Barnsley FC’s goalie David Preece suggested Amal Fashanu was the wrong choice to investigate the matter. This viewpoint, in an otherwise thoughtful article, is somewhat unkind: it’s arguably the very fact that so few footballers are willing to candidly speak out on homophobia that it has been left to a 23-year media studies graduate and model to ask some hard questions.

Amal deserves credit for being the first to call to account her own father, John Fashanu, whose chilling, public rejection of his vastly more talented brother, compounded the devastation that Justin must have felt.

The programme was most notable for challenging the perception of football being an impenetrable bastion of homophobia. Max Clifford’s intransigent doom-mongering about how coming out would ruin a footballer’s career challenged, by footage of Sweden’s openly gay player Anton Hysén enjoying changing-room banter with team-mates and support from the stands. Perhaps the greatest coup of all was the willingness of a premiership player, QPR captain Joey Barton, to speak out and ridicule ‘archaic’ attitudes of managers who are preventing players from being open.

There is in fact more reason for hope in the offence taken by Preece at what he regards as the demonisation of footballers. “I couldn’t think of a more welcoming place to reveal your sexual preferences than inside a footballer’s dressing room’

However, the overall picture is far from one of acceptance. Homophobic chanting is a weekly endurance for Brighton’s fans; and a string of homophobic callers, one asking for separate changing rooms, left Nicky Campbell and guests of his BBC Radio 5 phone-in dumbfounded last Thursday. Statistics show that 29 percent of the UK population thinks same-sex relations are sometimes or always wrong, and an Observer poll in 2008 stated that nearly one in four thinks homosexuality should be recriminalised. Football, being the nation’s favourite sport is simply a barometer of the bigotry that is rife and unchallenged in society.

The disappointment with the programme was that no managers or high-ranking FA officials were interviewed. A significant amount of direction and resources will be needed to change the culture and attitudes within football, through club hierarchies and at grass roots, Sunday league level too.

Currently, the FA and the government are patting themselves on the back for putting together an LGBT charter, full of good intentions about banishing homophobia and transphobia from the game. But the precise details of how this campaign will make life better for LGBT players and supporters are anything but clear.

However, instead of pressing the FA on this matter, the media and some in the gay community obsess themselves with the moronic question: when will we see an out gay player? I suspect this is driven as much by the tabloid press going to ever more desperate measures to titillate readers and buck declining sales figures, and some activists seeking another trophy in the role model cabinet.

Why should a footballer come out to the whole nation? Most of us are out to friends and work-colleagues, but that’s all. True, the media is no longer full of homophobic columnists like the Star’s Brian Hitchen and the Sun’s Gary Bushell, whose innuendo-laden diatribes reinforced the very worst prejudices. But even if the coming out were reported in glowing terms, the very experience of being in the media spotlight can be ruinous for concentration and performance. And as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, the extremes that reporters go to, to sniff out an exclusive could make life intolerable.

Here are a number of questions, which clubs – with the exception of Manchester City – have been loathe to answer but must be put under pressure to do so:

How are clubs promoting a welcoming, accepting environment for gay or bi players? What standards are in place with respect to language and conduct, and are these contractually binding? Do these obligations extend to managers and training staff, especially with respect to language used? How is the club monitoring and addressing prejudice? What procedures and disciplinary measures are in place for dealing with homophobic abuse or bullying? What support is available to LGBT staff and players facing abuse or in need of someone to talk to?

The Rugby Football League has made tremendous efforts to make the game fully inclusive. All major clubs have diversity officers, and LGBT working groups that are providing support to a number of players.

Another point, often missed, is that the game already has numerous openly gay teams. The oldest, London’s Stonewall FC in the Middlesex County League, and Village Manchester, have been challenging stereotypes, for 21 and 15 years respectively, by battling it out on the pitch every weekend. As Village Manchester manager Antony Lockley explained to Nicky Campbell, many of his players came from far afield because they saw no way of being accepted in their local club, because outside the big cities, as the prejudice is rife.

By playing regularly with mainly straight teams, these clubs have obliterated the insidious notion of gay people being predators. At least three people on the Radio 5 show called to say how uncomfortable they would feel in the showers or changing rooms in the presence of a gay person. This argument was quashed in the armed forces long ago, but it’s important that people are encouraged to ask themselves how they know this to be true, and that beliefs based on no evidence are suspected, not respected.

Even though it is good to see action taken, the FA is failing to communicate why and how homophobia is damaging when it occurs. And this makes me worry about the effectiveness of its campaigns. Its failure was most apparent when Lee Steele was sacked by Oxford City for his tweets about ‘padlocking his arse’ when near gay rugby player Gareth Thomas. Many fans were outraged, claiming it was an overreaction.

In cases like this, instead of issuing meaningless platitudes about standing firm against homophobia, the FA should have explained how damaging Steele’s remarks were to his own club. For like many league clubs, Oxford City is made up of over ten reserve and youth teams. It is highly probably that up to ten or so team members – perhaps vulnerable teenagers – would have felt isolated and outcast by such remarks. Such remarks are divisive, sow seeds of mistrust and ruinous for team spirit, and it is shameful that nobody thought to point this out.

And a final point about homophobia in the stands, especially for useful idiots like Arsenal fan Matt Lucas: if visitors to Brighton cannot see the cruelty of ridiculing the town for its accepting, tolerant atmosphere with chants of ‘We can see you holding hands’, perhaps club sponsors eventually will?

Even major sporting brands seek to promote values of diversity and inclusiveness nowadays, and distance themselves from old-fashioned ‘macho’ positioning. Brand-owners do not want to see their products being endorsed by narrow-minded homophobic and racist thugs on TV or, more likely, on YouTube.

If nothing else, perhaps the prospect of football’s reputation being dragged through the mire, might make the FA see the value, rather than just the cost, of promoting a diverse and inclusive game? 

A downpour on Saturday afternoon was responsible for a low turnout of just 380,000 spectators at the Amsterdam Canal Parade, the climax of the city’s annual Gay Pride festival.

Even so, organisers ProGay deserve credit for making this year’s Pride one of the most inclusive events of its kind. The five-day festival of over 300 events – comprising parties, cultural exhibitions, religious gatherings and sporting competitions – highlighted the diversity of the LGBT community. Perhaps the biggest success was the near-saturation coverage of the event in the media, which paid serious attention to the homophobic prejudice that still exists in the Netherlands today.

The 80 boats, which sailed the along the city’s Prinsengracht, included delegations of Jews, Christians, disabled people, senior citizens and numerous international and government organisations. The parade highlighted the global struggle for LGBT rights and acceptance. A symphony orchestra led the flotilla, playing Beethoven’s European anthem, ‘Ode To Joy,’ while naming and shaming EU countries with discriminatory legislation.

