Since it seems to be of interest to some – and confusion – and taking on board a suggestion, let's have a thread.

At it's simplest, sex is – in effect – determined by what genitalia you're born with.

Sexuality is who you are attracted to.

Gender is do with the roles that the sexes are culturally expected to play. So – simply, again – a boy is culturally expected to play with cars (and is therefore more likely to do so) while a girl is culturally expected to play with dolls (and is therefore more likely to do so), and both these forms of cultural 'teaching' have long-term impacts in terms of what males and females study at school and later, what they do as a career, what hobbies and sports they enjoy, how their relationships are organised and much more. It could be said to start with male babies being dressed in blue and female babies being dressed in pink.

On sexuality, there is no evidence for a gay 'gene' – but there is also no evidence that sexuality is something that is chosen. Homosexuality is not the 'norm', but it is natural.

Some males are more 'feminine' than others – this is not, of itself, any more an indicator of sexuality than being a 'masculine' male is.

Some women are more 'masculine' than others – this is not, of itself, any more an indicator of sexuality than being a 'feminine' female is.

Human sexuality is a wide spectrum. Problems start when we expect it to be limited.

Gender is a social construct.

Ban this sick filth

You have it nailed on the head there.

What about Bi-sexuality, is this a combination of all the above?

Okay – good question. But look at what I said: if sexuality is a spectrum – and not just two sides of a coin, then (at it's absolutely most simple) imagine it as bisexuality coming at the midway point between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

why do we need a label?

I'm not sure where this fits into the spectrum but when I lived in the north east, across the road from my parents-in-law were a brother and sister, twins, who shared a council house, and they were the most obvious example of mixed genes that could ever be produced in evidence of a so-called "gay gene".

Remember they were twins so would have shared a womb, I don't think they were identical twins though so would presumably have been two eggs.

Bobby, the male, was very camp, an archetypical camp guy very much in the mould of John Inman/Larry Grayson etc, almost as if he needed to act the character in order to enforce the fact that he was very effeminate - I'll hesitate to say he was gay as he was never seen with a partner of either sex, so its possible that he was not actually gay but just a camp personality.

His sister (who's name I forget) was very masculine and I'm being absolutely serious here, she worked at the local bus garage as a mechanic, swore like a trooper and generally took on the part of a working class bloke living in a working class pit village, she was the only one of the two that worked and Bobby stayed home to look after the house - again though I can't say that the sister was gay for she too was never seen with a partner.

The strange twist was when they went to "the clerb" because the sister was not allowed in the bar (which was strictly a male preserve) whereas Bobby was.

Twins with mixed genders I suppose and they certainly wouldn't have learned their behaviour from parents or environment or I would have expected them both to be effeminate or masculine, and I doubt that any parent would have deliberately forced behaviour on the wrong siblings.

Love the story. But I suspect that partly what you're describing is not "mixed genders", but two people who defied cultural gender expectations.

It's an expectation that all females will feel maternal, just as it's a cultural expectation that men will, by and large, find being soppy over their children a bit awkward – I'm trying to do this simply for the sake of ease here.

From what you're saying, they – in being who they were – defied those expectations. And good for them. But there's no evidence that girls (for instance) have some gene (or similar) that 'makes' them naturally want to play with dolls. These are things that are imprinted onto children from birth.

My suspicion – and that is all it is (although hopefully, it's 'educated' suspicion) is that hormones and balances between them are a big part of the whole picture. So, for instance, my sister was very traditionally 'feminine' – loved dolls etc. I was always a tom boy; didn't like dolls unless they were like Sindy, where you could have adventures with them. None of that nursing a baby nonsense. My parents made efforts over the years to channel me toward the culturally expected feminine interests, but ultimately it made no difference. So there was a combination of things at play, I think: 1) hormones or whatever, but also cultural attitudes. And the latter certainly limited what I was able to do as a child. Much of that has changed, but it is still interesting to see how much gender genuinely confuses people.

It'd be lovely if we didn't, but unfortunately, society loves labels – and it loves imposing negative ones on (other) people. Plus it seems to be human nature for us to put labels on ourselves, even if only in terms of deciding what 'tribe' we belong to as sports fans, say.

I suppose that, anthropologically speaking, that's what badges do – we wear them (mostly voluntarily) to make a statement about ourselves; to label ourselves, in other words.

So you know which way round to put your jumper on

As the father of two children - one boy and one girl - who were specifically raised without any gender expectations or pressure whatsoever I can categorically state that this is not the only factor.

We can also throw Asexuality into the mix, I've known a number of people who find they aren't sexually "attracted" to anyone, whatever their sex. I believe that Stephen Fry, when pushed on the subject in an interview, described himself as such.

There have been endless studies of twins and what may or may not determine sexual preference, all of which are inconclusive, bordering on pure speculation.

I know a few MtF transsexuals, one FtM trans and many in between. I've also met a few heterosexual guys who have a predilection for dressing in female clothing. These guys are straight in every aspect of their sexuality, they just enjoy dressing as the opposite sex.

I reckon that's the reason the LGBT community adopted the rainbow as their symbol

Hate to sound thick, but could you expand, Kosh?

