Life under the glittery Jackboot

I've not blogged in quite some time. Nothing personal, it's just that as of March 7th I've been a dad. Babies in the house tend to take up a lot of your time. Who knew? 


So that's why I've not said much here. I've got an actual full-time job to keep up with, which, coupled with my myriad new responsibilities, means I've got much less time to play with, and priorities have to be made. Long-winded blogposts which will only be read by a few people with nothing better to do? They're not very high up on the list, I'm afraid.


But, sometimes you just have to speak out. Someone says something that strikes a chord, and you can't just remain silent while a great injustice continues. 


Today, in the Telegraph, Lord Carey, former Archbishop, stated that Christians and those who wish to express themselves are suppressed, forced underground, vilified by the homosexuals who have essentially taken over society.


He has been widely mocked for this, via that there Twitter, the Guardian, and elsewhere. But the people mocking his stance clearly don't understand. They must live abroad or in elitist enclaves in the more modern 'hip' cities. They clearly don't know how it is for normal people and wealthy peers who have lived in palaces. I am neither homosexual nor Christian, but ever since the tyrannical homosexuals started running society, life is a constant struggle for anyone who deviates from their tyrannical views on what is 'normal'. So, to enlighten you and show to truth of Carey's words, I've decided to describe a typical day in my life, as a suppressed heterosexual living in homosexual Britain. Or 'The U-Gay' (as in UK, yeah? Geddit?), as it should be called these days. Just so you know Carey is speaking the truth, not living in some deranged fantasy world.


The day starts with me waking up before the wife. She has to feed the baby during the night, so needs to sleep in. I notice in the fridge that we've no milk yet. It's getting harder for me to get milk now, the homosexuals who control society don't approve of milk. It's a symbol of heterosexual reproduction so is considered offensive, especially if a male drinks it as this constitutes transfer of organic material across the genders, which is 'clearly immoral' I'm told. Milk isn't banned yet, but it's surely only a matter of time.


I get dressed for work. I usually wear a combination of tight trousers and/or vests, sometimes with studs or rainbow accessories. I don't suit this stuff at all, and don't like it in the slightest. I'd much rather wear something more sober and plain, but it's really not worth the risk of offending the sensibilities of some of the more flamboyant people I work with, they're likely to lodge a complaint against me if I do. I'd like to just be myself, but that's not a good idea at present.


I head towards the train station. On the way, I pass many gay bars, they're so commonplace these days. One that I pass was recently in the news after throwing out two Christians for public praying. Some of the more tolerant media highlighted their harsh treatment, but most papers and news services just flamed them for threatening to destroy the fabric of society. Seemed like quite an unfair accusation for what was just a bit of public faith between consenting adults, but most media is on the side of the silent majority of gays these days, although whether these people exist is debatable


On the train, there is a group of flamboyant homosexuals loudly singing show tunes and Lady Gaga numbers. They're annoying everyone and making people quite uncomfortable, but you can't stifle people from expressing their views, so everyone just lets them carry on. A conductor does ask them to possibly keep it down, but they are outraged by his attempts to curb their freedoms. They tell him to 'talk to the hand'. I've never been able to work out if/why this is offensive.


I distract myself by reading the free newspaper. The main story is about a community of Bears being bombed by a hard-liner Twink group. It's down to some fundamental difference in views regarding which Madonna album is better. It seems utterly ridiculous and superficial to me, but then I'm not part of that community so am told I'm not able to understand the importance of the dispute. Fair enough, I suppose.


Spend the next few hours in work. Am occasionally pestered by my annoying co-worker who keeps telling everyone they should attend her LGBT pottery class. She keeps telling me I should go and how much good it would do me. I keep declining, she wants to know why. I eventually tell her that I'm not a part of the LGBT community and I just find pottery immensely dull. She's polite about it, but is clearly very angry. That's probably going to get me ostracised for the next few weeks. 

