what’s given to you! Choose your computer operating system the same way you choose your wallpaper or carpets. Then learn how to use it. I am especially concerned that children (and adults) learn ‘computer’ skills, and not simple ‘Microsoft’ skills. We need to break this corporate monoculture in order to sustain a more secure data environment. This is a role for the education system. Instead of just tinkering around with security advice (like putting your finger in the hole in the dyke!), we need to solve the problem of security at a fundamental level.

And if anyone says to me “it takes time to learn something new” — can I say, didn’t you do just that when you learned to drive?

And if someone says to me “what about exchanging documents and data from one system to another, wont your much-vaunted diversity cause communication problems?” — can I say that we need international data format standards, not absolutely standardised operating systems.

On Democratisation

Bill Williamson is (of course) right that we need strategies to re-democratise our societies. These need to be practical approaches to organisation and participation. I have already stated (elsewhere) that my experience is that ‘flat’ highly-devolved organisations that can respond to local needs and set their own modes of working, are the most beneficial… but also the most efficient.

The trend towards hierarchical control has (contrary to popular belief) resulted in gross inefficiencies. This is because of the build-up of alienation, expressions of negative power, and distrust. Such elements mean that centralised control has to ever-increase its reach, threat measures, interventions, or micromanagement in order to gain a return on its efforts. This in turn leads to worsening connectivity within organisations, the collapse of productive communities of practice, and hence even more control in order to ‘put things right’.

That this doesn’t work should be plain to everyone by now, and the necessary adjustment fairly obvious: relinquish power by restructuring towards highly devolved systems. This isn’t anarchy. This is how complex systems work to their best advantage. One might say, they are a natural part of social behaviour.

The big issue is: convincing those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo that the evidence is clear cut. Tough to do, when they’d rather believe the legend than the truth.

Complex, but not Complicated

Some will know I have been (and am) highly critical of management practice within the FE sector. I’m sure some have said: “Well, of course, it’s easy for you moan Bea, but what would you DO about it?”

Contrary to popular belief, I certainly do have a diagnosis and remedial position in mind. Whether anyone is willing to take any of it on board is (necessarily) a matter of admitting there’s a problem to begin with. That’s a different question.

However, I will say that my position rests on complexity theory, and the assertion that large organisations (anything over 50 or so people) are dynamic systems that go through long periods of stasis, evolving into chaos, and then reasserting a new stasis within different parameters. This is referred to as the Punctuated Equilibrium Model (PEM). PEM is characteristic of human systems where a great number of unpredictable causes and effects are naturally in place. I would go as far as to say this is the nature of human society; we are (by our nature) dynamic and unpredictable.
As part of PEM, organisations (colleges, large AE bodies, national charities…) are complex adaptive systems (CAS). Recognising the natural evolution of such systems means that command-and-control processes have no long-term efficacy. In fact these (usually hierarchical, or pseudo-hierarchical) systems are inefficient, counter-productive, and in fact produce the exact opposite of that for which they are designed: innovative thinking and total-learning cultures. What they often produce is repetitive results, overly-pragmatic thinking, obsequiousness, and a structure-obsessed culture that develops such corrosive phenomena as alienation and negative power.

What is clear, and has been stated many times by those studying CAS, is that extremely flattened hierarchies with localised autonomy is the best way to produce innovative work. In addition, their should be no fear of internal conflict. Indeed, internal conflict is a necessary change-maker in dynamic systems, allowing a culture to grow and develop (and hence create communities of practice which have a life of their own).

Far too often large organisation resist conflict, try to iron it out of systems, and consequently kill the very goose that is laying golden eggs. If you want to judge an organisations dynamic health, ask yourself the question: To what extent is conflict welcomed, and is seen as beneficial to the overall sense of progressiveness? If there’s even the slightest hint of resistance (“peace at any cost”) then you’re in trouble. And remember: this needs a sense of honesty to gain a true evaluation.

If I was speaking to staff in organisations about their long-term future, I’d be saying: abandon your old thinking. Create a natural dynamism that is productive by using change as a normal state of affairs, and not something that is resisted. Make sure change is part of everyday work and welcomed at all levels. Do not obsess over the usual core-vs-periphery approach. Forget it. Trust people’s self-interest to make the best decisions for themselves. Look on all work as equally vital, and subject to chaotic processes, managed by encouraging local responsibility to create their own stasis out of chaotic human interrelations. In particular, allow very large amounts of control over learning systems and methodology to the student body itself. It’s fearful for those who see this as losing their status and power, but ultimately works (as I have found).
A very simple example: Instead of promoting a one-size-fits-all templated lesson planning system, abandon this altogether. Instead, provide a vast array of possible examples of lesson planning and encourage all staff to produce even more. This creates a natural ‘chaos’ out of which comes a culture responsiveness to change by using tools that work for individuals at the ‘chalk face’. In fact, this professionalises staff, as they are empowered to make their own decisions, rather than rely of others to establish a (stultifying) norm.

Complexity theory. It works. You know it makes sense. Or am I talking to myself?

Nothing much has changed

When I was a little kid I often thought a lot. Probably this was not a good idea for a 13-year-old, but what-the-hell… I remember standing in the school yard one break time and thinking to myself: “Is this all there is? Grow up, marry, job, mortgage, 2 children, retirement, and death?” Is there nothing else?”

Now you know why I’m ‘here’.

These days I still think: “Is this all there is? What about when I’m 70? or 80? or 100? I’d like to be a centenarian. Just to see what happens next…”

Nothing much has changed.

