There’s currently a petition calling for an official posthumous apology from the British government to Alan Turing, often considered as the father of modern computer science. From the official petition on the British Prime Minister’s website:

Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.

He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a ‘cure’, and took his own life, aged 41.

The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man’s life and career.

If you’re a British citizen, do consider it and  enter your name for the petition. Read more on this, here, here, here, here.

A Fabulous Child’s Story

by Lois Gould

Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn’t tell anybody else. They couldn’t even tell Baby X at first.

You see, it was all part of a very important Secret Scientific Xperiment, known officially as Project Baby X. The smartest scientists had set up this Xperiment at a cost of Xactly 23 billion dollars and 72 cents, which might seem like a lot for just one baby, even a very important Xperimental baby. But when you remember the prices of things like strained carrots and stuffed bunnies, and popcorn for the movies and booster shots for camp, let alone 28 shiny quarters from the tooth fairy, you begin to see how it adds up.

Also, long before Baby X was born, all those scientists had to be paid to work out the details of the Xperiment, and to write the Official Instruction Manual for Baby X’s parents and, most important of all, to find the right set of parents to bring up Baby X. These parents had to be selected very carefully. Thousands of volunteers had to take thousands of tests and answer thousands of tricky questions. Almost everybody failed because, it turned out, almost everybody really wanted either a baby boy or a baby girl, and not Baby X at all. Also, almost everybody was afraid that a Baby X would be a lot more trouble than a boy or a girl. (They were probably right, the scientists admitted, but Baby X needed parents who wouldn’t mind the Xtra trouble.)

There were families with grandparents named Milton and Agatha, who didn’t see why the baby couldn’t be named Milton or Agatha instead of X, even if it was an X. There were families with aunts who insisted on knitting tiny dresses and uncles who insisted on sending tiny baseball mitts. Worst of all, these were families that already had other children who couldn’t be trusted to keep the secret. Certainly not if they knew the secret was worth 23 billion dollars and 72 cents – and all you had to do was take one little peek at Baby X in the bathtub to know if it was a boy or girl.

But, finally, the scientists found the Joneses, who really wanted to raise an X more than any other kind of baby – no matter how much trouble it would be. Ms. and Mr. Jones had to promise they would take equal turns caring for X, and feeding it, and singing it lullabies. And they had to promise never to hire any baby-sitters. The government scientists knew perfectly well that a baby-sitter would probably peek at X in the bathtub, too.

The day the Joneses brought their baby home, lots of friends and relatives came over to see it. None of them knew about the secret Xperiment, though. So the first thing they asked was what kind of a baby X was. When the Joneses smiled and said, “It’s an X,” nobody knew what to say. They couldn’t say, “Look at her cute little dimples!” And they couldn’t say, “Look at his husky little biceps!” And they couldn’t even say just plain “kitchycoo”. In fact, they all thought the Joneses were playing some kind of rude joke.

But of course, the Joneses were not joking. “It’s an X” was absolutely all they would say. And that made the friends and relatives very angry. The relatives all felt embarrassed about having an X in the family. “People will think there’s something wrong with it!” some of them whispered. “There is something wrong with it!” others whispered back.

“Nonsense!” the Joneses told them all cheerfully. “What could possibly be wrong with this perfectly adorable X?”

Nobody could answer that, except Baby X, who had just finished its bottle. Baby X’s answer was a loud, satisfied BURP!

Clearly, nothing at all was wrong. Nevertheless, none of the relatives felt comfortable about buying a present for a Baby X. The cousins who sent the baby a tiny football helmet would not come and visit anymore. And the neighbours who sent a pink-flowered romper suit pulled their shades down when the Joneses passed their house. The Official Instruction Manual had warned the new parents that this would happen, so they didn’t fret about it. Besides, they were too busy with Baby X and the hundreds of different Xercises for treating it properly.

Ms. and Mr. Jones had to be Xtra careful about how they played with little X. They knew that if they kept bouncing it up in the air and saying how strong and active it was, they’d be treating it more like a boy than an X. But if all they did was cuddle it and kiss it and tell it how sweet and dainty it was, they’d be treating it more like a girl than an X.

On page 1654 of the Official Instruction Manual, the scientists prescribed: “plenty of bouncing and plenty of cuddling, both, X ought to be strong and sweet and active. Forget about dainty altogether”.

Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems. Toys, for instance, and clothes. On his first shopping trip, Mr. Jones told the store clerk, “I need some clothes and toys for my new baby”. The clerk smiled and said, “Well now, is it a. boy or a girl”

“It’s an X”, Mr Jones said, smiling back. But the clerk got all red in the face and said huffily, “In that case, I’m afraid I can’t help you, sir”.

So Mr Jones wandered helplessly up and down the aisles trying to find out what X needed. But everything in the store was piled up in sections marked “Boys” or “Girls”.