(This happened in my last job. I said I wasn't going to Mardi Gras as it didn't really apply to me, and then I stupidly asked why an event with the name 'Fat Tuesday' always occurred on the weekend? This resulted in a massive backlash, and accusations of me aggressively undermining the true meaning of the occasion by trying to change the name. Madness! I had to leave that job, it was too much. My boss made a decent effort to be supportive, but what with his office filled with Mardi Gras merchandise I don't think he really saw my side of things)


I nip out for lunch in town. I'm waylaid by and incredibly camp man with giving out flyers about how essential it is to become homosexual. He tries to give me one, but I decline, saying I need to be back in work. He gets very angry and remonstrates me, telling me that unless I embrace homosexuality I'll never get into heaven. He means it as a threat, but I don't really have much of a concern. I've never cared for night clubs anyway.


Back in work, a meeting with HR. I've got to sort out paternity leave and the like. It's quite complicated. My wife and I are, logically, married, but society doesn't recognise it as 'true' marriage, what with it being mixed-sex. After all, they argue, men and women are so different, they're practically different species. We're mixed-race as well, which just makes it worse. It's no better than bestiality, they say. I try not to let it get to me, but it's hard going some times. We don't have the same protections that 'normal' gay couples have under the law. 


Could be worse I suppose, at least we're not religious. The treatment they get is worse again. It's not natural, they say. Some of the arguments seem to make sense, sadly. Homosexuality is natural, you can't help that, but being religious is a choice. A wrong one, clearly, judging by this society. But still, the vendetta against religious people seems a bit much, given that they're not hurting anyone with their beliefs. You'd think the gay organisations running society would have bigger things to worry about what with the economy and so forth, but apparently not.


I eventually head home. On the way, I pass a hotel I stayed in once. Fairly low budget, but even then they had the obligatory copy of Alan Carr's autobiography in the bedside drawers. Never read it myself, but apparently it's become the homosexual text which they tend live their life by. From what I know of Alan Carr, he is a very amiable friendly bloke, but in the book there is apparently a miss-print. One sentence should read 'I said "God, no!"', the typical exclamation meaning immediate denial. But instead it reads 'I said "God? No!"', and this is what all the religious persecution is based on. Seems flimsy justification, but like I say, I've never read it. There's also apparently a part that uses the phrase 'straight to hell', which is interpreted as a condemnation of heterosexuals. you could argue that these are very much open to interpretation, but it's never any use.


So I get home. Wife, son, all one happy family. We can't go out much, but we probably wouldn't anyway. Modern society means our lifestyle and relationship isn't really approved of by many, even if those who disprove don't really know why. I'm fairly sure that most homosexuals have no problem with what other people do, but that's not really helpful to us. It's the aggressive, shouty ones who get to dictate what happens. Nobody ever pays attention to the people who aren't saying anything, for obvious reasons.




So there you have it, an account of life in a society run by dominant homosexuals (pardon the double meaning of that). At least Carey has had to guts to speak out, hopefully many more will follow and bring about real change, ending this injustice once and for all.






DISCLAIMER: Sadly, odds are I'll need to state this for clarity's sake; The above anecdote is entirely fictional. It never happened. It is a (probably weak) attempt at satire, intended to portray what life would be like in a society under the control of what are clearly ridiculously exaggerated homosexual clichés, which a worrying number of people seem to be convinced is the case, despite the substantial evidence to the contrary. Any analogues between this blog piece and the real world are obviously intentional, but the society portrayed only exists in some possible parallel universe, and the heads of myself and Lord Carey. I write this disclaimer to show that I, at least, am aware that it's not real.




Twitter: @garwboy

Chavism: The new prejudice

Every now and again, I contribute to the Pod Delusion. Recently, I volunteered/was asked to do a piece on why I think the term 'Chav' is a form of class prejudice. Martin Robbins, celebrated Blogger and science journo is the one arguing that 'chav' is not an offensive term. The other side of the argument was my incompetent self. Arguably, this could be seen as yet another form of 'Chav' prejudice.

Anyway, this is the relevant episode of the Pod Delusion.

POD Delusion: Pro-'Chav' Rant

I didn't go to a posh school. There were over a thousand students in my school, but if you added up the A-level Chemistry, Biology and Physics classes, you got 7 students. 3 of those students were me. It was a poorly funded, oversubscribed school. Studying was something you did if you couldn't get a girlfriend. And yes, a lot of my fellow pupils would fall into the social and behavioural groups that many would label 'chavs'. They were from poor backgrounds, they smoked under age, they had little discipline, they all dressed in ways that they considered cool but others would consider stupid. I didn't think of them as 'chavs', though. I thought of them as 'teenagers'.