An African boat was featured for the first time, acting as a poignant reminder of the wave of anti-gay violence sweeping across Sub-Saharan countries. One of its representatives explained: “Homophobic governments promote the lie that homosexuality is a ‘western’ ideology. Well, we want to send a clear signal that as gay Africans, we’re here and we’re proud! We are here to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Africa who cannot be themselves. We will keep fighting.”

The theme of this year’s Pride, ‘Celebrate and dare to be visible!’, was a defiant message to the many in Dutch society who still find the very sight of gay people ‘offensive’. Amsterdam is not the safe accepting haven it once was. In the city alone, 370 cases of intimidation and violence against gays and lesbians were reported last year.

Frank van Dalen, the charismatic 41-year-old president of ProGay, explained that visibility is more important than ever in these circumstances: “On the one hand, we want to empower LGBT people to be proud of who they are and show it. And we are also making it clear to society in general, we are here, we’re going to stay and you are going to see us because we are going to be visible, not just during pride but throughout the year.”

In the week running up to Pride, one of the country’s national broadcasters, AVRO, exposed astonishingly negative attitudes towards homosexuality in its Hoe straight ben jij?( How Straight Are You?) survey. Three quarters think it’s okay to be gay, so long as you ‘act normal’. Thirty-six percent found two men kissing in public offensive, and half found it fine to use ‘homo’ as a term of insult.

“The outcome was that they accept homosexuality as long as they don’t see it”, van Dalen explained. “When it becomes too obvious and too physical they find it difficult. So it’s alright to be gay as long as you don’t express yourself.”

The violence against LGBT people in Holland is to some extent a consequence of the failure of past governments to integrate different cultures into society. Surveys show most of the perpetrators are aged 16 to 25, and immigrant communities, such as those of Moroccan ethnicity, are over-represented.

“If they are confronted with expressions of homosexuality, they see it as a direct threat to their own masculinity,” van Dalen explained.

“They strongly believe when they are under threat they have a right to defend themselves, and then, violence is an option. Almost all violent incidents of violence occur on gay people because they dare to answer back after being subjected to verbal abuse in the first place. Hurling insults at someone is a way of asserting superiority. If you don’t simply accept it, then these people think, ‘now I really have to stand up for my rights, because he didn’t get my message’, and so they attack.”

To combat homophobia, ProGay and other organisations have been successfully lobbying for the police and the judiciary to take a harder line against homophobic violence. While the Netherlands lacks the hate crimes legislation that protects British LGBT citizens, he is pleased to see more arrests and thugs being given longer prison sentences.

But there is still work to be done. There is much anger following revelations that gay people in a street in the west of the city are being driven out of their homes after months of intimidation from a gang of youths. The police were only recently able to make arrests because the victims were too fearful of reprisals from the rest of the community to make a statement. In cases like this, van Dalen wants to see the perpetrators evicted and more reassurance of protection for victims, to enable them to come forward in the first place.

In the long term, van Dalen sees compulsory education about homosexuality in all schools as the most effective remedy. The previous minister for education, Ronald Plasterk, made the topic an integral part of the state school curriculum. Plans to extend this universally will undoubtedly be met with fierce opposition from religious schools, especially those in the country’s Calvinist communities, which can still teach about sexuality in accordance with religious values and dismiss gay teachers.

A ProGay initiative for high schools and sports clubs is the Gay-Straight Alliance. This is where straight friends make a commitment to show support, should a gay classmate or team member ever experience homophobic abuse. Unfortunately, there has been little enthusiasm from the sporting world yet.

Gay Pride in Amsterdam receives the kind of national media coverage that UK organisers can only dream about. While BBC Radio 1 failed to even mention London Pride this year on its Newsbeat website – let alone broadcast from the event – one of the main youth radio stations, 3FM, went ‘gay for the day’ on Friday, broadcasting its annual Homo Top 100 live from the Rembradtplein, the square near the city’s gay venues.

Two newspapers made Thursday’s opening ceremony headline news, while during the week, there were TV debates on tackling social prejudice, and there was even coverage on the classical station, Radio 4. Van Dalen explains: “Since in 2007, we have broadened the message and deepened the meaning of gay pride. Last year we had over 600 articles in the newspapers, because we created so much news about the type of boats that were sailing along the things we were doing. There are many diverse messages about the struggle for emancipation, and we work hard to get these into the media. If you only talk superficially about the extravaganza of the floats, it’s not going to fill three pages, and to be honest, it misrepresents.”

Van Dalen has a defiant message to those who accuse pride organisers of ‘flaunting sexuality’: “People make a huge fuss about the gay pride, and how disgraceful this display of flamboyancy is. What hypocrisy. I don’t hear this about the Summer Carnaval in Rotterdam, organised by the Surinam community. What they really mean is, they can’t stand the sight of two men walking hand in hand.

“In essence we are here to show straight people that a world where being different is seen as an added value to society, that is better for everyone. It creates a society open for innovation, development, progress and without these, society stagnates.”

The BBC’s commitment to impartiality is, it claims, “central to its contract with the audience”. To highlight this, a noble and high-minded statement of intent on the Corporation’s editorial guidelines reads thus:

“We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”

If that wasn’t clear enough, reporter Evan Davies cheerfully explains the principles of impartiality in a ten-minute video on the website of the BBC Academy’s School of Journalism. Even though the journalist must not favour one view over another, he reminds us that judgments still have to be made about what stories should be reported and how.

To get into the right mindset and make impartial judgments, a journalist must ask himself: Is that judgment consistent with the experts? Are they drawing conclusions from their judgments? Does the audience know what they are getting? The manner, style and words employed by the journalist should tell the readers whether they are getting a fact, a probable fact, a generally recognised view, or the professional judgment of the journalist.

Being impartial is like being prosecutor and defender, arming the jury with the information they need to make up their own mind. Whether there are differing views or not, there is no need for any journalist to stay neutral between sense and nonsense.

So, anyone holding a discussion on homosexuality has a moral obligation to inform readers that there is no ground for controversy in the first place. All medical, psychological, sociological and psychiatric experts are crystal clear that homosexuality is a natural, neutral, harmless way by which a small proportion of the population expresses love. Any ‘controversy’ about homosexuality was buried by the experts 40 years ago.

The American Psychological Association’s position on sexual orientation can be read here. And, as revealed on PinkNews.co.uk earlier this month, there is overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is determined by genes and hormones.

Armed with this information, almost all readers can see that even a debate on whether homosexuality is ‘wrong’, is inappropriate. But by posing such a murderously stupid question on its Have Your Say website asking whether gays should be executed, timidly juxtaposed with another non-question, ‘has Uganda gone too far?’ the BBC breaks its impartiality code utterly. For the reader is not merely instructed to debate whether a discussion should be had about homosexuality. The question treats the immorality of homosexuality as a foregone conclusion, and invites a discussion on the extent to which homosexuality is immoral or criminal. Incredibly, it even implies that a debate about the execution of gay people had two equal, legitimate sides.