There were “Boy’s’ Pyjamas” and “Girls’ Underwear” and “Boys’ Fire Engines” and “Girl’s Housekeeping Sets”. Mr. Jones went home without buying anything for X. That night he and Ms. Jones consulted page 2326 of the Official Instruction Manual. “Buy plenty of everything”, it said firmly.

So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pyjamas in the Boys’ Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls’ Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, “Pa-pa”. And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said “I am the Pres-i-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors”. They also bought a story-book about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.

The head scientists of Project Baby X checked all their purchases and told them to keep up the good work. They also reminded the Joneses to see page 4629 of the Manual, where it said: “Never make Baby X feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wants to play with. And if X gets dirty climbing rocks, never say “Nice little Xes don’t get dirty climbing rocks.”

Likewise, it said: “If X falls down and cries, never say, “Brave little Xes don’t cry”. Because of course, nice little Xes do get dirty, and brave little Xes do cry. No matter how dirty X gets, or how hard it cries, don’t worry. It’s all part of the Xperiment.”

Whenever the Joneses pushed Baby X’s stroller in the park, smiling strangers would come over and coo: “Is that a boy or a girl?” The Joneses would smile back and say, “It’s an X”. The strangers would stop smiling then, and often snarl something nasty – as if the Joneses had snarled at them.

By the time X grew big enough to play with other children, the Jones’ troubles had grown bigger too. Once a little girl grabbed X’s shovel in the sandbox and zonked X on the head with it.

“Now, now, Tracy”, the little girl’s mother began to scold, “little girls mustn’t hit little -” and she turned to ask X, “Are you a little boy or a little girl, dear?”

Mr. Jones, who was sitting near the sandbox, held his breath and crossed his fingers.

X smiled politely at the lady, even though X’s head had never been zonked so hard in all its life. “I’m a little X”, X replied.

“You’re a what ?” the lady exclaimed angrily. “You’re a little B.R.A.T., you mean”.

“But little girls mustn’t hit little Xes, either!” said X, retrieving the shovel with another polite smile. “What good does hitting do, anyway?”

X’s father, who was still holding his breath, finally let it out, uncrossed his fingers and grinned back at X.

And at their next secret Project Baby X meeting, the scientists grinned too. Baby X was doing fine.

But then it was time for X to start school. The Joneses were really worried about this, because school was even more full of rules for boys and girls and there were no rules for Xes. The teachers would tell boys to form one line, and girls to form another line. There would be boys’ games and girls’ games and boys’ secrets and girls’ secrets. The school library would have a list of recommended books for girls and a different list of recommended books for boys. There would even be a bathroom marked BOYS and another marked GIRLS. Pretty soon boys and girls would hardly talk to each other. What would happen to poor little X!

The Joneses spent weeks consulting their Instruction Manual (there were 246 and 1/2 pages of advice under “First Day at School”), and attending urgent special conferences with the smart scientists of Project Baby X.

The scientists had to make sure that X’s mother had taught X how to throw and catch a ball properly and that X’s father had been sure to teach X what to serve at a doll’s tea party. X had to know how to shoot marbles and how to jump rope, and most of all, what to say when the other children asked whether X was a boy or a girl.

Finally, X was ready.

The Joneses helped X button on a nice new pair of red-and-white checked overalls, and sharpened six pencils for X’s nice new pencil box and marked X’s name clearly on all the books in its nice new book bag. X brushed its teeth and combed its hair, which just about covered its ears and remembered to put a napkin in its lunchbox.

The Joneses had asked X’s teacher if the class could line up alphabetically, instead of forming separate lines for boys and girls. And they had asked if X could use the principal’s bathroom, because it wasn’t marked anything except “BATHROOM”. X’s teacher promised to take care of all those problems. But nobody could help X with the biggest problem of all – other children.

Nobody in X’s class had ever known an X before. What would they think? How would X make friends?

You couldn’t tell what X was by studying its clothes – overalls don’t even button right-to-l eft, like girls’ clothes or left-to-right, like boys’ clothes. And you couldn’t guess whether X lad a girls’ short haircut or a boy’s long haircut. And it was very hard to tell by the games X liked to play. Either X played ball very well for a girl, or else X played house very well for a boy.

Some of the children tried to find out by asking (tricky questions, like “Who’s your favourite sports star?” That was easy. X had two favourite sport stars: a girl jockey named Robyn Smith and a boy archery champion lamed Robin Hood. Then they asked, what’s your favourite television programme?” And hat was even easier. X’s favourite television programme was “lassie” which stars a girl dog played by a boy dog.

Then X said that its favourite toy was a doll, everyone decided that X must be a girl. But hen X said that the doll was really a robot, and that X had computerised it, and that it was programmed to bake fudge brownies and then clean up the kitchen. After X told them that, the Other Children gave up guessing what X was. All they knew was they’d sure like to see X’s doll.

After school, X wanted to play with the other children.

“How about shooting some baskets in the gym?” X asked all the girls. But all they did was make faces and giggle behind X’s back. “How about weaving some baskets in the arts and crafts room?” X asked the boys. But they all made faces and giggled behind X’s back, too.