I was born and raised working class. I might still be working class, I'm not sure what the class criterion are any more. I didn't grow up in a cultured or well-to-do place; when I grew up we lived in a pub in a former Welsh mining valley where unemployment and heavy drinking was the norm. I did go through the usual teenage phase of rebelling against my dad, but seeing as my dad was a hard-fighting hard drinking landlord, my rebellion took the form of staying in and reading books, hence I ended up becoming the sort of person who contributes to the POD delusion. But whenever I see or hear someone described as a 'chav', I do get existentially irked as, in a parallel universe very close to our own, they're talking about me. That's my version 'there but for the grace of God..', by the way. It's a useful quantum/atheist version.

I grew up among so-called 'chavs'. I went to school with them. I imagine a lot of my family could be described as such. Not by me, obviously, they're members of my family. The names I call them are not something you could repeat in polite company.

I want to make it clear that I don't think the sort of people labelled 'chavs' are necessarily good people. They often aren't. But saying that, I'm not that nice a person myself on occasion. And I'm not saying everyone should be nice. Check out the blog of my good friend Ted Shiress. A stand-up comic, Cerebral Palsy sufferer, and he sometimes comes across as a decent bloke. He's not though, he's the most evil person ever made (haphazardly) by nature, and I've said so to his face. In public. Which makes me look bad. So this isn't an issue of me arguing about who I like and don't like, it's as impersonal I can make it.

Nor do I think that everyone who uses the term is being deliberately classist or offensive. But saying that, when I was in infant school I used the word 'Paki' quite often. I had no idea what it actually meant. Growing up in a very small, isolated British community in the 80's, in the context I'd heard it used I thought it was another way of saying 'daft person'. But despite my lack of negative intent, it is still clearly an offensive term, given its origins. And I feel, to a lesser extent maybe, the same can be said of the term 'chav'.

I'm sure Martin Robbins has presented a far more well researched and reasoned argument about why the term 'chav' is not classist or offensive. More so than one I will present anyway. I personally find it difficult to argue about the intent behind the label 'chav' because it seems to mean many things to the many different people I've asked. Some think it means someone who breaks the law, some think it means someone from a council estate who hangs around in bus stops, some seem to think the term applies to anyone with a Burberry cap and false tan. It's very hard to argue about the intent of people using the term when it's not certain what they mean exactly.

But the Wikipedia article for ''chav'' summarises as 'chav' as "aggressive teenagers, of working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency". Given the way Wikipedia operates, I'm going to assume enough people agree with this definition for it to be considered accurate.

It suggests that 'chavs' are from working class backgrounds. But obviously, not all working class people are 'chavs'. Apparently, a 'chav' has to engage in illegal, antisocial behaviour to truly be worthy of the label. It seems a 'chav' also has to be a young person.

But however you define it, it seems undeniable to me that the term 'chav' has given many people something they really like having; a convenient form of acceptable prejudice.

Prejudice is, unfortunately, something that is very easy to instill in humans. Check out the famous robbers cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif et al (1954), which took place at an American summer camp, where two groups of young boys, of the same ethnic and social backgrounds, met for the first time, became friends, and were then turned into bitter rivals to the point vicious accusations and attacks after just imposition of a few experimental variables. This wasn't the work of months or weeks, but a couple of days. People form prejudices quickly. It's likely to be an evolutionary consequence of humans living in tight-knit social groups, where other groups turning up were usually potential rivals for resources and living space. Whatever the reason, it happens a lot.

It even happened to me. I'm not afraid of 'chavs' or feral teens or whatever they're called. I went to school with them, I'm habituated to them. I've been unsuccessfully mugged by examples of such people on two separate occasions. Their strategy seemed to rely on me being automatically scared and deferential based on how they came across. I wasn't though, and they had no backup plan, and we just went our separate ways.