This emphasises why the BBC’s pathetic explanation is an unacceptable shirking of responsibility. David Stead, responsible for World Service Have Your Say, wrote: “We have sought to moderate [comments] rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.”

The moderators even broke the BBC’s standards on homophobic content, as evidenced by the volume of comments which gleefully looked forward to the prospect of state-mandated murder in Uganda.

Could anyone in their right mind imagine reflecting the “hugely diverse views” about topics such as: ‘Should Jews be sent to gas chambers?’ or ‘Should unveiled girls have acid thrown in their faces in Karachi?’; ‘Should disabled people be euthanised?’; ‘Should slavery be reintroduced?’

The BBC is just as guilty of racism as it is of homophobia, for the executive was at pains to stress the debate appeared on the BBC’s Have Your Say Africa webpage, as if geography should somehow exonerate those responsible. Do Stead and the corporation think that people from this continent are too savage to grasp the universal concept of human rights?

The BBC has a moral duty to enlighten its audiences, especially in countries where, due to poor education and rising religious fundamentalism, violence against sexual minorities is on the rise in frequency and brutality. Instead, by endorsing such a debate, and treating incitement to murder as valid opinion, the BBC surrenders to ignorance and mob rule. How ironic for a corporation whose motto is Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation.

Well, perhaps we can have a balanced discussion on the following topics: ‘Is the BBC, by fanning the flames of hatred, liable for corporate manslaughter?’ ‘Should LGBT people and anyone who thinks dignity and justice is important, consider boycotting the BBC and refuse to pay their TV licences?’ Why not ‘Have Your Say’, indeed?

On the subject of gay stereotypes, Dr Rahman said: “[These] might originate from the observation that as children, gay men tend to be gender non-conforming; they are more feminine on average, and that is seen across cultures. These preferences may have their basis in neurobiology during early development (gender roles are partly organised by prenatal sex hormones and develop even before children can label the sexes and ascribe gender roles to them).”

He added: “But don’t get too carried away with unrealistic stereotypes, as there is a great deal of variation within that range of gay men. Plenty of gay men are interested in competitive sport and other spheres traditionally thought of as ‘male’ domains. And scientists need to explain that variation too. This is an area where we need more research.”

How does this explain bisexuality, and reports of people changing sexuality?

“We know very little about bisexuality but early work suggests that while bisexual behaviour exists, a bisexual orientation (sexual responsivity to both sexes) is rare in males. In females, there appears to be clearer evidence of bisexual responsivity. This suggests that researchers need to measure sexuality differently in women than in men.”

So, your studies can be useful beyond saying how someone turns out gay?

“We know there are big sex differences in certain mental health problems. Women have three times higher anxiety rates than men, while males suffer more from autism, reading problems, an earlier onset of schizophrenia. Early evidence suggests gay men show similar levels of anxiety and eating disorders as women do, incidences of drug addiction and personality problems in lesbians are similar to those reported in men.

“If there is any truth in these brain differences, we can attempt to understand why certain conditions arise, and then offer tailored, instead of generic treatment. This would be major progress in mental health, because people respond very differently according to their biological make-up. This does not exclude the important role of social factors (like stigma) in the development of mental health problems in sexual minorities (just like it impacts other minorities).

“Also, if we learn how people detect sexual orientation in others, we can explore whether someone detects it from a person’s speech or movement. We know from previous experiments, that people can detect sexual orientation within a couple of seconds. We can investigate whether homophobic people have a heightened sensitivity to others on the basis of their sexuality. If we know that we can go someway to develop psychosocial interventions to deal with sexuality-related prejudice.”

He added: “We welcome input from the gay and lesbian community, to find out what the important priorities are. ”

Some say that such research could lead to attempts to remove homosexuals from the gene pool. Isn’t there a danger of this?

Dr Rahman said: “Gays and lesbians can find this fascinating or scary and some can be downright against it. But humans have a fascination about their underlying human natures. Sexuality is a core part of who we are as human beings, and for this reason it should be cherished.

“This research has many benefits. It may provide us with clues about tackling homophobia effectively. It may help us understand mental illness better, or teach us more about the biological and psychological development of older gay and lesbian adults. On this latter topic, we currently know very little.

“In the UK, mine is the only group doing research in this area, but in the states, they have healthier funding, there are more groups. They have more money, but even in the USA there have been problems getting funds.”

There is a fringe group of psychoanalysts, such as NARTH, who claim that homosexuality is caused by dominant mothers. Dr Raham emphasises that there is no evidence for these claims.

He said: “Homosexuality is not due an overbearing mother and a distant father as some psychoanalytic nonsense has suggested. The crux of the theory predicts that gay men should come from homes where the father is absent – no demographic evidence supports this claim. Secondly, the notion that homosexuality is due to unresolved Oedipal complex (a core tenet of psychoanalytic theory) makes the prediction in the wrong way – it should explain heterosexuality and not homosexuality. If gay men are so fixated on their mothers as the theory claims then why do they end up fancying men? Psychoanalytic theory is best left in the land of warlock magic and elfin trickery. ”

Can exposure to information about homosexuality (for example through sex education classes) or childhood sexual experimentation make people more likely to turn out gay?

“All the biological and developmental evidence shows that homosexuality cannot be learned so teaching about same-sex relationships in schools cannot result in increases in homosexuality. You cannot learn homosexuality like you can learn maths! A certain amount of same-sex horseplay is common in adolescence but there is no evidence that is disproportionately results in adult homosexuality.”

Although there are frequent reports of kids who are abused, growing up to become gay, Dr Rahman dismisses this as anecdotal.

I ask about the religious right, who seem to be very good at their PR, with reparative therapists getting major news coverage when they visit the UK. Does the media seem to give their crackpot ideas far more attention than they deserve?

Dr Rahman replied: “Yes, and the media are to blame, for creating controversies where none exist. It’s vital to have heavyweights armed with the facts to demolish arguments of people who can claim, for example, to ‘cure’ homosexuals. But having the experts on doesn’t make ‘sexy’ enough TV for the media. Instead, they think, ‘let’s get a gay clergy member’ , which may be controversial but it doesn’t do justice to truth, or deal with the arguments sufficiently.”

He also commented on media representations of homosexual activity in the natural world: “There is a strong absence of any evidence of animals having homosexual behaviour in their programmes in the natural history documentaries. I don’t believe for an instant that they don’t see the behaviour. It seems just fine to put heterosexual activity in our faces left right and centre, but when it comes to homosexuality, it seems it’s a subject they are just not happy to touch. That is ironic because Britain is leaps and bounds ahead of most countries in terms of representation of gays and lesbians in the media now, before the watershed, but animal sexuality is somewhat inhibited. Maybe it is too animalistic I don’t know.”

As Dr Rahman shows, there remains much to learn about how sexual orientation is determined. But after nearly two decades of research, the evidence that nature has determined our sexuality is growing ever stronger.