That night, Ms. and Mr. Jones asked X how things had gone at school. X told them sadly that the lessons were okay, but otherwise school was a terrible place for an X. It seemed as if Other Children would never want an X for a friend.

Once more, the Joneses reached for their Instruction Manual. Under “Other Children”, they found the following message: “What did you Xpect? Other Children have to obey all the silly boy-girl rules, because their parents taught them to. Lucky X – you don’t have to stick to the rules at all! All you have to do is be yourself. We’re not saying if it be easy.”

X liked being itself. But X cried a lot that night, partly because it felt afraid. So X’s father held X tight and cuddled it and couldn’t help crying a little too. And X’s mother cheered them both up by reading an Xciting story about an enchanted prince called Sleeping Handsome, who woke up when Princess Charming kissed him.

The next morning, they all felt much better and little X went back to school with a brave smile and a clean pair of red-and-white checked overalls.

There was a seven-letter-word spelling bee in class that day. And a seven-lap boys’ relay race in the gym. And a seven-layer-cake baking contest in the girls’ kitchen corner. X won the spelling bee. X also won the relay race. And X almost won the baking contest, except it forgot to light the oven. Which only proves that nobody’s perfect.

One of the Other Children noticed something else, too. He said: “Winning or losing doesn’t seem to count to X. X seems to have fun being good at boys’ skills and girls’ skills”.

“Come to think of if, said another of the Other Children, “maybe X is having twice as much fun as we are.”

So after school that day, the girl who beat X at the baking contests gave X a big slice of her prizewinning cake. And the boy X beat in the relay race asked X to race him home.

From then on, some really funny things began to happen. Susie, who sat next to X in class, suddenly refused to wear pink dresses to school any more. She insisted on wearing red-and-white checked overalls – just like X’s overalls, she told her parents, were much better for climbing monkey bars.

Then Jim, the class football nut, started wheeling his little sister’s doll carriage around the football field. He’d put on his entire football uniform, except for the helmet. Then he put the helmet in the carriage, lovingly tucked under an old set of shoulder pads. Then he started jogging around the field, pushing the carriage and singing “Rock a bye Baby” to his football helmet. He told his family that X did the same thing, so it must be okay. After all, X was now the team’s star quarter-back.

Susie’s parents were horrified by her behaviour, and Jim’s parents were worried sick about his. But the worst came when the twins, Joe and Peggy, decided to share everything with each other. Peggy used Joe’s hockey skates, and his microscope, and took half his newspaper route. Joe used Peggy’s needlepoint kit, Peggy started running the lawn mower and Joe started running the vacuum cleaner.

Their parents weren’t one bit pleased with Peggy’s wonderful biology experiments, or with Joe’s terrific needlepoint pillows. They didn’t care that Peggy mowed the lawn better, and that Joe vacuumed the carpet better. In fact they were furious.

It’s all that little X’s fault, they agreed. Just because X doesn’t know what it is, or what it’s supposed to be, it wants to get everybody else mixed up, too! Peggy and Joe were forbidden to play with X anymore. So was Susie, and then Jim, and then all the Other Children. But it was too late; the Other Children stayed mixed up and happy and free, and refused to go back to the way they’d been before X.

Finally, Joe and Peggy’s parents decided to call an emergency meeting of the school’s Parents’ Association, to discuss “The X Problem”. They sent a report to the principal stating that X was a “disruptive influence”.

They demanded immediate action. The Joneses, they said, should be forced to tell whether X was a boy or a girl. And then X should be forced to behave like whichever it was. If the Joneses refused to tell, the Parents’ Association said, then X must take an Xaminiation. The school Psychiatrist must Xamine it physically and mentally and issue a full report. If X’s test showed it was a boy, it would have to obey all the boys’ rules. If it proved to be a girl, X would have to obey all the girls’ rules, and if X turned out to be some kind of mixed up misfit, then X should be Xpelled from the school. Immediately!

The Principal was very upset. Disruptive influence? Mixed-up misfit? But X was an Xcellent student. All the teachers said it was a delight to have X in their classes. X was President of the student council. X had won First prize in the talent show and second prize in the art show and honourable mention in the science fair and six athletic events on field day, including the potato race.

Nevertheless, insisted the Parents’ Association, X is a Problem Child. X is the Biggest Problem Child we have ever seen!

So the Principal reluctantly notified X’s parents that numerous complaints about X’s behaviour had come to the school’s attention. And that after the Psychiatrist’s Xaminiation, the school would decide what to do about X.

The Joneses reported this at once to the scientists, who referred them to page 85759 of the I nstruction Manual. “Sooner or later,” it said, “X will have to be Xamined by a Psychiatrist. This may be the only way any of us will know for sure whether X is mixed up or whether everyone else is”.

The night before X was to be Xamined, the Joneses tried not to let X see how worried they were.

“What if” Mr. Jones would say. And Ms. Jones would reply, “No use worrying”.

