Kenn Ghannon: Blog

Before the mobs line up to lynch me, let me explain:

The problem lies not with the people but with the language. English, by its nature and heritage, is imprecise. We have too many words with the same or similar definitions and too many words that can encompass more than one definition. In this case, the problem lies with the word 'sex'.

'Sex' can be a noun and a verb - and therein lies the problem. If we can limit 'sex' to be a noun only, we get rid of such problematic words as 'transsexual' (where transgender probably originated), 'homosexual', 'asexual' and so on. Besides, we already have suitable replacement terms for the verb 'sex' (such as 'fuck, 'making love', etc.).

'Sex' - the noun - refers to a scientific, biological state defined by the 23rd chromosomal pair. A person's sex is either 'female' (having the 'XX' chromosomal pair) or 'male' (having the 'XY' chromosomal pair). The only ambiguity could arise from chromosomal mutation where the 23rd chromosomal pair is actually a triad ('XXX' or, more often, 'XXY') and such chromosomal mutation usually brings severe health issues. This even clears up hermaphroditism because most, if not all, hermaphrodites are still either 'XX' or 'XY', their genitalia being due to a genetic sequence.

Limiting 'sex' to being a noun only, it opens up a much more robust definition of 'gender' as a state of being (or sociological engagement). 'Gender', therefore, is a psychological construct (though 'construct' has troubling connotations, it's still proper here). Gender is the identity constructed by the brain - itself a genetic construct - through Nature as well as Nurture and has nothing to do with sex. If anything, since 'gender' is a function of genes influenced by experience rather than chromosomes, it is much more precise than 'sex' anyway. People are not 'asexual' (they can't be; everyone has a sex), they're agenderal ('a-' as a prefix meaning 'not' and thus agender/agenderal meaning someone who doesn't have a specific gender). People are not 'homosexual', they're homogenderal (which, honestly, doesn't make sense but is being used to build a point).

'Gender' is a construct but it is not, in most cases, actively constructed. It is no less real or immutable than sex, it's just built from a different, more precise DNA quanta and honed by life's experiences. This is not to say someone can't 'decide' to be a particular 'gender'. Since gender is much more fluid, it is inevitable humans will 'decide' to use a mask of a particular gender to facilitate their own agenda; potentially reprehensible, but it is going to happen. It happens with 'sex' it will (and likely does) happen with 'gender'.

More reprehensible is the fact some people will push a person who is not sure of their gender into being something they're not - the 'experiences' part of the Nature/Nurture equation. To identify 'gender' requires maturity. We should not require a child to identify as a 'gender' until they're mature enough to understand what they feel and think. That is not to say a child will not know their gender intrinsically, just that a child is confused enough about the world to add such pressure as having to define how they think or feel on their plate. Some will know from the moment they're born what their gender is - and that's fine - but let them gain some experience before they're forced to define it.

This brings us to 'transgender'. We are doing a monumental disservice by describing someone as 'transgender' because it implies they changed or have some control over their gender - their gender was 'a' (it is necessary to eliminate the stigma of calling a gender anything 'male or 'female' based) and now it is 'b'. If 'gender' is a psychological construct developed by (or imprinted onto) the brain genetically and guided by experience, then intimating they somehow changed their gender or 'crossed' their gender is denigrating their identity. The 'Kinsey scale' doesn't pertain to sex, it pertains to gender (and is much too narrow in scope to provide much relevance here).

Can gender change over time? It is certainly possible. In most cases where we use the term 'transgender', though, it hasn't. It just means we have not separated the noun 'sex' from 'gender' properly. 'Sex' (the noun) is physiological and immutably defined by the 23rd chromosomal pair. 'Gender' is a person's identity and is defined by their genes and honed by their experience.

Throughout my professional career, I've had one goal. It's what my degree is in, it's what I intended to move towards in the company in which I've worked for the past 20 years, and it's what my professional training has all been targeting. I thought I was well-prepared so when a promotion opportunity opened at my company in the field I always wanted, I jumped into it with both feet.