To some, it may sound like we gays and lesbians are a genetic ‘mistake’. Not at all. Human civilisation owes its greatness to the ability to pass on ideas and override the genes. We should be thankful we have broken the savage rules of natural selection. Take inspiration from Richard Dawkins, who reminds us of our astronomically good fortune to be here at all, in ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”

And if that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine, nothing will.

Further reading

Evolution explains how we got here, and tells a lot about why we are who we are. To learn more about the topic, try some of these:

Mark Pallen ‘Rough Guide to Evolution’

Jerry Coyne ‘Why Evolution is True’

Richard Dawkins ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’; ‘The Selfish Gene’.

Steve Jones ‘Darwin’s Island’

Matt Ridley ‘the Red Queen’ and ‘Origins of Virtue’

Dr Raham has also co-authored a book. ‘Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation’, by Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman (published by Peter Owen)

While almost all scientists accept homosexuality has purely natural causes, the debate has been mired in confusion. There have been conflicting reports about the existence of ‘gay’ genes and their significance. Religious propagandists have tried to promote the myths that sexuality is changeable. And the mainstream media, more interested in causing controversy than holding rational debate, has done little to raise public understanding about the issue. For Dr Rahman, who heads QMUL’s Biological and Experimental Psychology Group, it is quite clear: you’re born gay, and that’s that.

I begin by asking him what aspects of biology are responsible for sexual orientation.

“The whole nature-nurture debate is entirely pointless,” he says. “Sexual orientation is not a choice because humans come in two types: one with a vagina, the other with a penis, so sexual orientation is entirely biological.

“We all end up at the same point: heterosexuality or homosexuality. There is little variation in between but this is not to exclude bisexual behaviour. People do not end up sexually attracted to bananas or animals for example. This is not a flippant comment. What I am saying is that we see the same characteristic traits and behaviours, resulting from a relatively small number of factors.

“We think the causes for different sexual orientations cluster around two areas. We know that just under half the variation in sexual orientation is down to genes. Then the rest of the variation is down to ‘non-shared’ factors, and those, like hormones, are primarily biological.”

At this point a little background is needed.

Dr Rahman explained that the gene story originated in 1993, when geneticist Dean Hamer published a study that claimed homosexuality was genetically influenced, and pinpointed the stretch of the X chromosome (inherited from the mother). He studied 76 pairs of gay brothers and found they shared a stretch of DNA. However, since then no research has been able to repeat the test.

Despite the shortcomings of Hamer’s research, scientists agree the environmental factors do not cause homosexuality. It is increasingly clear that no single gene is responsible for sexual orientation. Furthermore, William Reiner at the University of Oklahoma surveyed the sexuality of a group who had been surgically reassigned from boys to girls at birth, due to genital deformities. Though they were brought up as women, and knew nothing about their surgery, they were all attracted to women later in life.

Michael Bailey of Northwestern University found that an identical twin of a gay man had a 50 per cent chance of also being gay. Among fraternal, yet non-identical twins, that probability was reduced to 20 per cent. This latter statistic does not in fact downplay the role of genetics, because not all the genes we inherit are active. We receive two alternative genes of every gene – one from each parent. Our bodies, therefore, contain two sets of building plans. A process called methylation turns off certain genes, and determines whether the gene we inherit from the mother or the father gets turned on. Although this process is inherited, it has none of DNA’s proof-reading mechanisms, and thus varies greatly from one generation to the next. The causes and effects of methylation are under investigation by Sven Bocklandt at UCLA.

But if homosexuality were inherited, wouldn’t the genes for it disappear because of natural selection?

Dr Rahman said: “That is a common misunderstanding, and that is said by people with no understanding of evolutionary biology. Sexuality is a complex human trait, just like IQ or personality. It is determined not by a single gene, but how several genes work together. A whole range of features with reproductive disadvantages can be maintained in the gene pool down the generations, if only a portion of the genes responsible are advantageous to heterosexual carriers.”

He continued: “One of the ideas is that heterosexual men that may carry some ‘gay’ alleles that result in more empathic and nurturing traits, which are thus more attractive to females, who might mate with them and then carry those genes on further. So long as passing on some versions of those genes is reproductively advantageous, the fact that at some point down the generations you end up with a completely homosexual male – with all gay genes activated – is inconsequential. Evolution will happily tolerate that as long as the general reproductive advantage for individuals is maintained.

“However,” he added, “there is much work to do. We don’t yet know how this works. A couple of papers published last year suggested females, rather than males, benefited. Genes responsible for homosexuality have to do something, but they do not literally write the word ‘gay’ in the brain.

“Maybe they are involved in producing certain types of proteins or hormones which confer attraction to males, useful for women, but maybe having some of these alleles make them more attractive to men, or maybe these genes make them look more beautiful, effeminising them in some way.

“Either way, these help females find a mate more easily and give them more offspring, while almost sterilising the male line. A male who is gay won’t compete with your own reproductive outcomes. At the genomic level, females should be more interested in producing ‘like’ i.e., more females.”

The second influence on sexuality is hormones.

Dr Rahman continued: “The level of exposure to sex hormones, such as testosterone, during life in the womb, seems to influence the direction of sexual preference. Everyone would be born female if it were not for testosterone. At stages during pregnancy, the hormone is introduced into the womb. The level of testosterone to which the foetus is exposed determines the level of masculinity. Some bodily markers provide an insight into exposure. One example is the relative length of index finger to ring finger.

“There are a whole range of measures like startle responses, a particular sound emission that comes from the inner ear and cognitive profiles, which show how people perform on different problem solving tasks.”

So, gay brains are wired differently?

“In males the big brother effect is also important. Gay men tend to be born younger in relation to their brothers. The maternal immune system recognises successive male foetuses and may form an immune response to particular types of protein that form on the surface of the brain in the developing foetus. This might affect sexual differentiation or it might produce some hormonal mechanism that produces that variation, too. The big brother effect only appears to be important when gay men are right handed. Left handed gay men owe their sexual orientation to other causes we are unaware of.

“Relatively recently, there has been lots of research into neurobiology – what goes on in the brain. Our lab has been working a lot on mental problem solving skills like spatial ability, finding your way around, finding important objects in a spatial environment, emotional skills and verbal recognition.

“And we know these are different between the sexes, but we find gay men tend to have a female type of spatial ability. Spatial ability is controlled partly by two regions of the brain. So if we know that gay men perform differently in these kinds of tests, that suggests that part of the brain either is structurally different or functions in a different way. That gives us an insight into brain development.

“Thanks to MRI scans, we also have the technology to look at the brain directly rather than just carry out problem solving tests on people. The studies in the last two years strongly suggest that in the adult gay brain, and lesbian brain, it is wired very differently to the straight brain.

“In 2008, Swedish scientists at the Karolinska Institute compared the brain hemispheres of healthy gays and lesbians with heterosexual male and female adults.

“The results showed that heterosexual men and lesbians show a rightward asymmetry in their brain – it appears to be larger in volume than the left. However, the brain hemispheres of gay men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical.