Then a few minutes later, Ms. Jones would say, “What if” and Mr. Jones would reply, “No use worrying”.

X just smiled at them both, and hugged them hard and didn’t say much of anything. X was thinking, What if? And then X thought: No use worrying.

At Xactly 9 o’clock the next day, X reported to the school Psychiatrist’s office. The Principal, along with a committee from the Parents’ Association, X’s teacher, X’s classmates and Ms. and Mr. Jones waited in the hall outside. Nobody knew the details of the tests X was to be given, but everybody knew they’d be very hard, and that they’d reveal Xactly what everyone wanted to know about X, but was afraid to ask.

It was terribly quiet in the hall. Almost spooky! Once in a while, they would hear a strange noise inside the room. There were buzzes. And a beep or two, and several bells. An occasional light would flash under the door. The Joneses thought it was a white light, but the Principal thought it was blue. Two or three children swore it was either yellow or green. And the Parents’ Committee missed it completely.

Through it all, you could hear the Psychiatrist’s low voice, asking hundreds of questions, and X’s higher voice, answering hundreds of answers. The whole thing took so long that everyone knew it must be the most complete Xaminiation anyone had ever had to take. Poor X, the Joneses thought Serves X right, the Parents’ Committee thought! Wouldn’t like to be in X’s overalls right now, the children thought.

At last, the door opened. Everyone crowded around to hear the results. X didn’t look any different; in fact, X was smiling. But the Psychiatrist looked terrible. He looked as if he was crying!

“What happened?” everyone began shouting. Had X done something disgraceful? “I wouldn’t be a bit surprised!” muttered Peggy and Joe’s parents.

“Did X flunk the whole test?” cried Susie’s parents. “Or just the most important part?” yelled Jim’s parents. “Oh, dear”, sighed Mr Jones. “Oh, dear”, sighed Ms. Jones. “Sssh”, sssshed the Principal. “The Psychiatrist is trying to speak”.

Wiping his eyes and clearing his throat, the psychiatrist began in a hoarse whisper.

“In my opinion”, he whispered – you could tell he must be very upset – “in my opinion, young X here -”

“Yes? Yes” shouted a parent impatiently. “Sssssh!” sssshed the Principal.

“Young Ssssshhh here, I mean, young X” said the doctor, frowning, “is just about … “. “Just about WHAT? Let’s have it!” shouted another parent. “Just about the least mixed-up child I’ve ever Xamined” said the Psychiatrist. “Yah for X,” yelled one of the children. And then the others began yelling, too. Clapping and cheering and jumping up and down. “SSSSSHH!” Ssshed the Principal, but nobody did.

The Parents’ Committee was angry and bewildered. How COULD X have passed the whole Xamination? Didn’t X have an identity problem? Wasn’t X mixed up at ALL? Wasn’t X any kind of misfit? How could it NOT be, when it didn’t even KNOW what it was? And why was the Psychiatrist crying?

Actually, he had stopped crying and was smiling politely through his tears. “Don’t you see?” he said, “I’m crying because it’s wonderful! X has absolutely no identity problem! X isn’t one bit mixed up! As for being a misfit – ridiculous! X knows perfectly well what it is! Don’t you, X? the doctor winked. X winked back.

“But what IS X?” Shrieked Peggy and Joe’s parents. “We still want to know what it is!” “Ah, yes”, said the doctor winking again. “Well, don’t worry. You’ll all know one of these days. And you won’t need me to tell you.” “What? What does he mean?” some of the parents grumbled suspiciously.

Susie and Peggy and Joe all answered all at once. “He means that by the time X’s sex matters, it won’t be a secret anymore!”

With that, the doctor began to push through the crowd towards X’s parents. “How do you do?” he said, somewhat stiffly. And then he reached out to hug them both. “If I ever have an X of my own,” he whispered, “I sure hope you’ll lend me your instruction manual”.

Needless to say, the Joneses were very happy. The Project Baby X scientists were rather pleased too. So were Susie, Jim, Peggy, Joe, and all the Other Children. The Parents’ Association wasn’t, but they had promised to accept the Psychiatrist’s report and not make any more trouble. They even invited Ms. and Mr. Jones to become honorary members, which they did.

Later that day, X’s friends put on their red-and-white-checked overalls and went over to see X. They found X in the back yard, playing with a very tiny baby that none of them had even seen before. The baby was wearing very tiny red-and-white-checked overalls.

“How do you like our new baby?” X asked the Other Children proudly. “It’s got cute dimples,” said Jim. “It’s got husky biceps, too”, said Susie. “What kind of baby is it?” asked Joe and Peggy.

X frowned at them. “Can’t you tell?” Then X broke into a big, mischievous grin, “It’s a Y!”

About this talk
“Bonk” author Mary Roach delves into obscure scientific research, some of it centuries old, to make 10 surprising claims about sexual climax, ranging from the bizarre to the hilarious. (This talk is aimed at adults. Viewer discretion advised.)

