Since it seems to be of interest to some – and confusion – and taking on board a suggestion, let's have a thread.

At it's simplest, sex is – in effect – determined by what genitalia you're born with.

Sexuality is who you are attracted to.

Gender is do with the roles that the sexes are culturally expected to play. So – simply, again – a boy is culturally expected to play with cars (and is therefore more likely to do so) while a girl is culturally expected to play with dolls (and is therefore more likely to do so), and both these forms of cultural 'teaching' have long-term impacts in terms of what males and females study at school and later, what they do as a career, what hobbies and sports they enjoy, how their relationships are organised and much more. It could be said to start with male babies being dressed in blue and female babies being dressed in pink.

On sexuality, there is no evidence for a gay 'gene' – but there is also no evidence that sexuality is something that is chosen. Homosexuality is not the 'norm', but it is natural.

Some males are more 'feminine' than others – this is not, of itself, any more an indicator of sexuality than being a 'masculine' male is.

Some women are more 'masculine' than others – this is not, of itself, any more an indicator of sexuality than being a 'feminine' female is.

Human sexuality is a wide spectrum. Problems start when we expect it to be limited.

Gender is a social construct.

Ban this sick filth

You have it nailed on the head there.

What about Bi-sexuality, is this a combination of all the above?

Okay – good question. But look at what I said: if sexuality is a spectrum – and not just two sides of a coin, then (at it's absolutely most simple) imagine it as bisexuality coming at the midway point between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

why do we need a label?

I'm not sure where this fits into the spectrum but when I lived in the north east, across the road from my parents-in-law were a brother and sister, twins, who shared a council house, and they were the most obvious example of mixed genes that could ever be produced in evidence of a so-called "gay gene".

Remember they were twins so would have shared a womb, I don't think they were identical twins though so would presumably have been two eggs.

Bobby, the male, was very camp, an archetypical camp guy very much in the mould of John Inman/Larry Grayson etc, almost as if he needed to act the character in order to enforce the fact that he was very effeminate - I'll hesitate to say he was gay as he was never seen with a partner of either sex, so its possible that he was not actually gay but just a camp personality.

His sister (who's name I forget) was very masculine and I'm being absolutely serious here, she worked at the local bus garage as a mechanic, swore like a trooper and generally took on the part of a working class bloke living in a working class pit village, she was the only one of the two that worked and Bobby stayed home to look after the house - again though I can't say that the sister was gay for she too was never seen with a partner.

The strange twist was when they went to "the clerb" because the sister was not allowed in the bar (which was strictly a male preserve) whereas Bobby was.

Twins with mixed genders I suppose and they certainly wouldn't have learned their behaviour from parents or environment or I would have expected them both to be effeminate or masculine, and I doubt that any parent would have deliberately forced behaviour on the wrong siblings.

Love the story. But I suspect that partly what you're describing is not "mixed genders", but two people who defied cultural gender expectations.

It's an expectation that all females will feel maternal, just as it's a cultural expectation that men will, by and large, find being soppy over their children a bit awkward – I'm trying to do this simply for the sake of ease here.

From what you're saying, they – in being who they were – defied those expectations. And good for them. But there's no evidence that girls (for instance) have some gene (or similar) that 'makes' them naturally want to play with dolls. These are things that are imprinted onto children from birth.

My suspicion – and that is all it is (although hopefully, it's 'educated' suspicion) is that hormones and balances between them are a big part of the whole picture. So, for instance, my sister was very traditionally 'feminine' – loved dolls etc. I was always a tom boy; didn't like dolls unless they were like Sindy, where you could have adventures with them. None of that nursing a baby nonsense. My parents made efforts over the years to channel me toward the culturally expected feminine interests, but ultimately it made no difference. So there was a combination of things at play, I think: 1) hormones or whatever, but also cultural attitudes. And the latter certainly limited what I was able to do as a child. Much of that has changed, but it is still interesting to see how much gender genuinely confuses people.

It'd be lovely if we didn't, but unfortunately, society loves labels – and it loves imposing negative ones on (other) people. Plus it seems to be human nature for us to put labels on ourselves, even if only in terms of deciding what 'tribe' we belong to as sports fans, say.

I suppose that, anthropologically speaking, that's what badges do – we wear them (mostly voluntarily) to make a statement about ourselves; to label ourselves, in other words.

So you know which way round to put your jumper on