“It might explain why heterosexual men tend to be better at spatial skills; there is some evidence that lesbians are better at some visual motor skills as well. Tests show gay men and hetero women tend to be better at language, verbal fluency, skills and emotion processing.

“The Swedish group also found differences in the amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for orientating the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus, such as a startle (fight or flight) response, or the presence of a potential mate.

“Heterosexual men and gay women have more nerve connections in the right side of the amygdala, while gay men and heterosexual women have more on the left.

“So, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually ‘orients’ towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.”

Now some may ask ‘but how can you be sure that having gay sexual experiences or straight sexual experiences is not responsible for these differences and surely experience can change brain structure?’

Dr Rahman says this is a good question: “We don’t know the answer but studies with animals suggest these differences appear before any sexual experiences calibrate the biology. But only work in humans can truly answer this, and this remains to be done.”

So does the data justify stereotypes? Does it suggest footballers and athletes are less likely to be gay? And could research uncover why some people are homophobic?

To read part two, click here

A columnist cocooned in the Kensington offices of Associated Newspapers is the least likely person to provide an educated insight into Stephen Gately’s death and how it could have been prevented. Jan Moir has no medical qualifications we are aware of and her only known skill is stringing sentences together. Even so, commentators are, after all, paid to speculate and pose uncomfortable questions. A young man has dropped dead, for goodness’ sake. Of course we are concerned who the third man might be, though we are no better informed at the end of her completely forgettable piece, since sexual activity is not in and of itself fatal, however many people are involved.

Demonising sexual activity and upsetting the snow white image of the recently departed is ill-timed, spiteful, bordering on the hysterical. But that is an issue she must resolve with no one but Gately’s close friends and family. It is not an attack on the gay community, and she has no business to apologise to the nation for this.

Anger is justified, though, when she makes the ludicrous, nonsensical claim that this single incident has anything to say about same sex partnerships across the whole nation. Underneath it lies the insinuation that “this is what gay people are like aren’t they?” Slanderous and demeaning gibberish her comments may be, I cringe at the way the gay community deals with unpleasant opinion like this. Complaints to the Press Complaints Commission have topped 22,000 and now adding to the stupidity, the Manchester-based Lesbian & Gay Foundation (LGF) has even reported her article to the police as a hate ‘incident’.

The LGF’s slogan is ‘ending homophobia, empowering people’. But silencing viewpoints is more likely to breed homophobia than end it. How, other than by debate, does one challenge prejudice? When we deny the freedom to speak each time we hear something we don’t like, as Thomas Paine reminds us, everyone becomes a slave to their own opinions.

Freedom of speech is not just about the right to speak your mind. It is also the right to listen, to have opinions of all sides exposed to scrutiny. It has no value without the freedom to think differently. Moir gives expression to doubts that are lingering in the back of many people’s minds. For all we know, there may even be a grain of truth, somewhere among her bizarre utterances.

Reason is a far more formidable weapon than an ASBO in searching for the truth. With Moir, as with a BNP member or a fanatical religious street preacher, I simply ask her to give us the extraordinary evidence that backs up her extraordinary claims, and the matter is closed. So far, she has been subjected to a wave of abuse and condemnation. Understandable it may be, it does not call her reasoning to account.

When we bully people with opinions we don’t like into silence, or threaten them with court action, we are in effect acting as judge and jury over what may be said or thought. The sinister consequences of this route to totalitarianism were spelt out in Robert Bolt’s ‘A man for all seasons’, a play about the trial of Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More. Before his fall from power, More is concerned a devious courtier may be plotting against him. But even so, he resists calls from William Roper, his son in law, to have him arrested, as the plotter in question has broken no law:

- Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

- More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

Moir only hurt people’s feelings; there is no law against that. She called for no harm against any individual. Banning hurt feelings may seem an easy route to utopia. But who is to decide which feelings are more sacred and to whom do we award the task of deciding, in advance, the possible consequences of speech?

I don’t feel like awarding this task to the LGF, especially after being told that because I opposed the decision to report Moir, I myself am now part of the problem. Well, I refuse to recant before this self-appointed inquisition. For the LGF should bear in mind the slippery slope they risk dragging us all down. Hurt feelings is the excuse given by fanatics, determined to be offended enough to throw acid in the faced of unveiled girls in Kabul. The BNP’s Nick Griffin finds our very presence “creepy”. Should we award his feelings the right to protection, too? Or how about the screaming, placard-waving Christian fundamentalist crackpots at gay pride: might I be arrested for ridiculing them because they believe the Earth to be 6,012 years old?

Before you scoff at these scenarios, bear in mind that after Channel 4 exposed the imams who called for the murder of gays and Jews, West Midlands Police first sought to prosecute the programme makers. They reasoned these revelations in the resulting documentary, ‘Undercover Mosque’, could potentially incite hatred against the whole Muslim community.

The way to avoid this nonsense, therefore, is to defend to the death the right of others to say what we disagree with, especially when they are as appalling as Moir’s. We must have faith in the critical abilities of people to reason and think for themselves. We become a fairer, more democratic, less bigoted society when we open debate and scrutinise all opinions.

To hell, therefore, with an apology from Moir: all I want from her is a coherent reason why the death of one individual calls into question every same sex relationship from Land’s End to Lerwick. I will not rest until I get one. Further than that, she should take inspiration from the 1st Duke of Wellington’s famous retort, ‘publish and be damned!’, and face the consequences.

At last, the world of sport is beginning to acknowledge that homophobia is a problem, that it needs to be dealt with, and to a much lesser extent, that there are also gay, lesbian, bi and trans people who actually play sport. Kick It Out, the Football Association’s pressure group dedicated to kicking out all forms of bigotry in the game, is even making a video to be broadcast at all stadiums to tell fans that homophobia is wrong.

Very well, this is all good news; I doff my cap. However, we have yet to see participation in any anti-homophobia initiative from the people who really could help change attitudes most of all: the players who fans look up to as role models. The only one to make such statements so far has been David James. What is the bigger problem, the minority who spew hatred, or the majority’s reaction to it?

An example of this problem arose last Wednesday, when Burnley defender Clarke Carlisle gave an in depth interview to the Lancashire Telegraph about tackling prejudice. It’s a well-timed piece of PR, as football’s ‘One Game, One Community’ week, celebrating diversity, kicks off. In the lengthy interview, he says all the things we want to hear on welcoming the ethic minorities and the disabled. So far, so good. He certainly comes across as a thoughtful, well-meaning person, and I believe it when we are told he takes his role as seriously off the pitch as on it. However, on the question, ‘will we see an openly gay player in the game?’ this all evaporates:

“I think that’s not just football, but that is generally in sport and it’s a reflection of the nation as we stand. I think there is a massive stigma about homosexuality and this is why the coming out process is such a traumatic experience. When you transpose that into a sports environment, it’s very alpha-male dominated, so you don’t want to show any signs of weakness. It was a monumental effort for me to hold my hands up to say I had a problem with alcohol back in the day because it was exposing a vulnerability to others. So coming out as a homosexual sportsman can be viewed negatively so people don’t want to do that.”