The Mote in God’s Eye

Though Stephen Hawking has warned about it, I was somewhat sceptical about the likely occurrence of ‘The Singularity’. I’ve changed my mind. It’s not that I’m concerned about the potential development of global AI. In fact, I think (now) that it’s inevitable this will happen, out of sheer accident if not deliberation. But it will shatter our view of ourselves, and possibly lead to our redundancy — not (ironically!) because we lose control, but simply because we are likely to be subsumed by it.

I don’t forecast an AI like Skynet, or The Forbin Machine, or anything similar. No ghosts-in-the-machine will arise. No missiles launched. No war with the computers. Because the Singularity will not inhabit a particular machine. There will be no core (and no ‘off switch’).The Singularity will be everywhere. In every single object that is connected to ‘Internet 2’. In our radios, our door-bells, our hearing-aids, our pacemakers, our cars, our clocks, our clothes and our every facility. It will be like our money: invisible and yet all-powerful. We will never stop being its master; but will also (simultaneously) be its slave — in the same way we both need and don’t need our cars, electricity, phones, etc. We will hate and love our world. The Singularity will inhabit the Logosphere (“the sum-total of ideas, concepts and facts that inhabit the collective texts — digital, printed, handwritten, carved or otherwise — of the human race.”). It will be self-replicating, infinitely developing, hardware agnostic, and ever mystifying to us. Is it self-aware? That will be a redundant question, since how will we know the difference when AI acts as if it were, and is indistinguishable from other intelligences? The Turing Test will be passed, but add nothing to our knowledge of what ‘self-awareness’ actually means.

So we will create the final challenge to the human race. Not a rampaging tyrant, but an aspect of ourselves. An avatar, that will surpass and outdo us without us really being aware. It will be the final mote in God’s eye — a creation out of creation, and an end to creation itself.


It’s funny about the hostility generated in some quarters about Jenni Murray’s recent writings. Some people seem to think that persons like me are trying to ‘re-define’ the nature of womanhood in order to make it fit personal circumstances.

Well, I have to say I’ve never tried to re-define anything, let alone what the word ‘woman’ (or its derivative terms) means. This is mainly because the more defined something becomes, the more restrictive it is. Hence me wrestling over definitions is a self-defeating activity. When it comes to definitions the dictionary really doesn’t help much (because of social semantic drift), and society’s discourse tends to thankfully leave much definition ‘woolly’, if understandable. Most of us go about through our days not worrying much about definitions, since context and usage tends to lend enough meaning for us to get by. The language game is enough.

So why the big upset over my use of ‘woman’ to refer to myself? In effect, it’s not me that has the problem. I’m pretty flexible over use of the word. But Jenni Murray (and her fellow-travellers) are masquerading their lack of confidence in themselves by assuming my use of the term is some sort of threat to their socio-political identity. Methinks the noise they make says more about themselves than about such as little ol’ me.

Oh, and by the way, when circumstances arise where I have to think about my identity, I’ve always thought of myself as doing no more than carving myself a niche in the female domain. That’s good enough for me. It’s my niche, and I don’t necessarily expect anyone else to have to live there with me.

But I guess if you’re unhappy in living with uncertainty then perhaps I’m causing you existential panic?

PS: Of course, one could say my very existence tends to ‘re-define’ issues. But that’s not my problem.


  • You can only change if you recognise there is a problem in the first  place.
  • The problem with fact is that is inevitably subject to interpretation.
  • Our actions and attitudes to the world are rooted in the protection of our fears. It seems to me one must grow beyond one’s fears in order to be truly free.
  • I can talk and write until I’m blue in the face, and nothing seems to make a difference. So, I have to live a life instead of just talking about it. That’s why being authentic can be so hellishly difficult.
  • It’s strange to think that religion cannot really dictate to me how I live my life. In effect, it can only suggest. This is ironic (even blackly comical!) considering the importance of the issues all religions emphasise. Possibly this is why so much religious fundamentalism exists: a panacea for a story that is losing its charm.
  • Our values are socially constructed. At the end, you can warm your hands just as well on a burning Botticelli as you can on a lump of coal.


We start off depending totally on others.
Then we wait for others to tell us what we are and how we should be.
Then we imitate others in a an effort to see how we might fit in.
Then, if we’re lucky.
Very lucky.
We might discover that we were ourselves all along.

The truth about Migrants

TV sometimes shows people saying that one of the biggest problems is ‘bloody migrants’, though why migrants should be an issue at all is still a question without a clearly rational answer.

  • Has anyone PERSONALLY suffered from immigration? (i.e. had their job, hospital bed, or house taken from them by a migrant).
  • Isn’t it more likely that we don’t have enough housing because there’s not been enough investment in it, leading to exploitative prices and rents?
  • Is it not the case that most migrants either do jobs other people don’t want, or specialised work that local people are not skilled/qualified for?
  • Is it not the case that wages drop not because migrants work cheaply, but because employers exploit them so as to force down overall wage levels?
  • Is it not the case that the NHS depends on migrants simply because the demand on the system means we cannot keep up with the need for doctors, nurses and ancillary staff (from the medical training system in this country)?
  • Isn’t it the case that recent governments have made potential doctors and nurses think twice about joining the NHS because of very long hours, poor morale and unhappiness over pay? I could do on.

People seem to be concerned about immigration because it’s easier to be worried about ‘the system’ than to be openly anti-migrant. Nevertheless it hints at a kind of latent bigotry. This may be socially unacceptable these days, but it doesn’t stop some from feeling or thinking that way.

There are times when I just wish people were honest about their prejudices. Just bring ’em out in the open. Then at least we all know where we stand.