About Mary Roach
Death, the afterlife, and now sex — Mary Roach tackles the most pondered and least understood conundrums that have baffled humans for centuries. (She’s funny, too.) Full bio and more links

Many members of the trans community find the classification of their transition and experiences offensive. There are ongoing movements spearheaded by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which is internationally based, and GID Reform Advocates, based in the US, that are trying to get the DSM to exclude GID as part of the manual for mental disorders or at least, to have the word changed from disorder to ‘dysphoria’ or ‘dissonance’.

However, there are trans people who are also in favor of keeping the GID in the DSM. For many members of the trans community, the medical classification of GID allows them to get access to appropriate medical care and services, especially in situations such as insurance filing or asking for continued hormone therapy in prisons. Because only very few individuals can actually afford to pay for their own hormone therapies and sexual reassignment surgeries, there is still support for the DSM to keep GID.

As the DSM is being reviewed for a new edition release in 2012, there are plans to strike a compromise. The hope would be that the DSM keep GID, except that the wording be changed from ‘disorder’ to something that is more accurate: ‘dysphoria’ or ‘dissonance’. This article from the Advocate provides a wonderful summary of the current debates surrounding the specific issue.

 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, a prominent theorist who is often cited as one of the founders of queer theory, died on April 12. She was 58.

Sedgwick was reportedly diagnosed with breast cancer in 1991, prompting her book A Dialogue on Love. Sedgwick taught English at several institutions including Boston University; the University of California, Berkeley; and Duke University, where she was a Newman Ivey White Professor of English.

According to friend Cathy Davidson, who wrote about Sedgwick’s death on Monday, she died by her partner Hal’s side.

“Eve was a practicing Buddhist and blessings were said in Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies all over the world to help with her passage to the next life, a passage that, I know, brings the loving connections she made to the next life,” Davidson wrote. “She leaves those connections behind, to those of us fortunate to have known her or been touched by her writings. We love you, Eve.”

Sedgwick has written many books on gender and sexual orientation, including Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire; Epistemology of the Closet; and Tendencies.

By Seth Stein

When does a man become straight or gay? Is it a choice or is it predetermined? If it is a choice, as certain groups claim, then the issue is further complicated: why would a person willingly join an oppressed minority? Perhaps the discussion should start on a more personal, albeit admittedly non-scientific, note.

I grew up in downtown Chicago. One of my best friends grew up about four blocks away from me. We come from similar socioeconomic strata; both of our parents are professionals. He has an older sister; I have an older half-brother and half-sister. We attended the same day camp as children and the same high school as adolescents. We both attend prestigious top-tier universities now. Yet he recently came out as a gay man and is very active in the LGBT community at his school, while I’m a heterosexual with a girlfriend. What “makes” him gay and me straight?

Before examining what in his life led him to be gay, it is important to understand what a gay man is. Homosexual behavior, as in same-sex sexual parings, is as old as the human species. The Greeks, the Romans, and Samurai all practiced pederasty; various other kinds of homosexual behavior have been the norm in societies across the globe. But a gay man—a man who has exclusively same-sex relations with romantic attachments—is a modern phenomenon. The Greek who has a boy lover that he trains to be a warrior, but also has his wife to maintain the home, is not a homosexual. A man who self-identifies as gay, has strong attraction for same-sex relations, and chooses not to adhere to the norms of straight society, certainly is a homosexual.

The Gay Community

To understand homosexual behavior, not identity, we can use the animal world as a guide. Homosexual behavior is commonplace among other primates. The most popular theory used to describe this behavior is called the “alliance formation hypothesis.” Simply put, homosexual behavior allows lower-ranking males to cement alliances with higher-ranked males or other lower-ranked males; this allows them access to resources they either would not have had before or would have had limited access too. The main resource, ironically enough, is access to females. Homosexual behavior, just like heterosexual behavior, is used to cement social bonds. In this light, the ancient Greeks and Romans aren’t outliers—they are the norm.

But where did the modern gay community come from? Around the 19th century there were fundamental changes taking place in Western Europe that would transform the face of the world—industrialization, nationalism, and the modern nation-state. It should not be surprising that the first homosexual community—who looked to men exclusively for romantic and sexual relations—emerged in the most advanced state of the time, Great Britain. Freed from traditional family arrangements and social constraints, as well as the ability to lead independent lives with relative autonomy and anonymity, they embraced their sexual desires towards members of the same sex.

The division of the world into gay and straight quickly followed the creation of the first gay communities. Up until the early 18th century, it was not uncommon for married Englishmen to engage in homosexual intercourse on occasion. However, the burgeoning field of biological science quickly ended the fluid sexuality that had been the norm in Western civilization from ancient times. Rapid advances in medicine spurred doctors to classify homosexuality as a deviant behavior and therefore an illness or defect. This was instrumental in further separating those who chose to engage in homosexual behavior and those who did not. People now began to self-identify as either gay or straight.

