Category: Society

Lest younger readers of your paper should think that all was doom and gloom in the RAF camps of the mid-l950’s (Your article ‘How the air force kept secret watch to track down lesbians’, 22nd August), I can tell them that this was not so for at least one camp which I experienced as an adolescent airman – namely, RAF Ruislip on the outskirts of London.  To say that it was the prototype set for a film yet to be made "Carry on Camping II" would do it less than justice since, as part of the policy adopted by the higher authorities in the RAF to ‘clear out the homosexuals’ many of this robust community were stationed there.  It was argued, I believe, that rather than allowing youths suspected of being homosexual from their behaviour (i.e. being ‘camp’ for men and ‘butch’ for women) to corrupt other airmen/airwomen (there was no need), it would be wiser to have them all together where they could conduct themselves as outrageously as they pleased and with the added bonuses of being both near to central London and adjacent to an American air base.

 

As now a 70-year old that was privileged to complete 2 years of National service in the mid-1950’s, I am able to say that if not the happiest days of my life those years were amongst the most interesting and informative I have experienced;  they also gave me friends which I am still fortunate enough to have.   Further, my experiences then allowed me to see how bright was the future if one took the initiative and, ‘Carry on’ style, grasped all the opportunities presented to one.

 

I sign myself a satisfyingly happy homosexual who can look back with affection to those outwardly sexually repressive, but inwardly wildly gay, l950’s.

"Here is the profile of a trait on which clinical research has been done for decades. It is taken from the published scientific literature. The trait should be rather obvious:

1. This human trait is referred to by biologists as a "stable bimorphism"- it shows up in all human populations as two orientations- expressed behaviorally.
2. The data clinicians have gathered says that around 92% of the population has the majority orientation, 8% has the minority orientation.
3. Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millennia.
4. The trait has no external physical, bodily signs.  That means you can’t tell a person’s orientation by looking at them. And the minority orientation appears in all races and ethnic groups.
5. Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify an orientation is by observing the behavior or the reflex that expresses it. However-and this is crucial-
6. – because the trait itself is not a "behavior" but an internal, invisible orientation, those with the minority orientation can hide, usually due to coercion or social pressure, by behaving as if they had the majority orientation. Several decades ago, those with the minority orientation were frequently forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation- but internally the orientation remained the same and as social pressures have lifted, people with the minority orientation have been able to openly express it.
7. Clinical observation makes it clear that neither orientation of this trait is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological in any observable way.
8. Neither orientation is chosen.
9. Signs of one’s orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three. And one’s orientation probably has been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth.

These data indicated that the trait was biological, not social, in origin, so the clinicians systematically asked more questions. And these started revealing the genetic plans that lay underneath the trait:

1. Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their parents, demonstrating that the trait is not created by upbringing or society.
2. Twin studies show that pairs of identical twins, with their identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance of sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average rate of this trait in any given population- it’s called the "background rate"-is just under 8%, while the twin rate is just above 12%, more than 50% higher.
3. This trait’s incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population- about 27% higher-than it is in the female population. Many genetic diseases, for reasons we now understand pretty well, are higher in men than women.
4. Like the trait called eye color, the familial studies conducted by scientists show that the minority orientation clearly "runs in families," handed down from parent to child.
5. This pattern shows a "maternal effect," a classic telltale of a genetic trait. The minority orientation, when it is expressed in men, appears to be passed down through the mother.

Put all this data together, and you’ve created the trait profile. The trait just described is, of course, handedness."

i tell you how i hate you
in the voice my father used
you answer with your mother’s worn cliches
and in another life
your father hears his wife
and i see his fury blazing in your gaze

 

an echo hears an echo
and my mother’s fist is raised
the hand i clench at you
shows her distrust
the way one behaves
is determined in the graves
of all the great grandparents
gone to dust

did jesus have a baby sister?
was she bitter?
was she sweet?
did she wind up in a convent?
did she end up on the street?
…
did she long to be the saviour
saving everyone she met?
and in private to her mirror
did she whisper saviourette?

Many bishops want the image of homosexuality confined to public toilets – so much easier to condemn. Consequently, clergy have been forbidden from blessing civil partnerships. We can bless battleships, and cats and dogs at the pet service: just not gay couples wanting to commit to a lifelong relationship.

Those who love freedom know that the open society relies on a few key shared concepts. They believe that all humans are born free, are endowed with reason and have inalienable rights. Governments are checked by the rule of law, so that civil liberties are protected. They ensure freedom of conscience and of expression, and ensure that men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, are treated equally under the law. People can trade freely, and may spend their recreational time as they wish.

 

The terrorists, and the Shari’a-based societies to which they aspire, have an entirely different philosophy. Humans are born to serve Allah through a series of obligations that are prescribed in an ancient body of writings. These edicts vary from rituals of birth and funeral rites to the most intimate details of human life; they descend to the point of absurdity in matters such as how to blow your nose, and with what foot to step into a toilet. Muslims, according to this philosophy, must kill those among them who leave the faith, and are required to be hostile to people of other religions and ways of life. This hostility requires them to murder innocent people and makes no distinction between civilians and the military. In Shari’a societies, women are made subordinate to men. They must be confined to their houses, beaten if found disobedient, forced into marriage and hidden behind the veil. The hands of thieves are cut off and capital punishment is performed in crowded public squares in front of cheering crowds. The terrorists seek to impose this way of life not only on Islamic countries, but, as Blair said, on western societies too.