Stephen Fry Coming Out

Ray Palmer

Firstly I will say I know certain topics are in great debate among everybody including the LGBT community but the show brought up a point I thought was worth talking about.

For those of you who haven't seen the show Stephen Fry has interviewed many homophobic politicians and protesters along with victims and organisation trying to deal with the fall out of laws and campaigners.

As always Fry comes across as intelligent and reasonable. The whole nature and nurture issue of being gay comes up as a general dismissal in the show. I am not saying one way or the other as I see it as a very complex answer and probably a bit of both. Obviously for homophobic people they fear people turning them or others. I would accept this as nonsense but during the show Fry went to India.

India appears to have a relatively large transgender population and at least in part down to tradition and culture. While I don't think you can turn people it does appear to put some weight to an argument of nurture rather than nature. Maybe it is natural element of genetics in the Indian population. I found it was something that should have had some discussion in the show. Is it offensive to even ask these questions or is just way to complex and probably left out of the show for that reason?

baby and crumble

I've been watching the show and I think it portrayed the Hijra in a wonderful ad refreshing light. I think the point they were making is not about numbers present- which I doubt are larger than in any other culture- but the traditional acceptance of trans women (in particular) in the culture before the Raj. There are a number of traditional cultures around the world where this acceptance and often reverence for trans individuals was the norm until Christianity came to them via the West. It's the ostracision of these groups that is the problem, not the numbers.

Ray Palmer

baby and crumble wrote: »

I've been watching the show and I think it portrayed the Hijra in a wonderful ad refreshing light. I think the point they were making is not about numbers present- which I doubt are larger than in any other culture- but the traditional acceptance of trans women (in particular) in the culture before the Raj. There are a number of traditional cultures around the world where this acceptance and often reverence for trans individuals was the norm until Christianity came to them via the West. It's the ostracision of these groups that is the problem, not the numbers.

I am aware of the many cultures that accept transgender and homosexuals as part of life. The western invasion certainly changing these things. I always liked the native American term of "two spirits".

It is a little disingenuous to suggest the numbers are not higher in India. This isn't a problem. It seems unlikely that there are just as many as % of the population in other countries. If it was then everybody would be very accustomed to this. Maybe that is suppression but that is big claim. It could be that by been accepted the more people are able to fully express themselves but that would be a nurture situation. You could see how a homophobic person could see it that way at the very least but that doesn't mean it isn't true either.

Dr. Shrike

Something to bear in mind is that certain cultures have a more blurred line between what we would consider gay and trans.

The Muxes of Oaxaca are another example http://www.vice.com/mexicalia/oaxacas-third-gender

So some of the Hijara might be what westerners would consider particularly effeminate gay men, but have no interest in physically becoming women; while others might seek to transition, if the opportunity arose.

Arguably, Western gay culture has become less transgender as time has gone on. Perhaps due to an increased lack of interest in traditionally "transgressive" behaviour amongst gay men, and the availability of medical assistance for those who wish to live as their preferred gender.

floggg

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Firstly I will say I know certain topics are in great debate among everybody including the LGBT community but the show brought up a point I thought was worth talking about.

For those of you who haven't seen the show Stephen Fry has interviewed many homophobic politicians and protesters along with victims and organisation trying to deal with the fall out of laws and campaigners.

As always Fry comes across as intelligent and reasonable. The whole nature and nurture issue of being gay comes up as a general dismissal in the show. I am not saying one way or the other as I see it as a very complex answer and probably a bit of both. Obviously for homophobic people they fear people turning them or others. I would accept this as nonsense but during the show Fry went to India.

India appears to have a relatively large transgender population and at least in part down to tradition and culture. While I don't think you can turn people it does appear to put some weight to an argument of nurture rather than nature. Maybe it is natural element of genetics in the Indian population. I found it was something that should have had some discussion in the show. Is it offensive to even ask these questions or is just way to complex and probably left out of the show for that reason?

You're starting point should be producing some stats to support your assertion of increased number.

Also, with a population like India's is say nearly every minority still has a very large population.

Ray Palmer

I looked up more on the Hijra and I see now it isn't quite what would be considered the same a transgender here. As said it is more of a mix of trans and gay people. One way to eliminate ignorance is to learn about the subject.

Good show and I think he has already done such a good job with the show on manic depression too.