John Barrowman's 'The Making of Me'

[Lissa]

Did anyone watch this? Television's John Barrowman goes in search of some answers to a bunch of questions about sexuality. It was a fairly awkward show - there was some real science underneath but they kept smothering it with pretty pictures, recapping voice overs and John over-emoting at every little bit of information he's given. He flew all the way to California just to have someone look at his hand and tell him which of his fingers was longer. It was style over substance as I guess it had to be for science to be on prime time television.

What bugged me was how desperate he was for anything which supported his view that sexuality is not a choice. Personally I don't think it is but he was obsessed with it. For someone so obviously happy with their orientation, he came across as a bit desperate for some sort of scientific validation. "It isn't a choice" is really only a tone of voice away from saying "It's not my fault".

More disturbing was his belief that the discovery of a gay gene would be a good thing. Quite the reverse - does he really thing that gay haters would suddenly change their ways because it is genetic? Or would they start pumping money into gay tests so foetuses could be aborted if they might be queer? Heck, it might even spur them on to find a "cure".

In the end, the research was pretty conclusive that he is in fact a gay. But anything beyond that seemed flimsy and a bit sinister. The final piece of science suggested that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay. No mention was made of the reason why this might be - that it is nature's way of keeping the population from exploding. One male child is essential, two is very important, three and you run the risk of too many babies, and so on. They skipped things like that because they didn't want to touch on the main evolutionary reason why homosexuality exists. It's fine for it not to be John's fault he's gay but not fine to imply it is so he doesn't fill the gene pool with too many little Captain Jacks.

So there were some interest ideas in the programme and just having an intelligent programme about sexuality on prime time BBC1 is fairly impressive. John's enthusiasm was great but he knew the answers he wanted to get and I wasn't entirely comfortable with them.

[Captain Tancredi]

Oh, he was gay...

To be honest, I'm not sure that the programme didn't show that a lot of scientists out there are being paid to come up with tenuous theories and then try to prove them. But it did throw up the interesting thought that if a right-wing Christian family knew they were going to have a gay child, would they feel justified in aborting that child? Some probably would- arguing that if the child was conceived gay, it was also lost from the moment of conception.

I found it all a bit reductive, really- at times there's more than a touch of inverted snobbery about people who claim that homosexuality is exclusively genetic- it may very well be for that one person, but what qualifies them to speak for everybody? Just because there's a vocal body of gay people who believe that it isn't a choice doesn't mean that it isn't a choice for somebody, particularly if you come out later in life when you might be in a straight relationship. Personally I'd draw a distinction between being gay, which may well not be a choice, and choosing to live a gay lifestyle (not in terms of clubbing and so on, but in coming out, choosing to seek the intimate company of the same sex, live with a parter etc). It's still putting the entire human race into one of perhaps half a dozen little boxes by biological sex and orientation. I just can't help feeling that sexuality is more fluid than most people suppose- you could attach me to one of those contraptions and measure my responses to porn, but the responses you'd get probably wouldn't reflect what I'm looking for in life or the way I respond to males and females.

His family came across as fantastic, though- really easy-going and nurturing.

[Paul Monk]

I would've quite like to have seen this. I did have my suspicions that the science may be flimsy though.
And finding out that there's a "gay gene" would be the worst thing that could happen I reckon.

[Si Hunt]

It was an interesting program, and it's about time someone said "why?". We get so intent on not offending people in case we discover that what we've fought for so long as "normal" turns out to be a freak of nature or, heaven forbid, an evolutionary mistake. But what if it is? Are we going to close our eyes to the truth just so 40% of the population don't find out they're technically genetically flawed, if that's true? I don't advocate abortion under any circumstances of course, but what about if we could "fix" the gay gene and turn a gay foetus straight? Should we do it? Hell yeah, if it prevents all that teenage angst and festivals full of people in leather straps.

Ultimately the documentary was frustrating because it tried to get to the heart of the cause of something which causes so many people to struggle in life until they finally accept who they are... and yet it was never going to give us any answers because, as m'other half pointed out, if there were any big breakthroughs we wouldn't hear about them on a minor John Barrowman documentary.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

that it is nature's way of keeping the population from exploding. One male child is essential, two is very important, three and you run the risk of too many babies, and so on. They skipped things like that because they didn't want to touch on the main evolutionary reason why homosexuality exists.

That's a rum bit of conjecture! Miles outside of my experience though, when they started mentioning older brothers I thought they would say straight away that it's the eldest of the family that ends up gay. I was very surprised that their simplistic and utterly gay graph showed the opposite.

Everybody had their own bonkers theory as why people turn out gay and none of them really held much water. Some of the research seemed reasonable, but everyone seemed to be looking for the one reason, the Omega Switch that made people gay. Personally I don't think it's any one thing and that the human brain and sexuality is far too complex to be defined by a genetic feature or testosterone levels.

Most interesting was the ex-gay Christian, although I suspect that because religion can make people give up sex altogether, then giving up 'being gay' isn't as strange as all that.

Great program though, although the voice-overs were hideous and John veers between being likeable and nauseating.

[Si Hunt]

Most interesting was the ex-gay Christian, although I suspect that because religion can make people give up sex altogether, then giving up 'being gay' isn't as strange as all that.

He was slightly bizarre. "I gave up smoking, so I can give up homosexuality!". Which kind of misses the point.

Si.

[Jon Masters]

Very interesting, but frustratingly dummed down for prime time BBC1.

I was more shocked by the outrageous change in accent Mr Barrowman uses when talking to his family over t'internet

[Paul Monk]

That's a rum bit of conjecture!

There was a very good New Scientist article a while ago about why being gay was all part of nature's process but I can't remember the gist of it now!

[Captain Tancredi]

I was more shocked by the outrageous change in accent Mr Barrowman uses when talking to his family over t'internet

On the other hand, it did tune my ears in nicely for turning over to Still Game afterwards- Still Gay, perhaps?

[cyberchris35]

I know this post is a bit late but I have just seen the episode on bbci and I have to ask the question why make it? What I mean by that is that you would never get a show asking the question - Why am I straight? It is showing that the world still has a problem with people being gay.
My view on the subject is if your gay and happy with being gay then what is the problem? It is not like we are going out trying to convert people.
The show in it's self was good and kept me watching and John Barrowman was the best person for it. I also think that sometimes they overstreched the test to fill the show and some of them just seemed downright silly (the length of the ring finger being the one I am thinking about).
Just to sum up I think if you are gay then you are gay, if you don't have any problems with it (which I don't) then why be bothered weather it is genetic or a choice.

[WhiteCrow]

I have gay hands!

My wife made me watch this again, and I found it quite an interesting documentary. I found the whole "I believe gayness is genetic ... lets try to prove it" questionable science.

I did find it enlightening though. I've always thought peoples sexual orientation was more environment and a bit of choice. But then I don't really have an issue/prejudice about this [except hot looking lesbians who spurn my advances ].

And I think at the end of it I realised how some people are under pressure that if this is a lifestyle choice of some sort, then you can make someone unchange it. The ex-gay guy was a classic example - if you make someone feel bad enough about their life then you can manipulate them to do as you want ... or they kill themselves in guilt. That's nothing new.