The tendency for both the homosexual and the heterosexual worlds to practice exclusively same-or opposite-sex relations caused gay men to develop an alternative community to the predominantly heterosexual world. Before the community came out of the closet in the 1960s, it was maintained by secretive bars and meeting places. There were clearly established ways of suggesting to possible partners that a man was gay. This is where the stereotype of the effeminate gay man originates; gay men would commonly act more effeminate to signal to other men that they were gay.

As studies of human sexuality in the United States were almost nonexistent before the 1960’s, little was known about this underground community. Alfred Kinsey, in his famous report on human sexuality, opened the doors to this world and may have laid the basis for the gay civil rights movement. He challenged the common misconception that one is either gay or straight, positing that human sexuality exists on a continuum, and, throughout their lives, people can and will engage in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior. That being said, Kinsey did allow that most men engaged in predominantly opposite-or same-sex relations, not a combination of the two.

This caused a sea of changes in the homosexual world. Kinsey allowed that homosexual behavior was not deviant but in fact perfectly normal. As the community came out of the closet in the 1960’s, fundamental cultural changes took place that allowed gay men to express themselves in new ways. Being gay changed from being a dark secret to being alternative; gay scientists and activists sought to end the discrimination they experienced from mainstream society.

At this point the gay community shifted from an underground, largely self-contained community into a political unit. As black Americans demanded that they not be discriminated against on the basis of their genetic skin color, so gay men demanded that they not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Scientists sought to find the “cause” for homosexuality–if orientation was indeed genetic or biological, then it was senseless to discriminate on that basis. However, more conservative scientists and religious groups sought to prove that homosexuality was a choice and therefore not protected by civil rights legislation. And thus inquiry into the biological basis of homosexuality took on politically charged tones that skewed our understanding of homosexuality for decades.

Nature vs. Nurture

Fortunately, our understanding of homosexuality and human sexuality in general has advanced by leaps and bounds; homosexuality is no longer listed in the DSM-IV as a mental illness. The most extensive twin study on sexual orientation ever undertaken was recently published in Sweden. Comparing twins, the study demonstrated that human homosexuality has a genetic factor, an environmental factor, and a social factor. All of these factors play together to increase or decrease the probability that an individual will be a homosexual. The results of the study suggest that environmental factors account for about 60% of sexual orientation, while genes account for another 40% (refer to the sidebar for an analysis of this study).

The genetic basis of homosexuality is a puzzle to biologists—why would a trait that causes a person not to have offspring be preserved in the human species? This puzzle, however, is misleading; although homosexuals currently leave around 1/5th the offspring of their heterosexual counterparts, historically we have no evidence of how many offspring homosexuals could have produced as they were most likely not exclusively homosexual. The genes that contribute to male homosexuality have been postulated to be located on X chromosome and therefore passed down the mother’s line. In a tip of the hat to the elegance of evolution, one theory suggests these genes seem to make women more fertile while also contributing to male homosexuality. As such, the dearth of offspring produced by gay males is offset by greater numbers of offspring produced by women carrying the gene.

As previously stated, genetic factors are not the only determinant of homosexuality, and modern science shows they may have an even smaller effect than we think. Current theory is exploring unique environmental factors, i.e. the state of the fetus in the mother’s womb. The biggest determinant for homosexuality seems to be birth order; the successive sons after the first of a woman are the most likely to be gay. Why this is the case is still not clear, but it may have something to do with hormone levels in the womb. Testosterone plays a major role in sexual development in fetuses, and it is theorized that the first son, who produces testosterone in the mother’s womb, causes the mother’s body to become sensitized to the molecule. The mother will start producing testosterone antibodies that could change the hormone balance of her successive sons, which may increase the likelihood that he is a homosexual.

Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, there are some biological differences between a gay and straight person’s brain. Recent studies, which are considered controversial by some, show that gay men’s brains more closely resemble the brains of straight women. In other words, gay men have stronger vocalization skills and lower visuospatial intelligence than straight men. These differences are not drastic or universal, but they do shed light on a biological component of male homosexuality.

It is apparent that homosexuality has a biological basis, but few of the factors that contribute to homosexuality seem to predetermine it; in other words many different factors work together to make homosexuality more likely. Social factors are important as well. The process of “coming out” is actually a very ordered and regular socialization process, in which an individual chooses to self-identify as a gay man and pursue their sexual desires toward the same sex. This is part of the polarization of male sexuality—men who come out to be gay identify as strongly with exclusive homosexuality as your average straight man identifies with exclusive heterosexuality.

What is clear is that homosexuality certainly has its biological, social, and cultural elements. A fascinating confluence of these factors is the “gay ghetto.” Being a Chicagoan, this concept is hardly foreign to me. Northalsted, commonly known as “Boy’s Town” is an accepted part of the Chicago landscape, geographically positioned near other primarily young and progressive neighborhoods. In Boy’s Town shops fly the rainbow flag, men at bars expect other men to be gay and gay political organizations are organized from the community. Because of its tight-knit community spirit, Boy’s Town was one of the few urban neighborhoods to grow and gentrify throughout the entirety of the last four decades, even during the height of urban decline and white flight. As urban renewal became the order of the day in the last decade or so, Boy’s Town has been an essential mover in revitalizing Chicago’s north side.