To mis-quite Blizzard Entertainment: I was not prepared.

The Wuhan Flu is partially to blame because it has made everything more difficult but, honestly, I had bitten off more than I could chew. It sapped my will and my creativity. I've not written more than a few pages in months.

I've not opened SOL except to briefly read a few stories. I've not checked my email except in passing (though I had a bit more than a few waiting for my attention). I came to the point where I didn't want to write - I just wanted to read to lose myself in the story for a time. My Kindle has gotten a LOT of use in the past 1/2 year. When I finished with work, I just wanted to sit in my comfortable recliner, kick back and read or watch mindless, mind-numbing television.

When I did get the urge to write, I tended to go back to the things I've already written and try to make them better. I'm never happy with the words my fingers type out. I never think it's good enough to make it out to others. I'm still amazed anyone read, much less liked, Runesward - Tome 1, Pretty CAPable and Fairly CAPable.

I'm glad some of you did. I'm just amazed at it. I see so many flaws...

I'm sorry to those of you who've been waiting for the adventures of Yren or Calix to continue. I'm slowly getting to the point where I can go back and pick up where I left off 1/2 a year ago or so. I'm going to try to make a concerted effort to write SOMETHING every day - but we'll see how far that goes...

Thank you for reading,
Kenn Ghannon

I'm still among the living. The pandemic has hit my family hard. My 57 year old cousin and his entire family got it. An uncle got it - after getting the first of two vaccine shots. My aunt was fully vaccinated and got it. Another uncle got it - again after getting the first of two vaccine shots - and he died from it.

I've been extraordinarily lucky and it has so far passed me by. I have a few vacations planned this summer (one I've already taken) so I'm hoping it continues to pass me by. I liken it to drowning - and that is probably one of the most horrible deaths I can imagine.

I've started writing again - just today, as a matter of fact. I cleaned up a HUGE, multi-chapter error that no one caught in 'Runesward: Tome 1'. I plan on reading through that again in the coming weeks to correct a few more errors or irregularities I found. Nothing I've found - including the huge error - really changes the story at all, but I'm a bit anal about making things right. I'll post the changes in a few weeks - probably/hopefully, right before I send Tome 2 to the editors.

I re-wrote two very important pieces of 'Runesward: Tome 2'; they'd caused me to box myself in in the chapter I was writing but I thought of a way out and needed to re-write a bit. I've also expanded a key fight I was unhappy with, adding to it in both material and points of view. It reads much smoother now and I'm optimistic I'll continue to think so during my frequent re-reads

I also fixed my timeline - it was a bit messed up, with people taking weeks for a journey which should have taken days, people taking days for things that should take far longer and so on. The main problem, honestly, was I moved one part a bit too fast when the state of their 'conveyances' were such that it couldn't happen the way I wrote it. That's been fixed and almost everything now makes sense. There's still one timing thing I'm not completely happy about but it's not too far out of the temporal boundaries so I'm leaving it (for now).

I finished chapter 19 today - but I may go back and re-write/prettify a bit with added detail. It's a common thing I do - I get the points out there, get the conversation like I need it to be and then go back and add details to make it more involved. I've started chapter 20 but I'm not happy with the beginning and may change it. I anticipate no more than 10 more chapters but I might be able to pine that down to four or five. It depends on some of the sub-plots and how much I need them to set up Tome 3.

Anyway, there's my update. I hope you all are dealing with Covid better than my family has.

First, I want to apologize to all of the people who have written me e-mails - I've responded to very few. This is not my normal modus operandi - I sincerely try to answer every single e-mail sent to me - but...

There is a war being fought in my mailbox - and I'm curious which side is going to win. I've received e-mails across the entire spectrum - from people who don't believe COVID-19 exists (after all, it managed to completely kill the old flu virus we've seen pop up every year!), to people who hate me because by not wearing a mask I'm killing them, and everywhere in between. Where my beliefs fall in that spectrum is purely philosophical because I'm going to do whatever I need to do to keep myself and my family safe.