My wife and I were quite 'right on' when we decided to have kids and went out of our way to avoid the normal gender stereotypes and stereotyping behaviours. I've still ended up with teenagers who are easily recognisable as being of male and female gender. As they got older and had more power to make their own decisions on things like toys, colours, and clothes they slowly gravitated towards the kind of things you'd 'expect' for their sexes.

Now - this is not to say I've ended up with a Macho Man and a Barbie Doll. Far from it. The process was quite subtle and they share a lot of joint interests still. But there was clearly another factor or factors at work. And I've allowed for peer pressure once they started interacting socially with the world at large.

That serves to reinforce my belief that, although external influences may play some part in determining an individual's sexuality, the overriding driver is nature as opposed to nurture

Karl Pilkington question spoiler alert : One thing I don't get, if gay blokes aren't attracted to females then why act effeminate and if lesbians aren't attracted to males then why act masculine? If you get why I mean, I'm prepared to get shot to pieces especially from mint ball but its an honest call it naive question.

I know all don't buy most do, my brothers gay and he doesn't come across as, same with my barber and his partner you'd never tell not that I'm bothered anyway.

It's like saying your a staunch vegan but you eat quorn, it's not meat but its very close to it kind of thing.

Not wanting to worry you about your kids but your parenting was undermined the day your kids were born.

You may have tried to avoid the gender stereotyping BUT all of your family and friends will also have had an influence on them. Everything from the way they played with them, the way they talked to them, the presents they bought them. Granny picking your son up when he banged his knee and saying, " come on be a big boy".

By the time your kids started nursery / junior school their friends and teachers will have had a great influence on them, the sports they were encouraged to play books to read etc.

By the time they went to comp school their friends became even more important and they would have picked up on mannerisms, how to stand, how to interact, clothes to wear etc.

Then hormones kicked in and took them in a certain direction.

During all of this time they would have copied other male and female role models that they saw. At quite a young age they would have known that they had a willy or a tuppence and would have observed how other people with willies and tuppences behaved this would have just been in normal life.

Additionally as they got older they would have very clearly being affected by advertising, media etc which would all have impacted on their developing gender roles etc.

All very easily explained by nurture behaviour

There are also very clear nature effects as well ie brain development etc lots of it to do with emotional development but no time to go into that at the minute.

Your detailed knowledge of the way my family interacted with my kids is duly noted and, with all due respect, disregarded. Due to being utterly wrong. Both sets of grandparents were aware of our wishes and agreed with them, likewise all other family members and friends who spent any significant time with them at all.


You missed the bit where I said I'd allowed for this effect then? And as it happens both the nursery and primary school they went to were very progressive in this regard. High school less so, but by that time they were already their own people.


This was kinda my point. While there is no doubt that nurture plays a part, my personal experience is that it's not as dominant as the majority seem to think.

Oh god – where to start!? And that's not meant as a derogatory comment, BTW.

Well first, why would a hetro male behave in a feminine manner if they liked girls?

The thing is, in my experience (which is not all and everything) people mostly don't 'act' as anything – they're essentially what they are and may or may not act in a way that emphasises that – within cultural models (in effect). So yeah, you'll get the guy (gay or not) who is effeminate and you'll get the guy (gay or not) who is macho.

I hate cliches, but look at Gareth Thomas – he's hardly a cliche of campness, is he? And he's not alone. David Walliams, who is camp but not, apparently, gay.

I think we get very trapped with types and get suckered into seeing most other human beings within a very limited (and limiting) set of templates.

I am not going to get into a disagreement with you BUT to be completely genuinely gender neutral IMHO is impossible unless you cut yourself off from traditional society.

You may have done all of the obvious things BUT on a practical level unless you and your wife never wore gender specific clothes your children will automatically have picked up on gender roles.

Did you wear skirts or dresses very often . Who drove the car etc etc

Who had the larger portions of food at mealtimes etc.

To be gender neutral in your parenting would IMHO require such a level of awareness and changes in behaviour that it would make it difficult to function in modern soceity.

If you lived on a desert island you may have a chance

Neither of us wears skirts or dresses very often. Until relatively recently neither did my daughter. We have two cars and the kids spent more time being driven around by my wife than me.






Seriously, just




Are you a parent?

Look - I'm aware of certain practical limitations and the influence of outside society. I'm not daft. But in the early years you have near 100% control over the development of your kids. You can absolutely control what ideas and influences they are exposed to, and you are by far and away their most important role model. And we weren't entirely passive, either. We had discussions about gender stereotyping and encouraged them both to be what they wanted to be and not what anyone else thought they ought to be.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make TBH.

I know what your saying but I've always wondered why gay celebrities like Graham Norton camp it up to high heaven and sort of form people's views on how gays behave and act, now I wonder if people like Gareth Thomas and Stone Wall feel aggrieved at this as its detrimental to the cause so to speak for example:

I saw a piece on Granada Tonight a few years ago about the Manchester Pride Parade and there was a fat 50 year old bloke dressed in silver hot pants, angel wings and a cowboy hat blowing bubbles at the crowd, now if that's not detrimental to the cause of overcoming bigoted views on gays then I don't know what is.

I honestly think it's as simple as we're all different - and that iLife's some people being camp and others not. Camp is simply one of very many 'types', so to speak.

Unless we genuinely believe that it would be 'better' for every human being to be the same, then it would surely be good to celebrate our differences. There are many things that differentiate us - sexuality/gender is far from the foremost.