(Crossposting this from my journal elsewhere)

The BBC has launched a new miniseries called "The making of me", in which famous people go on a search for the latest scientific thoughts on why they are a certain way. The first episode follows John Barrowman in a search for why he is gay (and it can be found on iPlayer until 10pm, 31st of July).

Programmes like this are part of the reason why the LGB and T cannot be seperated. As is to be expected, most of the so-called 'evidence' looked at in the show relates more to internal brain gender than having cocks and liking cocks. By this, I am not saying that there is anything inherently gendered about sexuality (as that is a whole other discussion), but rather those outside of the queer world all too often merge the two and ignore the inconvenient aspects, and more importantly, quests to find origins for sexuality and gender non-conformity or incongruity are one and the same and conducted for the very same reasons.

The question that needs to be asked, and is so rarely asked when matters of origin come up, is why does it matter? Ultimately for those who are queer, knowing of any specific reason will not change their lives - they will still be queer, and that is all that matters. That cannot be taken away from you, and as we will see, a search for contributing factors can indeed be more harmful. I can accept that perhaps knowing one particular thing caused someone to be queer could be comforting, but if that is the case, then the internalised homophobia or transphobia that need must have represented will have been a far greater problem in its own right, and the true underlying problem that no amount of reasons will truly banish.

Although the origins of queerness might well be a source of amusement and dinner party discussion amongst gay, bi and trans people, ultimately most of the active curiosity and demand for research into this comes not from its own minority, but rather from the straight majority. As already stated, knowing why they came out that way (pun not intended) serves little use to the queer, but to the majority, there are strong compelling reasons:

Firstly, there is a clear source of nastiness to be had if it turns out to be purely based upon nurture. The cry of conservative anti-queer groups everywhere has for millennia been that all forms of queer are a 'lifestyle choice'. If it was found that it was the environment around queer people that made them such, or the way they were treated or allowed to play, then this view would be seen as vindicated. It would be argued that if one could 'become' gay, one could become 'not gay' by similar means. It must be noted that it seems that much of our psyche for life does seem set from experiences during childhood, and adulthood could well be described as coming to terms with this - so even if it was set in youth, any belief that it could hence be seriously changed could well be flawed. Furthermore, this is the very premise already used by people like Zucker to 'treat' gender dysphoric youths, hoping that by denying them cross-gender toys, activities and behaviour, that they will be 'cured'. Such an approach is already clearly based on assumptions of social norms (that anything is explicitly of a certain gender, that it is better to prevent transition, rather than to work with the person as a whole), and proof that queerness was the result of nurture would only see his work getting further prominence and spreading to cover gay as well as trans children. This very concept of something resulting from nurture is purely of interest because it would justify prejudice and abuse, either at queer people themselves, or at the parents of them.

Secondly, if homosexuality, bisexuality or trans matters are found to be from 'nature' (genes and foetal development), this opens up a very obvious option to those who are or wish to be pregnant. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that some will demand prenatal testing for it, and that conservative groups could well find an exception to otherwise pro-life stances in return for aborting gay or trans foetuses. This was in fact banded around when the idea of a gay gene was first mooted, not by some obviously extreme cultish group, but a major tabloid. One could also see such things as gay-testing before marriage and even enforced separation. At the risk of invoking godwin's law, one must remember that such trifling differences as skin colour were until fairly recently grounds in many first world countries for enforced separation, and yes, Germany in the 1930's has to be mentioned.

The question also arises as to how people would be treated who are queer, but don't have the super special 'nature'-origin marker. Will they be kicked from the village? Does this detract from who they are? Should such trans people not get help? The absence or presence of any such thing will never change the real and tangible nature of being homosexual, bisexual or trans, and ultimately it is that which matters more than any additional 'proof'.

Is it really relevant to anyone why I am queer? Ultimately, it harms no-one at all, so the answer is no. The fact that some wish to make it their business however is in many ways offensive for the above reasons. If someone really wanted to know what makes me a lesbian (mostly), the answer's simple - I like breasts! And as to what makes me trans, well - the answer is the same!

