Homosex-reality

Once again, homophobia has ruined someone's night and made it into the news. This seemingly keeps happening, and it invariably leads to the tired debate about lifestyle choice/religious views/political correctness and all that. It's ridiculous but inevitable, like Boris Johnsons rise to power. But why is it so common? In my experience, you do have to be careful about talking about homosexuality in a public forum, no matter what the context. The majority of people I've encountered aren't homophobic, and perhaps more importantly, seemingly even more people don't want to be thought of as homophobic, even if they probably are. This leads to some strange outcomes.

You know how people say 'I've got lots of gay friends!' after saying something blatantly homophobic? I don't do that. It's another variation of the classic get-out-of-jail-free card when expressing derogatory or unacceptable views about groups of people that they don't actually belong to. The typical formula is "I think [group x] are all a bunch of [offensive comment or term]. But I'm not [prejudiced against group x], a lot of my friends are [belonging to group x]". With people who use this argument, I would question their definition of 'friend'. I'd wager they define it, in this scenario, as 'someone [from group x] I met who I didn't like due to my views but who I remember I've encountered when making offensive comments about [group x]'. This is just my opinion, though.

But like I said, in the case of homosexuals, I don't do that. Partly because it would be superfluous (I don't have any issue with homosexuals, nor do I make offensive jokes about them), but mostly because it would be inaccurate. Truth be told, I don't have many gay friends. Gay male friends, at least. I do know a statistically unlikely number of lesbians. Not sure why, I don't actively go out of my way to meet lesbians, I get the impression that I probably wouldn't be too welcome in the places they allegedly hang out. Worryingly, the only thing these lesbians I know have in common is that, at some point in their lives, they all met me. But to make any conclusions based on this would be confusing correlation with causation (sort of), and that would never do.

Admittedly, I do have a habit of unintentionally upsetting the gay men I do meet via the medium of social faux pas. For example, I got a lift back from a wedding with a friend of my then girlfriend (now wife) who, as it happens, is homosexual. We were listening to Radio 1 (I was much younger then, don't judge me!), and Sarah Cox was on. I like Sarah Cox, unlike most of my mates. I like to see if my fondness for the nice gobby northern lady is considered weird by other people as well, so I asked my generous driver friend 'Do you like Cox?' The awkward pause that followed last just long enough for maximal embarrassment to kick in, which made the drive a lot more 'interesting' (meaning 'quieter'). Stuff like this happens with me alarmingly often, as anyone who's seen my stand-up set will know. But I'm telling you this to point out that, in the sociological context at least, I'm ill-qualified to make any comment on the matters I'm about to comment on extensively. Just letting you know in advance, so feel free to take all this with a pinch of salt, or whatever your preferred cliché.

Homosexuality, or maybe more accurately, homophobia, is an ever present issue in modern society. I don't 'get' homophobia. It's not as if homosexuality is a new thing; judging by what we see in the wild, it predates the concept of conscious prejudice by a significant margin. So if we're going to talk about 'unnatural behaviour'... And it's not as if homosexuality is an uncommon thing either. If it were, you can sort of see how people would be a bit afraid of this bizarre and unfamiliar practice. But no, lots of people are gay. The figure 'One in Ten men' get's bandied about a lot, but not sure how accurate that is. And women, they're even worse. There is extensive video evidence available from a variety of sources that show that two women who are left alone together will inevitably end up having sex with each other, within minutes, for no discernable reason other than boredom, or simply because the opportunity has presented itself. I know this sounds ridiculous, but trust me. I did extensive research into this during my teenage years. And then again when I first installed high-speed broadband. And every now and again when the wife is out.

But despite all this, homophobia is still rampant in pretty much all societies. And in my own personal view, I don't think it will ever be stamped out entirely. For example, men in a group of male friends in full on male-badinage mode, will invariably imply that one or more of their friends is gay in a joking yet derogatory manner. I don't think this will stop in the foreseeable future, but I don't think it's as bad as other forms of homophobia. Heterosexual men constantly evaluate their own sense of self worth and social standing by their masculinity, and one of the most common and powerful ways to demonstrate masculinity is via prowess with the opposite sex. Young boys will often describe other boys as 'girls' when they want to insult or offend them (or maybe that was just my school). I'm not sure if the opposite is true, that girls describe other girls as boys, as I was never a young girl. I'm pretty sure boys don't insult girls by calling them boys, children tend to struggle with reciprocal negative gender stereotyping, for some reason. Probably because I just made the term up a minute ago.