This comment is useless and wrong on so many counts. Of course, there is a massive problem. But that ignores the many signs of hope. Ever more people being open about their sexuality, with friends, family and work colleagues, helped greatly by public role models. Even in sport, things are moving in the right direction. Match officials are being trained to penalise anything like the Le Saux-Fowler incident from being repeated. Clubs are training the stewards and the police to identify abusive chanting before it spreads out of control across the stand. Aston Villa has even launched its own gay supporters’ group.

Gay football and rugby teams have been set up around the country, some playing in local leagues, and some even have straight players happily joining too. The flood of support for Ireland’s top hurling star, Dónal Og Cusack, after he publicly came out, shows that when we put our minds to it, overcoming homophobic prejudice can be done.

There really is no excuse sweeping the issue under the carpet in 2009. Science has answered the question about homosexuality, telling us decades ago what common sense told us since the origin of our species: it’s a natural, neutral state. The laws of science and common sense apply in exactly the same way wherever you are, whether it’s in Soho or at the Turf Moor stadium. All of us have the same brains and reasoning capabilities. Anyone can change their opinions about homosexuality in an instant, when they look at the evidence.

That’s why it’s particularly disappointing when someone compares being gay, which does not negatively affect playing ability or team unity, with alcoholism, which most certainly does. So, what coherent reason is there, Mr Carlisle, for anyone to perceive homosexuality as a ‘weakness’?

It’s a shame therefore, that Mr Carlisle can’t simply say, there’s no need for homophobia, and that it’s not acceptable. Is that too much to show even a grain of solidarity with the one group of football fans and players who actually need it most? Or is the changing room paranoia of his ‘alpha male’ team-mates so great that doing so would lead to ostracism?

For all the good work being done, football is still a haven for bigotry. Just look through internet discussion forums to find pockets of hysterical hatred against gay people going unchecked.

The worst example was observed after Steven Gately’s death. On a thread dedicated to this on Westhamonline.net, it was like September 12th at an al-Qaeda hide-out, with a handful of members hardly able to hide their joy, including a jubilant, ‘Mr Polite’ gleefully looking forward to the extermination of more homosexuals. Just a tiny number of forum members were responsible. But only one had the courage to express disgust. The website operators eventually locked the thread, and only deleted the comments after being told to by Kick It Out. No public apology has been issued. The question, left hanging in the air, like the ashes from a concentration camp crematorium, is this: what expression of violence or hatred is necessary, before people stand up and be counted?

There are such people as guilty bystanders, when we let others get away with unspeakable injustice against others. Have these ‘alpha males’, who Mr Carlisle claims dominate football, no balls to show leadership and stand up to this tiny, thuggish minority? I never knew cowardice was such a noble value.

Challenging ideas of masculinity begins and ends with two simple questions: would any self-important, preening, prima donna footballer care to claim himself more of a man than, for instance, James Wharton, the openly gay trooper featured on the cover of July 2009’s Soldier Magazine? Who risks the most in their respective fields of combat? Seriously, Mr Carlisle, give yourself and your colleagues a break.

A few top-flight footballers, who stand firmly with everyone, would mean the most to those LGBT folks in the amateur leagues. For amid the salad of commitments to zero-tolerance from various head offices, it was a commentator on a Blackpool FC supporters’ discussion forum who appreciated the nature of the problem most of all:

‘…My Sunday League team has two gay lads playing for us, one of whom has been our player of the season for the last two years and was offered a contract at a Conference North club a couple of years ago. He said he turned it down because he wanted to be himself and knew as soon as he revealed he was gay that there would be some bigot who’d have a pop if anything went wrong during a game…’

Dr Martin Luther King once told us that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. But it was Barack Obama who put these words into their true perspective, at the 40th anniversary memorial of the great man’s assassination:

“It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice.”

While the hopes and dreams of young talent are being wrecked, ordinary fans will have to do what so-called role models won’t, at grass roots level. I don’t think football players and fans are all that backward. I’m pinning a small rainbow flag to my football shirt. I’ll wear it every time I go to Hillsborough. In this way, My club will be proud to see it really does represent all sectors of the community. I invite all other fans to make this simple gesture. 

During the two-hour showdown, organised by Intelligence Squared at the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, Hitchens and Fry mercilessly and articulately lambasted the church for its record of homophobia, child abuse and anti-semitism, as well as its stance on contraception.

Christopher Hitchens wasted no time in living up to his reputation as a bulldog debater: “On the institutionalisation of rape and torture, the maltreatment of children in their care, [the current pope] Joseph Ratzinger said: ‘It is a very serious crisis which demands us in the need for applying to the victims, the most loving pastoral care.’ Well, I’m sorry, they have already had that.”

Hitchens tore into the Vatican for its refusal to hand over Cardinal Bernard Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, to Massachusetts police for questioning about his role in the child abuse scandals. “Here is a man wanted for the promotion, protection, covering up and defence of people whose crimes against children are too revolting to specify,” he fumed. “Yet he is acting as vicar of the American Catholic Church in Rome, personally appointed by the Pope and in 2005, even joining the Conclave, to decide who the next pope should be.”

This brought him to the topic of homophobia: “The rape is not to be relativised, and certainly not to be excused by the hideously false claims made by some conservatives, that this wouldn’t happen if queers hadn’t been allowed into the church.”

“The church can apologise, too, for condemning my friend Stephen Fry, for his nature. For saying he couldn’t be a member of your church even if he wanted to. Don’t condemn him for what he does, condemn him for what he is! This is obscene, disgraceful and inhumane, and it comes from hysterical, sinister virgins who have already betrayed their charge of children.”

He showed the hypocrisy of this exclusion, by comparing it the to the willingness of the pope to accept back into the church Richard Williamson, a bishop from an extreme right-wing sect, which denies the Holocaust happened.

Hitchens also gave a list of evils committed by the church over the centuries, including the Crusades, the sacking of Constantinople, the Inquisition, and the torture and murder of scientists and protestants. He laid the responsibility for the Holocaust at the Church’s door, which he claims was made possible by role in inciting hatred of Jews over the centuries: “That the church taught that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for the death of Christ until 1964, twenty years after the Nuremberg trials, may or may not have had something to do with the availability of a reservoir of hate to tap into in Germany, Poland, Austria, Spain, Italy and elsewhere.”

Widdecombe gave a spirited defence, protesting at Hitchens’s exaggerations about the Church’s responsibility for inciting genocide in Rwanda, and highlighting the great risks taken by Catholic priests and nuns across Europe in protecting the Jews during the war.