So it was with that opinion that I braved the dubious offerings of the BBC to find out how exactly they would cover the topic, and if they could manage to not make a mess of perhaps one of the few distinctly queer-focused programmes they have made.

One truth about the show is that it did distinctly have the mark of a typical TV producer's work all over it. Attempts were made to use more flamboyant clips in preference, and the show even begun with what is usually a staple of trans media coverage. They had carefully arranged to record John getting dressed up and selecting jewellery, an attempt to feminise him and cement in the minds of viewers that this was a <i>gay</i> man. The cutting also had the show beginning with comments that he was unsure about how he would feel about what he would find, and ended with a similar level of insecurity over what he found, in a manner which suggested a level of internalised homophobia and a wish that stronger answers had been found so that he could feel more content with himself. I doubt that is how John actually feels, but rather that this was deliberately chosen to make better television for the straight majority audience who might have trouble accepting the programming otherwise.

On a more positive note, however, John was shown to have a good relationship with his family, and a healthy and normal relationship of his own with his partner. As we all know, the staple for television queer coverage is for disinterested parents and a bitchy or sex-obsessed relationship with their partner, so to see these portrayed so well was a blessing.

Interestingly, the programme featured some discussion of the modern history of societal treatment of gays. It was mentioned how homosexuality was illegal in England and Wales until 1967, and Scotland until 1980. In talking about this, they also made clear that this legal status resulted in people committing suicide. They also interviewed a man who underwent reparative therapy, which ended with the delightful punchline of the man later encountering the bastard of a psychiatrist in a gay bar. Whilst more could have been done to highlight the horrors of these prior situations (and so dissuade anyone from suggesting them again), it was good to see them covered reasonably and not entirely glossed over.

The program covered various forms of testing for arousal due to erotica, and perhaps the most questionable of which was the use of an fMRI scanner. Studies of the meanings of bloodflow in the brain are still in the early days, and direct causation is not always guaranteed. Furthermore, John has claustrophobia and had a panic attack within the machine. Such anxiety is not helpful for one's ability to be aroused, so it is dubious what value the results actually had.

Perhaps the most worrisome part of the show was when they talked with Gerulf Rieger about gender conformity in youth and later sexual preference. This was worrying, because those of you who followed the above link might have noticed that he works under our old 'friend', J Michael Bailey. The BBC proceeded to then interview a family (presumably provided by Bailey's group) with two boys, one of which prefered masculine toys, and the other more girly things. Whilst this was initially cringeworthy, they later featured their mother commenting how the more feminine boy has expressed a wish to be a girl, and hence the BBC has managed to conflate sexuality and gender identity. These two segments taken together are troublesome indeed.

On the other hand, there was a nicely telling segment featuring the so-called "ex-gay" concept. I found it very interesting that after contacting more than thirty such people, only one was willing to speak to them. This man then made it clear through the use of his language that he wasn't so much not gay, as he chose not to have relations with men because of god not wanting him to. This was perhaps one part of the show were the cutting used was useful, as they managed to make him seem like the religious bigot such people have to be.

As could be predicted, they also featured the typical 'brain gender' type tests (spacial awareness, vocabulary, and so on) and the classic finger length comparison. These showed yet more confusing between matters of gender and sexuality.

On one topic, the show did decide that it was a strong enough factor to emphasise and even put to John's parents as a possible reason for him being gay. Studies do seem to show that the more older brothers someone has, the more likely they are to be gay. Rather than focusing on the environmental changes this brings, they instead talked about the mother's womb "rejecting another boy" as if it were "an infection" (how loving). Whilst I can see how this variable might come into play, it certainly is not a strong enough indicator in its own right, and again another easy area for eugenics.

All in all, I felt that the programme made a reasonably sane attempt to cover a generally dangerous topic. I would have prefered more talk on the evolutionary benefits to a group of having queer members, but better still would have been to make clear that the entire subject it frankly moot and full of risks.

The computerised test that he did appeared to be the one that's been kicking around on the BBC website for quite a number of months, possibly a year or more.

I thought the comment about mothers' bodies treating a male foetus as foreign tissue was a bit weird. A female baby would also be foreign tissue, wouldn't it? I always did suck at biology, though... I might be missing something.