But when I went home recently, I was in a cafe and saw a bunch of Burberry clad teens in a bus stop nearby. One left the group and approached the cafe. My first instinct was to move toward the currently unguarded till, thinking I could hold him back from it long enough for someone to call the police (It was a small business). Said teen came into the cafe, went tot he counter, and asked for some more milk to the takeaway coffee under his hoodie, which he had legitimately paid for minutes before I turned up.

I'm the last person who should behave in this manner, but the social stereotyping had got to me in the end, and I didn't even realise it. Ergo, I think the term 'chav' is another form of prejudice. It's a term used to separate and denigrate others who are less fortunate than ones self. When someone calls someone a 'chav', they're not being complimentary. However you define it, the term 'chav' is never a compliment. But saying that, I've heard many arguments about why using the term 'chav' is acceptable.

It has been argued that 'chavs' are self identifying, and as such it's ok to call them that. I admit, I knew many kids who would fit the description of 'chav' in my school. Thing is, I didn't hear the term 'chav' until I got to University. In Cardiff, capital city. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but 'chav' was very much a label imposed on that particular social group, not one they sought out for themselves, and even if they have become accustomed to it and now use it willingly, that doesn't automatically make it OK. Other countries became accustomed to the British Empire, but that doesn't mean they'd prefer not to have been brutally conquered in the first place.

By using the 'self-identifying' argument, it suggests that being a 'chav' is a conscious and thought out choice on behalf of the individual. But 'chavs' are, apparently, young people from deprived backgrounds who are poorly educated and shunned by wider society. In such circumstances, peer pressure and your immediate social groups are all you can rely on, so it's hardly any wonder that they conform. Saying it's a conscious decision suggests that there is an element of choice, but choice requires options, and in certain deprived backgrounds this isn't necessarily the case.

It has been argued that 'chavs' and similar people are just as insulting towards the upper classes when they use terms like Toff, hooray Henry, snob and so on. And that may well be the case, but I don't see how this justifies anything. I've encountered many men who say that feminism means women are just as sexist as men these days, so that effectively cancels their own misogyny out. But I believe that logic is exactly what it seems to be; a flimsy rationalisation for bad behaviour.

Similarly, a class prejudice is not an equivalent two way thing. A working class prejudice to posh people means the latter might think twice before parking their expensive cars in areas they'd never go to anyway. An upper class prejudice to working class people can lead to massive cuts in the public sector

Perhaps that is rather melodramatic, but the underlying reality is that, when one form of prejudice has genuine consequences for the victims and the other does not, they can't be said to be equal at all.

The strongest argument is that 'chavs' are usually criminals, and criminals don't deserve respect. A slightly right-wing argument, but one that rings true for many people. It's a valid point, but not one limited to working class people. The term 'chav' has seemingly moved beyond the criminal arena and moved on to any working class group of youths who like that. Hanging around in a bus stop, wearing too much foundation and drinking white cider, these aren't crimes, but enough to get you labelled a 'chav'. Using other people's money in vast sums in risky, self-gratifying ventures that eventually will threaten the foundations of the world's economy, this is a morally reprehensible action far beyond vandalising a phone box, but it doesn't get you labelled a 'chav'. So being a 'chav' is not necessarily a criminal act.

To summarise, you and your friends can smash up a public establishment. If you're thought of as 'chavs', you'll probably end up with a criminal record or ASBO. If you're in the Bullingdon club, you'll probably end up running the country. You might think the latter accusation is just based on anecdotal evidence. I would argue that the same is true for the former.

All things being equal, there are many things that get someone labelled a 'chav'. Being disrespectful of authority, publicly disruptive, expecting others to provide for them, damaging property of others, antagonising others in large groups, yes these are all the hallmarks of 'chavs'. Thing is, I've heard people refer to the noble UK Uncut movement in exactly the same terms. And the student protests. And many others. None of these are 'chavs', as they have a decent education and political awareness.

I'm not saying the people referred to as 'chavs' are pleasant people. They're generally not, the clichés around them are there for a reason, and it's arguably true that they have no respect for civilised society. But society has never shown any respect for them, and rather than do something to change the situation, society has decided to ridicule and condemn them. I would rather they didn't behave in the way they did, but that goes for people of all classes. But only those of a working class background warrant their own disparaging term, 'chav'. The ones who are least able to alter their situations and behaviour are the ones most condemned for refusing to do so. These people are also the ones least able to retaliate in any appreciable way. The propagation of the word 'chav' is, to me, an example of 'blame the victim' culture writ large.