She stated that, because so little was known about paedophilia even until a few decades ago, when magistrates awarded sentences of a few months in prison until as late as the 1990s. It was thought people who abused would simply stop, she claimed. On charity, she added: “Billions of pounds each year are poured into overseas aid by Catholics, more than any other single nation for medicine and education. Imagine the absence of those collections.”

Irritated by the focus of the debate on sex and condoms, she claimed: “The church is about hope and salvation. And it is intellectual arrogance to say people around the world can simply live without that. People are trying their hardest to live by Christ’s message; by the commandments, by the interpretation of those commandments. Sometimes they don’t quite manage. It would be a poorer, more hopeless place without it for many.”

She maintained that it was the church’s critics who were obsessed with sex, and that condoms have been ineffective in tackling AIDS in Africa.

While forthright in his condemnation for the church, Stephen Fry first emphasised the importance of showing solidarity with the religious believer: “I do not want to express any contempt towards any individuals of that church. They are welcome to their sacraments to their faith and the importance and the joy they receive from it. This joy is sacrosanct to anyone, of any church in the world. It is important as I also happen to have my own beliefs, in the eternal nature of trying to discover more truth in the world. It is an empirical fight that began with the Enlightenment, and there is nothing the Catholic Church likes to do more, than attack it.”

The latter was a reference to the torture of Galileo, who was famously forced to recant his beliefs about the Earth revolving around the sun, to avoid being burned at the stake. The Vatican finally decided he was right after all, in 1992.

On homosexuality, Fry said: “It’s a little hard to believe I am disordered or guilty of a moral evil simply for fulfilling my sexual destiny. It’s hard to be told I am full of evil. I think of myself full of love, whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love so much from nature and everywhere else. In order to achieve and receive love, you don’t need a priest to tell you how you do it. You certainly don’t need a pope to tell you, you are evil. And the many LGBT teenagers who attempt suicide certainly don’t need the stigmatisation and victimisation that leads to playground bullying, that comes from saying you are a disordered morally evil individual.”

In contrast, Fry went on to describe the priesthood as being full of ‘extraordinarily sexually dysfunctional people’, since celibacy was neither natural nor normal.

He attacked the church for using its power as a nation, siding with extremist Islamic states in the UN to veto any resolution on women’s sexual freedoms as well as LGBT rights.

But most of his venom was reserved for the consequences of the Church’s position on contraception. He highlighted his experience of Uganda, where AIDS was once successfully tackled by the ‘ABC’ policy of Abstinence – Be Faithful – Correct use of Condoms. Now, this is jeopardised by reverting to abstinence only approaches. “I don’t deny abstinence is a good way of not getting AIDS. It really works. But so do condoms!” he thundered. “[The Pope] spreads the lie that condoms increase the incidence of aids. He actually makes sure that aid is conditional on saying no to condoms. The pain and suffering you see as a result is appalling.”

Fry asked the audience to consider if the Catholic Church reflected Jesus’s message of love: “One person who would be the least to be accepted, would be the Galilean carpenter. That simple and remarkable man, would be so ill at ease in the church. You do not need this palace of marble and gold. What would he think of any of that, and someone who dared to lecture others on family values? He would be horrified! There is redemption for all of us, including the church. It has to get rid of this power, the wealth, the hierarchy, sell all the loot off, and concentrate on the essence of its beliefs. Then I would stand and say it is a force for good. But until they do, it is not.”

One would feel sorry for the unfortunate Archbishop Onaiyekan, who lacked the fiery oratory skills of his opponents. Repeatedly referring to his co-defendant as ‘Miss Weatherman’ did nothing for his cause, either. But he lost his argument due to his evasiveness in the face of such severe accusations and, in particular, by his refusal to apologise for the church’s handling of child abuse.

During the Q&A session, many in the audience vented their anger at the church’s homophobia. It was a reminder that this was not just any old intellectual debate. For some, it was as if their personal integrity were on trial. The chairwoman, BBC World broadcaster Zeinab Badawi, turned to the Archbishop to ask what Jesus said about homosexuality.

“That’s not the right question,” his Grace retorted, to hoots of derision from the audience. He then went on to claim that said that those engaging in sexual acts aren’t automatically condemned for it afterwards, as “each has his own story to tell”.

This seemed a bizarre assertion, given the funding provided by the Catholic Church for campaigns aimed at banning gay marriage in California and Maine. Hitchens mocked this: “The Archbishop is completely wrong. It doesn’t just say homosexuality is wrong, in the same sense as divorce and contraception. Wherever it can, [the church] bans these things and punishes them. Homosexuality is not sex, it is a form of love and I am proud to have Stephen as my friend, and when my children were young, as babysitter also. If anyone had turned up to babysit in holy orders, I’d first call a cab and then call the police.”

He had no patience either for Widdecombe’s plea not to judge the church by today’s standards, wondering why God decided not to reveal slavery was wrong until the 19th century, decades after humanists such as Thomas Paine came to that conclusion. For the defenders of the faith, this was a rout. The audience overwhelmingly opposed the motion, 1862 against, to 268 votes for.

The full debate will be broadcast on BBC World on November 7th and 8th.

Adrian Tippetts is a journalist and PR consultant.

The efforts to eradicate homophobia in football are being driven by Kick It Out, the Football Association’s (FA) equality and inclusion body. Set up originally to tackle racism in 1997, the Shoreditch (London)-based team works throughout the football, educational and community sectors to challenge discrimination and encourage inclusive practices. It is also supported and funded by the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), the Premier League and the Football Foundation as well as the FA.

Piara Powar, director of Kick It Out, is under no illusion about the difficulty of eliminating homophobia from the game, but he dismisses those who say change can’t happen: “People said 20 years ago [that] we’d never kick racism out of football. Even black players said that. Today, it is unthinkable that an ethnic minority player should suffer racial abuse and [the perpetrator would] get away with it.”

Powar said: “We’ve done a lot of things to equip football clubs. Firstly, we’ve been clamping down on abuse on the terraces. We have shown stewards the procedures to take when abuse is reported, and at what stage to involve the police for example.” In the stands, that means knowing when abuse is serious enough to alert the head steward and the police. This approach has led to successful prosecutions, especially after the abuse suffered by Sol Campbell in 2008. Perpetrators can also expect to be banned from the stadium in addition to criminal charges.

Kick It Out is also working to tackle homophobia within the football clubs themselves. Powar said: “We have created a three-level Equality Standard. All Premiership clubs are required to achieve the basic level. As part of that we ask clubs to audit their club members on ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, and other factors. There is also a requirement to carry out an equality action plan, a training programme. In short all Premiership clubs are required to stop homophobia internally and on the terraces.”

Last December, Peter Tatchell and Outrage! met the FA to discuss the making of a video, in which top football stars would say homophobia was not welcome in football. This project has started, but with a limited budget, Powar is experiencing difficulties in meeting Tatchell’s expectations.

“We are still looking for players to get involved, but it’s not easy. We don’t have the budget and only have persuasive power. We have to get through numerous layers of people to actually reach the top players is ridiculous. Even if they have sympathy for the cause – they have agents or managers who might be talking them out of it. Agents are very crude individuals.”