As we grow though, the rational world tends to shape our consciousness more and more, and we are expected to be smarter and more accurate when it general interaction with others. If he wished to imply that a friend was not masculine, he could still call him 'a girl/woman', but that would be demonstrably not true, so would be something of a hollow insult. The insulter would also look stupid/childish, so the insult would have to opposite effect to that intended. However, now the concept of homosexuality has been introduced into their lives, and accusing a mate of being a gay man is far more effective way of questioning his masculinity; it's physically possible, potentially true, and the only way the accused to completely disprove it is to have enthusiastic sex with a woman in front of the accuser while demonstrating genuine revulsion in response to a naked man. And that sort of behaviour will get you thrown out of the pub. As will homosexual activity, apparently. When it comes to sexuality and socialising, it might be easier to just not bother, just buy a 4-pack and stay in.

But I don't think the 'gay' insult in the context of friends trying to undermine masculinity is such a bad thing, as it's (usually) more to do with the 'activities' associated with being gay, rather than a slur on homosexuals themselves. But the use of the term 'gay' as a general derogatory one, that's not good. The use of the term 'gay' to describe something stupid, or physically weak/incapable, that's just crap. Of course, no gay person has ever been considered

intelligent, or physically adept at sports or combat. What a ludicrous notion! Especially since every straight person is an intellectual beefcake.

I'm not sure if this applies to lesbians and lesbianism to the same extent. Obviously in a patriarchal society where the desire to prove 'manliness' seems to be an overarching necessity to pretty much everything, homosexual activity between women is both non-threatening to the masculinity of, and erotically stimulating to, heterosexual men. I don't have any proof of this of course, it's just speculation on my part. The only thing I can call on to back up my supposition is the fact that the term 'lesbian' itself is an emotively-neutral term which specifically describes a homosexual woman. I don't know of any equivalent for homosexual men. Lesbian is, as we all know, derived from the island of Lesbos, where the ancient Greek female poet Sappho resided. If only the ancient Greeks had shown any interest or appreciation for male homosexuality, what might have been!

Anyway, to the point. Whenever any homosexuals get in the news for having the audacity to expect to be treated like normal humans, it generally kicks off with the right-wing posse. The Daily Mail columnists, the fundamentalist Christians, the deeply conservative, and so on, complaining about the Gay agenda and marginalising of 'normal' people. But invariably, we'll get some argument about homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice'. And this then leads to the argument about whether homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuals almost unanimously say it isn't. But skeptics and the like have a saying; the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Even if every homosexual person in the country stated flat out that they did not choose to be homosexual, this would not constitute reliable evidence as it wouldn't be free from bias, personal interpretation, objective measurements etc. So this begs the question, is Homosexuality actually a choice or not?

I mean, obviously it's not. Logic alone dictates that much. If it were a choice, then logically it's a choice made when an individual is old and mature enough to recognise sexual attraction and physical intimacy as something they'll end up doing (hopefully). So until the time of 'choosing', they'd logically either be heterosexual or some sort of 'asexual' with no preference. If they're heterosexual originally, why change that? Does the thought process go "I know I'm heterosexual, but life is too easy so I will spend my life pursuing relationships with my own gender (who I'm not actually attracted too), engaging in sexual actions that don't appeal to me, in order to endure a lifetime of prejudice, judgement, persecution and legal challenges to my efforts to lead a normal life". Stereotypically, Gay people do tend to have more interesting and varied wardrobes, but that seems like a paltry conciliation. And if people start of as asexual and make a choice comparing after comparing the options and opportunities presented to heterosexual and homosexual people respectively, anyone who chooses the latter is going to seem quite masochistic. And I know some people are masochistic and there are clubs for just that sort of thing, but I do believe they're not limited to the homosexual communities.