Conclusion

What do all these facts mean when we look at them together? Gay men are actually different from straight men, both biologically and socially. So is that what makes my friend different from me?

The short answer is no. My friend and I are actually the same in every way that matters. He wants to find someone who he can love and who can love him back. He wants to be with someone he is attracted to who can offer new things in his life. He wants to be happy and satisfied. At the same time, his sexual orientation is not important at all in other large areas of his life—what he studies, what he likes to do, and who he chooses as his friends. I do not consider it too high a compliment to describe him as one of my most cherished friends—a role he filled even before he came out of the closet.

But why then is this the kind of person we are allowed to demonize in such horrible ways? Our cultural bias against homosexuals is so strong that the groups opposed to marriage in California didn’t even try to cover their motives. Instead they explicitly said they were anti-gay rights.

Fortunately times are changing much faster than the conservative forces in society can contain them. Americans our age are much more likely than even our parents, who were hippies, to be accepting of gay and lesbian individuals. Even young evangelicals are sick of beating the sodomy drum and would much rather focus on traditional progressive causes like poverty alleviation. I honestly believe that by the time I am my parents’ age my friend will be able to get married legally.

Even though things are changing quickly, that is not a license for inaction. While I enjoy the full range of rights and opportunities any society can provide, my friend does not. He is a second-class citizen. Gay rights is the civil rights issue of our generation. Liberty by gradations is not liberty, it is hierarchy. True liberty is all or nothing, and, until all people in the United States enjoy and practice their full rights, we will not be a free people—just mostly free.

A Closer Look: The Dangers of Simple Science
by Dana Piombino

The prudent individual should be ever wary of the presentation of science in popular publications. Without a firm grasp of the underlying science or access to the original study being cited, many readers just accept an author’s interpretation of the scientific work to which he or she is referring. Aiming to write an article that appeals to a wide range of individuals, authors will often take great liberties with the research. Drastic oversimplifications, incomplete presentations and sometimes entirely incorrect representations of the conclusions are not uncommon in some popular publications.

This article briefly discuses a study using Swedish twins to determine potential genetic causes of homosexuality. This was done by statically analyzing the patterns of differences in sexual preferences between genetically identical twins and non-identical twins. The study’s authors also attempted to ascertain the influence of environmental factors. Yet the conclusions that can be drawn from this study are tentative and ambiguous at best, as admitted by its authors.

Teasing apart all the individual elements that contribute to human homosexuality has never been a straightforward task. This can be attributed to a variable plethora of factors. Primary among such elements is how poorly humans fit into most scientific studies. Second only to Martians, Homo sapiens are among the most difficult species to study within a scientific framework. An empirical study usually seeks to determine how it is that one or many variables in a system (the independent variables) influence one other variable (the dependent variable). In the case of the Swedish twins, the independent variables were the similarities and differences in sexual orientations between pairs of both monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The dependent variable was a set of statically produced predictions about the roles played by the external environment and a person’s genes in the genesis of a homosexual individual.

But humans lead exceptionally complicated lives, filled with countless variables and dynamics that dance together to shape who we are. For scientists, studying systems that consist of even a few extra, unknown variables is a nightmare. Studying situations that are composed of almost nothing but unknown variables — as is the case with humans — is akin to the seventh circle of hell. The results of the study were made even less conclusive by the fact that the population pool studied was very small. Statistical models derived from small sets of data always results in fairly high uncertainties being attached to the final numbers, as in the case of the Swedish study.

Upon a careful reading of the original journal article one can conclude only that both genetics and environmental factors do play rolls in a human’s sexual orientation. The human sexuality, much like almost everything in nature, is far too complex to be defined by a few concrete numbers, and is subject to much interpretation. The main moral to take away from all this is: always be skeptical of pop-science.

“Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.”

So I refer to my latest blog post, where Jassmine Shadiqe of the New Straits Times (NST) failed on all counts to do justice not only to the story (you can read the biased version here), but the writer also failed to give respect to the person who was murdered by describing the victim as a “transvestite” (a man in a dress or cross-dressers). She then proceed to address the victim by using male pronouns, and repeatedly parroted her male name. Unbelievably,  NST actually allowed this piece be published in this manner.

Image from www.nstp.com.my

I will make it simple for everyone. If you are sure the person is a male cross-dresser, then you can use the term “transvestite”. However, from the article, it is almost obvious that the victim’s identity is a woman. It would also be safe to say she is a trans woman because it seemed the people around her are aware of her gender identity. So she should be described as a classic transsexual. But what if you are still uncertain? Use the word transgender.

