It's hard not to see irony in the news that men are now being advised to freeze their sperm. Though the thought of men being bombarded by articles about the functionality of their nutsacks, and being accosted at bus stops by armchair fertility specialists interrogating them about their reproductive histories, may provoke a tickle of schadenfreude, it's actually no laughing matter. A study has found that older fathers are more likely to have children with psychiatric problems and learning disabilities such as autism and ADHD; it really does seem that sperm has a sell-by date. A child born to a 45-year-old father is, according to the study, 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 2.5 times more likely to have ADHD, and 25 times more likely to have biopolar disorder than a child born to a 24-year-old man.As regular readers of my stuff will know, autism has (to put it mildly) manifested itself somewhat within my family, so I tend to take such findings seriously. I have, as a result of my overwhelming reliance on pseudo-sciencey magazine articles, a slight fear of what might happen should I delay things long enough to become what is charmingly dubbed an "elderly mother". However, I do not see the prospect of men becoming as frightened as I have been about their fertility as any great step towards equality. Most people instinctively know that it's better from a biological perspective to have children when they are young, but from a life perspective? Perhaps not. Figures released today show that British home ownership is at a new low, with those under 35 renting more than ever before – half of all private rented households, in fact, are occupied by this age group. Of course, you don't need to be a homeowner to raise a child, but factors such as the cost of living crisis can be a stronger barrier to conception than a steel diaphragm.But gentlemen, I wouldn't panic yet. As with all studies, there is room for doubt. My advice would be to make like a woman and take all these findings with a pinch of salt. After all, we found out last summer that the frequently parroted statistic that one in three women aged 35 to 39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying, was actually based on French birth records from 1670 to 1830 (they weren't half barren, those historical French peasants). This, as the Atlantic dryly noted, meant "millions of women are being told when to get pregnant based on statistics from a time before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment." Let's add cake to that list, and form a chorus. Do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry women?On the other hand, being as it is that your study seems to be based on practically everyone in Sweden, I wouldn't ignore the results, either. It might be time to brush up your five-year plan, lower your alcohol intake and stop resting that Macbook atop your balls. All the best of luck – I hear evening primrose oil helps.(theguardian.com)ANN.Az