But I've always been concerned by the extent to which the 'choice or not' argument rarely brings up any scientific or quantifiable information. Is there actually any? Turns out, there is.

One of the earliest findings I could uncover is from about 20 years ago, which, based on post-mortem studies of brain tissue of heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men, revealed that heterosexual men have a much bigger Interstitial Nuclei in region 3 of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3), being almost twice as those found in women women and, more tellingly, homosexual men. The cells that make up INAH3 are widely believed to be the Sexually Dimorphic nucleus in humans, i.e. the bit of the brain that controls sexual behaviour, found in many in many animals (including rats and sheep, for example). Development of this region is highly sensitive to sex hormones during gestation and neonatal phases, particularly testosterone, the bad boy of the sex hormones. Why should some male foetuses receive less than 'normal' testosterone and some female foetuses receive more?

One theory was to do with the fecundity of and number of previous children from the mother. A study did discover that homosexual males do tend to have more homosexuals in their family in the maternal line, suggesting an X-chromosome genetic factor that leads to homosexuality. There's also a possibly affect of having more older brothers; the 3rd, 4th etc. brother from one mother is potentially more likely to be homosexual as the mother has built up an immunity to testosterone due to repeated exposure. As far as I'm aware, most mothers are women, so testosterone isn't as prevalent in their systems as it is in, let's say, a mans, so they become desensitised to it when repeatedly carrying male foetuses. As previously stated, testosterone greatly influences how INAH3 develops. Hence, homosexuality.

Before any macho dads jump on the 'it's all the woman's fault! Ain't no gays in my mighty seed!' argument, these effects only account for, at most, 20% of homosexual males, so maternal genetics and testosterone insensitivity are contributing factors at best, not deciding factors. Also, the study I'm referring to only focussed on homosexual males, so not sure how much (if at all) lesbianism is influenced by these factors. You could argue that having more daughters means a mother becomes more sensitive to testosterone, thus the testosterone present has a more potent effect? Or maybe having older brothers means the mothers testosterone insensitivity results in more testosterone being released in order to compensate. Both outcomes could influence the sexual development of the daughter, but this is just speculation on my part.

Whatever the underlying cause (I'm no embryologist, but it's a fantastically complex process, and the interplay of hormones and chemicals involved probably means there are countless things that can influence the overall outcome i.e. sexuality), it could be argued by opponents of homosexuality that just one slightly over/undersized brain region suggests that homosexuality is less a natural occurrence than a biological 'glitch'. Leaving aside the fact that this completely ignores the 'choice' argument, it's more complex than that. Research has revealed that there is also significant variation in the brain structures and connections between them between heterosexual and homosexual members of the same gender. Men typically show greater hemispherical asymmetry than woman (in lay terms, they use one half of the brain more than the other, which might underlie the whole 'single minded/multitasking' gender disparity). Interestingly, this asymmetry is also present in homosexual women. Contrastingly, women and gay men share a more balanced hemispherical usage. There are also noticeable differences in functional connections between the brain regions, such as gay men and straight women having more widespread connections from the left amygdala to

the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate. Contrastingly, straight men and gay women have more connections from the right amygdala to the caudate, putamen, and prefrontal cortex. The brain is quite an incredibly impressive organ (I would say that, given my background), but this persistent and regularly occurring extensive wiring difference between the sexual preferences of the same gender is far too common and complex to simply be a recurring 'glitch'.

Long story short, homosexuals seemingly show brains structure and development that is more commonly associated with the opposite sex, which is sort of what you'd expect to see. And if some angry priest or right-winger tells you that someone from one gender having features associated with another is sick, wrong or unnatural, remember that his argument is entirely void if he has nipples.

Clearly, homosexuality has a use, otherwise gay people wouldn't still be around in such numbers. There are many evolutionary psychology theories as to the roles homosexuality plays/played in our developing culture and societies. Social bonding, better interaction between same-sex groups, a means of keeping population rates down in times of scarcity, inter-gender relationship building, and so on. I don't know how many, if any, of these theories have any validity, but there's a certain logic to all of them.