Why transgender? Because it encompasses all gender non-conforming people. It is like saying someone died, without accidently saying that an Indian died when it is a Chinese, or vice versa. It also avoids confusion between gender identifications. Most importantly, since this person was already murdered, can we in our most humble mode grant this person an affirmation to her identity on the basis of humanity?

And if a writer (or you), still insist to use that term because of (your) highly dogmatic views, well consider all the sciences on why people identity as the opposite gender of their sex. It also avoids distress in gender non-conforming individuals when someone do not repeatedly mentions a group of people with the incorrect terms and pronouns. I am sure if a cat understands English she will scratch the table to bits if she were to be called a dog. It is like calling a straight man, gay.

The sense of self in a transgender is often hard-wired inside the brain, especially in the case of transsexuals; and it is a scientific factual truth. Perhaps a good read to understand the issue will be this well written and researched article by Zoe Brain from Australia. And if the newspaper writers  (or whoever) is still lazy to read up and gain some mileage in terms of pure knowledge which will improve professional journalistic standards in our country (or self-dignity), then still please learn to at the least respect another human being. When a person is transsexual woman, address her as a woman, not a man. You certainly do not call an Asian as a Caucassion, do you?

So it is my hope that everyone, especially professional writers, do the right thing by using the correct terms and pronouns to describe someone like me. It will not resurrect this transwoman’s life. But it will surely make Malaysia a better place for all. It removes certain stigmas surrounding sexual minorities alike, while breeding love, respect and understanding to people who are different. And perhaps when these misrepresentations stop, the killing will too. Since we are moving towards Vision 2020 is it not time for us to progress intellectually?

We in Malaysia are more than 30 years behind time in our understanding of what homosexuals are all about. Ask anyone from the township to the villages, and most would still tell you different definitions of it, ranging from effeminate men, transgenders, anal sex and so forth. In the cities, they believe it is some kind of deviant alternative lifestyle that involves anything between being naked with other men and other “gross factors” that always seem to pick on gays, while lesbians bear the least semblance of the homo word.

Ask the churches and mosques, and all they can think of are men lying with men with a city called Sodom along with a man called Lot (or Lut) where the story of attempted rape of angels was mistaken for a homosexual deviancy show. All the explanations to the term by them are hardly even near correct definitions to what is supposed to be just a same-sex attraction. You may just be one of most Malaysians who really do not have a clue on what is a homosexual, and do not even know whether they are “choosing” something.

You may hold on to the thought that homosexuality is some sort of a lifestyle when except for their attractions they are really no different from you. You may be a curious straight who knows surely there are more to homosexuals than meets the eye, or you may be a passing gay brother or lesbian sister who wish to know more about yourself. Because of this, we will present you with the simple ABCs on homosexuality, a crash course in the form of this video which was said to be featured off a well known documentary.

A few days ago, while spreading such a story, they went back to the very essence of their tabloid style news reporting. Not only are they purposely sensationalizing an issue that could apply to all walks of society, they regressed to utter journalistic idiocy, and showed a total lack of professionalism in reporting, as they covered a story on transgenders with drugged coffee drinks. The Malaysian English daily, The Star, also picks up on Harian Metro’s sore thumb.

There are serious problems with this article here. In Harian Metro, transgenders were inaccurately called “golongan homosexual”, which means the homosexual community. Then, The Star calls all of them “transvestites”, which is entirely wrong at its context in describing transgenders who are actually transsexuals. The English daily then uses male pronouns instead of female ones, blatantly misrepresenting the transsexual female community as males. This displays total ignorance to the major differences between sexual orientation and sexual identity, that has already been established by major psychiatric establishments all around the world.

They then proceeded to paint transgender females as drugged coffee addicts that work overtime to sleep with men, in an attempt to demonize transsexuals as sex-crazed. And the purposeful use of the phrase “pakar sakit tuan” or men’s health expert, underlines their intent of exploiting a transsexual female’s male biology, and duly insults the knowledge of many medical professionals and doctors that work to correct the sexual identity of a transsexual. The grave mash-up of gender and sex in this article is appalling.

The title given by The Star for the Harian Metro article, ‘Kopi reggae’ keeps transvestites up and going”, discriminately paints all transgenders to be involved in this drugged coffee scandal. One should ask, what is the purpose of printing something this negative on a segment on society, one which many may not even be involved in prostitution or drugs?

The Star and Harian Metro should not have resorted to creating new stereotypes on an already painfully misunderstood community, and educate themselves on what Harry Benjamin Syndrome, transgenderism and transsexualism is all about. In this age, it is already a proven scientific fact that gender exists between the brains and not between the thighs. It should come as no surprise with Harian Metro’s reputation as a laymen’s paper, but The Star should be wary of their countless presentation of biased junk articles, to maintain their name as an authoritative source of news. In the end, we duly ask for both dailies would refrain from prejudicial practices, and be sincere in presenting their stories.

Homosexual behavior is common in nature, and it plays an important role in survival

By Emily V. Driscoll