You may disagree with this entire analysis, and it's your right to do so. After all, 'chavs' are acceptable targets, and nobody wants to lose a useful whipping boy if they can avoid it.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

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

"Dear 'The Pope', from Science" (No. 7)

Had to be done, really

Dear 'The Pope'

Is that accurate, calling you 'The Pope'? I think the word is Pontiff, but whenever I try to write that I keep saying 'Pointless', which I know would upset you, as you don't usually like it when I say things which are accurate.
It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. I doubt you'll read this, you've never read any of my previous works. Even though we both have a tendency to use big Latin words in order to confuse people, I don't think we share similar reading preferences. My books tend to include figures and graphs, not so much stonings and miracles.

Also, I know I never said thanks for agreeing that the Big Bang theory is accurate, but having you agree with me actually undermines my argument more than anything, so would you mind just not getting involved from now on?
Actually, that was the last one wasn't it? Or was it several Popes ago? It's hard to keep track of you guys. Are you a Time Lord? Or is it one of those 'Dead Man's Shoes' situations? Or 'Dead Man's sacred ruby slippers', or whatever the hell those things are.

Anyway, to the point. You've been saying that having your people legally obliged to admit homosexuals violates 'natural law'? Say what now? What do you mean by 'natural law'? The laws of nature, which usually involves being killed and eaten by a superior physical specimen. I know some Gay people like to work out, but what do you think they'll do to you? Bring you down like a Gazelle and gnaw on your carcass? Although a potentially amusing scene, that's not what Gay people do. Any of them (despite your propaganda)

I ask because 'natural law' sounds like something that's under my jurisdiction, not yours. You take care of spirituality and all that, I'll take care of the laws of nature. And everything else of any use and importance.

I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about physics, I really can't see a law enforcing human rights violating the fundamental rules that govern space time. Are you suggesting that this policy disrupts biology? That the instinctive revulsion you feel towards homosexuality is natural, ergo attempting to suppress it is a violation of 'natural law'? Fair enough, so the suppression of natural inclinations is fundamentally wrong? Said the Pope? The POPE! A Catholic would be bad enough, but the POPE! From what I hear about what some of your lot get up to with the choirboys, they clearly agree with you.
I'm impressed in a way, you do set yourself some incredible challenges. I'm trying to save the planet, determine the fundamental structure of all reality and provide unlimited clean energy for all of mankind, but stopping teenage boys from masturbating? I know my limits.

Homosexuality is natural, by the way. This is true, because it exists. If it served no purpose, it wouldn't exist, it's not exactly a hereditary trait is it. If they were, as you say, 'not natural', evolution would have caused them to die out centuries ago. To say homosexuality is wrong is like say evolution doesn't occur!

Oh, wait.... Ah, I see what I did there.

Thing is though, you say evolution doesn't happen, and if evolution is summarised simply as organisms developing over time in order to ensure the survival of their genes, the homosexuality could be seen as counter evidence to this. So homosexuality must be an act of God. So which is it?

Or have I mixed you up with fundamentalists? I can never tell you lot apart. Either way, you're wrong. We all know it, stop trying to dress up your prejudice with nonsense terms you creepy old freak.

You need to relax mate. What you so worked up about? What would happen if you did allow homosexuals into the catholic church? You've been doing it for centuries. I know it sounds bad, the church would end up as some institution where women weren't allowed and all the men hung around together wearing elaborate clothes.

Yeah, sounds awful doesn't it.

Long story short, this anti-gay vitriol is a bit rich coming from a guy who (allegedly), to get his job, has to have his testicles squeezed by another man, in front of everyone.

It's not natural what you do. Ergo, by your logic, you shouldn't do it.

I know there hasn't been much in the way of scientific analysis in this letter, but that's usually a complete waste of time when I talk to you.

Stay out of my yard!

Science (BA hons)

P.S. If having an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do is so wrong, would it be OK if I got back to my stem cell work, and stuff like that? I'll just assume it is, shall I?

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy