Not me, of course, but men are generally stronger than women. Other physical advantages, too. These are recognised, accepted and correctly attributed to the multi-generational effect of evolution on the sex chromosomes. This is why it was always inevitable that genetic testing would be essential to protect women’s sport, as tough as that has been on transgender athletes and those with a non-standard mix of DNA.

We can speculate on the environmental and cultural pressures that brought this difference – and others – about, but we can be sure that this physical advantage comes with an associated cost, for otherwise we would all be uniformly strong, fast and tall.How we came to be what we are is fascinating if somewhat speculative science. Such an enquiry suggests that men and women have had different roles in the past, and for periods long enough to shape our evolution. It is testosterone that makes men bigger, stronger, more hairy and more aggressive. Perhaps possessive, too.

Occasionally, we get to see perhaps why this is evolutionarily favoured. In Ukraine, the ability to fight, to kill, has been the core of its defence. It is also there in Vladimir Putin’s ambition and inhumanity. We also see the benefit of plurality. There are big, tough guys with guns, but it is the geeks with the (inappropriately named) joysticks who have decimated the Russian military and now its economy, too. And what of the effect of war on evolution? As the aggressive fight and die, the gene pool changes.Difference is the stuff of life. Only a small amount of it gender based. The trick, so it seems to me, is not to make too much fuss about it. So what if some people seem to have a map in their head, or can do maths? Perhaps I am missing something and modern art isn’t the awful, unattractive mess that it appears.

Yet we see tribal behaviour enthusiastically embraced in sports supporters, believed to be a transference from more ancient conduct. Those instincts are often encouraged by nations or corporations, as motivations to do better, to make some sacrifice of time or self.One huge difference is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel? It was a virtue emphasised to me long ago by my mother. Do as you would be done by, the Golden Rule.It is clear that a great many do not have this facility, indeed, have little concept of it. And the haves and have nots in this area appear to colour definitively the political map.

We can see this in leaders who are disinclined to follow the rules set by others, or, in the case of Boris Johnson and Covid, set by himself.It influences profoundly an individual’s conception of ‘us’. Who am I emotionally inclined to support and protect? My family, of course. My wider family. My nation? Ukrainian refugees? Palestinians? Even those who support the destruction of another nation?For animal activists, ‘we’ embraces other species. Even more tricky, Russians? Those of a contrary religion?It is illuminating to test this range against the political spectrum, but I should perhaps not attempt to foist my preferences and conclusions on to the reader, who will likely have strong views of your own.

One consequence, though, of the prevalence of difference is that a political party with a strong and simple position, clearly communicated, will be limited in the support it can attract. And that means that, while we demand clarity from politicians, we do not reward it – and so politics continues in its traditional vein.