I sincerely doubt that there's one underlying aspect that underpins all homosexuality, and attempts to find one are likely to be misguided. I've discussed this 'complex behaviour must have a simple source' in relation to neuroscience in some depth previously. I read 'The Eternal Child' by Clive Bromhall. An interesting, if somewhat flawed, account of how everything about human society can be explained by paedomorphosis (which isn't as bad as it sounds, it means evolution takes 'short cuts' by exploiting the features and properties of children, such as humans having the smooth skin and upright stance of pre-adolescent chimps). He argues that homosexuals are the result of the same-sex bonding phase we experience in childhood, but achieving sexual maturity without going beyond that. This must be why all gay men despise women and never go near them. And all lesbians clearly despise men… actually, scratch that last one.

So clearly there are evolved neurobiological properties that give rise to homosexuality. And the research suggests that these are the result of variations in hormones and other developmental factors that occur during pregnancy or during the neonatal phases. Even if we could somehow consciously choose to drastically alter our biological features to support a sexual preference that comes encumbered with relentless persecution from psychotic idiots, that idea that we do it before birth, or before we develop the ability to sit up straight, or before we gain the ability to not have to spend long periods sat in our own copious bodily waste, seems to me to reaaaallllly stretch the definition of 'informed decision', to the point where it's not a choice at all.

So yeah. Science strongly suggests that homosexuality is the result of natural biological process beyond our control. There's plenty more research than I've covered here, and maybe everything I've referenced was flawed in some way? That's always a danger though, and that way madness lies. But if you're still reading this, well done, and next time someone says that homosexuality is a choice you can hopefully provide some proper data as to why they're wrong. They probably won't listen, but you'll have done what you can.

Just remember, science says Homosexuality is not a choice, it's just a naturally occurring facet of the complex and varied gestalt that is humanity.

I'm not sure if this applies to bisexuals though. They're probably just slags*

* = bisexuals are obviously not slags. Any suggestion that they are is wrong and pig headed. My reference to it was a blatant joke regarding the fact that I'd spent so long in criticising and condemning homophobia in any form that the fact that I myself was prejudiced against a group of people with a specific sexual preference would be ridiculously ironic. But some people have reminded me that there is such a thing as Biphobia, a prejudice they encounter from both straight and gay people, hence this clarification; Bisexuality is just another form of sexual dimorphism, and they should not now or ever be subjected to criticism, abuse, prejudice, or anything else based on their sexuality.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Disordered eating