Does the government have the Constitutional power to force us to wear a mask. On the one hand, they have the power to force us to wear clothing (because otherwise I'd have become a practicing nudist long ago). On the other, a mask interferes with our ability to breathe, forcing us to inhale unhealthy levels of carbon dioxide.

So, do they have the power? I don't believe they do. I don't believe they have the power to dictate how I breathe as breathing is a fundamental right (unlike the right to healthcare - anything which another person provides is NOT a right, it's a service).

I can hear a part of my mail spectrum now - '...but they have the power and responsibility to make sure other people are safe!'. I disagree most vehemently. If I'm stupid enough to risk my health by not wearing a mask, that's on me. My not wearing a mask, whether sick and contagious or not, has no bearing on your ability to wear a mask and avoid me; by LIVING you assume the responsibility of keeping yourself safe. How you do that is your right - something I consider 'common sense' which, I fear, is not so common anymore - so long as you don't impinge on me or my rights. It is NOT the government's responsibility to keep me safe; they are not my parent. It is the government's job to defend our borders and provide me the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. That's all I want them to do. If I want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, I don't expect the government to stop me. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ME.

If I want to have a 10,000 person meeting in my backyard (other than having to stack people up like cordwood to make them fit) and not wear a mask - that is my right to risk getting ill. As long as I didn't kidnap them, it is the right of those 10,000 people to meet in my backyard assuming risk of infection on their own. We each are responsible for ourselves (and, obviously, for our children until they reach an age to be responsible for themselves).

I *KNOW* this is going to get me much hate mail. However, I think I've taken this topic as far as I'm going to. I will read every single hate mail you send me - I read every single mail anyone sends me - but I'm not going to argue the point any further. I may respond but I might not.

I'm here to tell stories - hopefully good stories that people will enjoy. I'm not here to tell you how to think. Maybe some of what I write will educate you - maybe it won't and you'll send me e-mail to educate me. THAT'S what I like about this site. Learning, living and growing.

Thank you for your time. I hope you - the collective 'all of you' - along with all of your families stay healthy, safe and prosperous. I give you all my familiar birthday greeting - 'May the worst of the days in front of you be better than the best of the days behind you'.

Most Sincerely,
Kenn Ghannon

First, I want to thank everyone who wrote about my previous blog (The Masks We Wear). I apologize I can't respond to everyone individually - there were just TOO MANY replies! It was not my intention to stir up a hornet's nest or make people angry. I was expressing the facts as I understood them and my own personal philosophy.

Many - perhaps even MOST - of the replies were, more or less, that it was rude of me to NOT wear a mask (with various and differing levels of indignation, righteous anger and so forth). The name-calling was a bit much (you know who you are) but I get that this topic is highly galvanizing.

As I wrote in one of my few individual replies, I'm not against masks. I wear them, even when I don't have to, because it erroneously makes me feel safe. I am against the affront to our civil liberties that the mask mandates (and quarantining) make.

The science supports masks help stop infected people from infecting others. The science supports that you can be symptom-free and still be infected. The part of this thing I have a problem with is the disregard for the rights of healthy people. Mask mandates weren't directed at people who have the virus. Quarantining wasn't directed at people who have the virus. It was applied to everyone indiscriminately - thus abridging our individual rights. If the focus had been on testing and then applying distancing and mask mandates against the infected, I would have no issue - philosophically or morally - with it.

A right, once given up, will never be returned - no matter which political party is in power. The government now knows it can force us to wear whatever it wants for the common good. It will be used again - and against us. Maybe not immediately - but it will. There is now precedent.

The plan to force us to be vaccinated, if enacted, will further erode our personal liberties. Once this is done, the government will have developed the right to make medical decisions for us. It is a right they will not give up. It will be used again - and against us. Maybe not immediately - but it will. We just don't know how far it will go.