Pregnancy, nuts and asthma

The guy who wrote the story above must have had a confusing time of it. Three health hot topics, Nut allergies, the effects of mothers diet on the foetus, and childhood asthma. Although admittedly, Asthma seems to have something of an 80's feel these days, it's a bit simplistic in these days of ADHD and MMR-Autism hysteria. It's a well understood disease that affects the lungs, and lungs are boring, right? Everyone knows about them, mental disorders are where it's at in the new millennium. I imagine a modern mother would be embarrassed if her child had asthma, sneaking them out of the playground after school, as all the other trendy mums laugh and scoff at her offspring with the outdated illness, as their own children stare into space in a Ritailin induced semi-coma.
(Ritailin is the most commonly perscribed drug for treating ADHD, it curbs the main symptoms such as lack of attention and impulsivity, and if you up the dose it can even get rid of some of those annoying habits children have like curiosity, playfulness and free will, and it can't do any harm surely as it's all medicine, medicine is good for you, right? And you can leave the child staring at the wall while you go off and get your nails done and do some shopping, and all those other things you can do now that you don't have to waste all that time doing actual parenting!)
You may have guessed, I'm not a big fan of medicating children with powerful stimulants, particularly as their brains are still developing. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions when it has to be done, but it's surely a last resort, not a first one, and I can't abide it when a parent says 'my child is out of control' when they actually mean 'my child has an illness that cramps my lifestyle, can't we tranquilize him or something?' You people know who you are!
Where was I?
Ah, right. Asthma, nut allergies and pregnancy. Three health concerns rolled into one. Apparently, if pregnant women eat nuts they risk giving their children asthma. I'm not sure how that works, but it's probably a very convoluted process. But do you remember when peanut allergies were weird? I remember hearing about it for the first time as a child, and it sounded very odd. Now they're everywhere, I know several people who suffer from serious nut allergies. Has it always been like this? Were there always many peanut sufferers who were too afraid to come forward? If so, why? Or is there an increase in allergies as time goes on.
Western living is, apparently, largely to blame. You don't get many peanut allergies in Africa, and they eat copious amounts. It's because their immune systems have more important things to do. (An allergic reaction is caused by the immune system responding rather overenthusiastically to an essentially harmless substance, by the way, in case that didn't make any sense). People in Africa have, on average, a much lower standard of living and their immune systems have to fight of germs and disease all the time. We in the west have a habit of sterilizing everything. My own mother did it, when I was born she went hygiene crazy, even sterilizing the phones, although who she expected to be calling a 2 week old baby I never established. So our immune systems get bored and twitchy, and allergies occur. Peanuts seem to be especially prone to causing a bad reaction.
I remember reading an article in New Scientist about this, where a woman died after eating peanuts at a party. Her husband said she must have eaten a peanut that "was hiding in a bowl of mixed nuts". It's a terrible tragedy and my sympathies go out to the guy, but if someone said to me 'find me a peanut', a bowl of mixed nuts would be the 2nd place I'd look. The 1st would be a bowl of peanuts. Why was she eating nuts if she had an allergy? Was this 'Russian roulette: The Christmas party edition'? Maybe she didn't know she had an allergy, but in that case, why blame the peanut? It could have been any other nut*, they were mixed. I've always been wary of Walnuts. All crumpled up like that, what are they hiding?
But this sort of story gets lost in the tide of articles and programmes about 'Food is bad for you!' There's nothing we can eat any more without some self-confessed expert lecturing us like idiot children or sifting through our bowel movements for some undisclosed reason. Jamie Oliver was practically Knighted for trying to stop kids eating 'junk', Gillian McKeith is a millionaire thanks to the nonsensical guff she spouts about nutrition, all because people are so paranoid about what they eat, and everyone seems hell bent on making it worse!
A lot of people don't trust GM food. Why? As if all other produce hasn't been cultivated and designed for maximum output over decades/centuries. But no, speed the process up in a lab and you can't trust it. 'Organic only' sections in Supermarkets annoy me, if they're going to have those, they should have 'GM only' as well. Discriminating against something because of its genes is otherwise known as racism, and I want no part of it!
There seems to be some sort of bandwagon, and everyone wants to jump on. Apparently, Janet Street Porter has recently been criticising smoothies and fruit drinks because of all the natural sugar they contain. never mind the vitamins and all that, it's the sugar that's important apprently. That just makes me want to consume smoothies until the stuff starts dripping from my ears, if Janet Street-porter is against it, I'm all for it. She's just massively infuriating.
But think about it. Red Meat = Very bad for your heart. Chicken = Probably Chemically enhanced, and they make Hugh cry. Fish = Heavy metal poisoning. Carrots = Possible vitamin A overdose. Citrus fruits = Too much sugar and acid damages your teeth. Other fruits = Sugar again, and don't forget pesticides and germs etc. Potatoes = too many carbs. Rice = Not enough carbs. Pasta = Too many carbs. Broccoli = High in carcinogens. Nuts = Fattening, too many oils. Mushrooms = Fungus? Eeeurgh. Sausages = Do you know what they putin that stuff? Eyes and anus and stuff! Curry = too many colourings. Smoothies = Janet say NO! Salad = Is it fresh? negative calories you know, if you eat it too often you might die. Coffee= Do you know what's in that? Tea = And that! Pizza = They spit in it you know, my mate saw them do it. Chinese food = All that MSG damages your eyes, you could go blind.
It goes on. There's literally nothing we can eat any more which doesn't maim or kill us in some way. Just be responsible, don't overindulge but don't starve to death either. Everything you do damages you in some way, that's life. For some people, a perfect world would be one where everyone just stays indoors hooked up to an IV drip and staring at the wall. If we're lucky, maybe they'll add some garlic to it, because there's nothing wrong with that. Yet.

* I am aware that a peanut is a legume. To anyone who was compelled to write to me to point that out, I'd advise you to go outside and talk to someone. Anyone, as you clearly need to.