Yet, to a forward-thinking player, the incentives to take are possibly greater than any financial reward. “Players should be jumping at the opportunity. Sponsors, for one, would be more than happy if their celebrities took part in a ground-breaking project like this. Also, it’s an opportunity for a player to show moral leadership, be remembered as a pioneer, and prove they have value beyond the game itself.”

If no brave men can step forward, Powar’s other option will be to use lesser-known players and celebrities, or actors to get the message across. The video is expected to be launched in October, to coincide with One Game, One Community week. Initially it will be released as an internet viral ad, before being shown in sports stadiums.

Last week, we revealed Max Clifford’s thoughts on homophobia in football. He suggested that a player who came out would see his career over in an instead. However, Powar thinks Clifford’s reaction does not reflect reality and describes the publicist’s comments as unnecessary ‘scaremongering.’ Indeed, attitudes have moved on so much since Justin Fashanu came out 20 years ago. Gay football teams across the country have emerged, playing in mainstream local leagues. Gays and lesbians are visible and accepted in virtually every other sphere of public life. Football stadiums and fundamentalist religious institutions seem to be the last, tiny islands of homophobic backwardness.

Powar admitted players may not have an easy ride but said he expected support from teammates and the media.

“There would be no nonsense from abusive fans, either”, he added.

“The police have a duty to stop hate crimes. Can you imagine them standing idly by while fans howl abuse? Of course not.”

The reason why the blatant abuse could not go unpunished is because, since 2007, homophobia is penalised heavily in the Players’ Code.

“The FA would come down like a ton of bricks on any perpetrator of homophobic abuse. Gay or bi players are protected by law E3(2) and E4, outlawing and punishing discrimination, among others on grounds of sexual orientation,” Powar said.

For a first offence, the penalty for such abuse, threats or violence is double that which would be applied had the aggravating factor not been present, warranting an immediate red card.

Furthermore, Powar is certain an out player would receive enthusiasm from sponsors: “Gay players would find it easier to achieve a unique positioning. In any case, the number of brands targeting the selling only heterosexual sex and the one-dimensional view of masculinity are a tiny few now. That’s dying out. Numerous mainstream brand owners, including big sports names, would welcome players talking about homophobia, even if the players are not personally affected by it themselves.”

The support available to players who may be gay or bi within a club is problematic and heavily dependent on management and training style. Powar thinks gay abuse does not feature in most training environments, but imagine there are still some old-style managers who shout homophobic abuse to urge players on. “But they don’t get the best results. The softer, more subtle styles, do better,” he advises.

Powar knows that coming out would be a major step for any player. And who even now, would want to be the first to make such a move? “That person must be extremely confident, and truly want to come out. But it has been done before, in Australian rugby league, by one of its hardest players, Ian Roberts. A major challenge within football is to break down the traditional macho ideas about what it means to be a man. It is difficult to debate that at a crude level, but it has to be done.”

Powar is optimistic the FA and the clubs will show greater understanding: “Once you have opened the door, there is no closing it, no way of absolving your responsibilities as a governing body, once you have brought Peter Tatchell in to talk about homophobia.”

A real test of the FA’s s commitment will be its willingness to condemn bigotry and ignorance, preferably on its own initiative, rather than waiting until human rights campaigners hear about it first. Here, the FA has been sluggish. Luiz Felipe Scolari, during his brief tenure as Chelsea manager last year, was never questioned about remarking that he would never knowingly have a gay player in his team. And which player would dare to stand up to a manager?

Powar: “If a similar comment was made by an influential personality in the game, we would hold it up to ridicule. The FA probably could possibly fine them – I am sure there is an offence because they are under a disciplinary code”

Kick It Out’s website will also be redesigned soon to represent all areas of equality in which it campaigns. Currently, the imagery is heavily biased towards anti-racism. John Amaechi, former basketball player in the USA and motivational speaker, is also working as a consultant to the team, advising on performance management.

In the first of a two-part series, Adrian Tippetts asks what is being done to make gay people – whether supporters, players, or club members – welcome in the beautiful game, too.

The celebrity publicist Max Clifford, who has kept the private lives of gay football stars out of the press in the past, urges caution. As far as he is concerned, the day when players can be openly gay is a long way off.

Speaking exclusively to PinkNews.co.uk, he said: “To my knowledge there is only one top-flight professional gay footballer who came out – Justin Fashanu. He ended up committing suicide. I have been advising a top premiership star who is bisexual. If it came out that he had gay tendencies, his career would be over in two minutes. Should it be? No, but if you go on the terraces and hear the way fans are, and also, that kind of general attitude that goes with football, it’s almost like going back to the dark ages.”

Clifford recalled having a gay player in his football team, when he played in a local league in the 1960s: “One of our team, Michael, was gay, and in fact, no one knew. If people had known, none of the other lads would have played football with him. There is still such a stigma about it, and I don’t think things have changed frankly.”

It is the players above all, who will help change attitudes, according to Clifford. And here he offers some optimism: “The best way is to establish champions and heroes, who are openly gay. If a person came out, was seen to be gay, well, here’s someone who is a very strong, masculine player, nothing remotely like the stereotype. That will make people think. The more of them that do that, the better.

“You need to have a snowball effect. If you had a top star in every Premiership team who was openly gay, then very quickly people’s attitudes to it would change. After all, football supporting – following individual clubs – is a very tribal affair. The fans of a particular club would show support for their player. If one of their top players came out, almost automatically, they would support him.”

But Justin Fashanu was also a top player when he came out in 1991. The football media destroyed him. Clifford said: “The football media, generally speaking, are as bad as the world of football itself, full of ignorance and blind prejudice. My friend Michael used to say, ‘no-one understands me. They immediately think I am going to jump on them in the shower’ and of course he wouldn’t, and no one would have known.

“Ignorance and fear is so destructive. There is so much embarrassment and shame about nudity and private parts of the body, it actually kills: look at the massive campaign to raise awareness around prostrate cancer, all necessary because people refuse to get checked. They would rather die than be embarrassed.”

But look at the armed forces now – the same ignorance was present there, and people also said, they could never imagine a time when gay people would be accepted. And this month, a gay serviceman is on the cover of this month’s Soldier magazine. They have enforced diversity training. Even there attitudes have improved considerably. Doesn’t that give you optimism?

“Yes, you have to have that kind of structure to make change happen. Remember that the FA, above all, are interested in making money. Meet the people that make up the FA. They’ve got round to dealing with racism, but homophobia? I wonder if they are any better than the people on the terraces.”

So ultimately, if a gay player came to you, you would advise him to cover it up, rather than be open?

“I’ve done that in the past, sure. It’s easy for me to say ‘you should stand up and be counted’, I’m not the one losing his career and home and everything else, because of it. Until people are able to stand up, you won’t go forward. They have the influence. Another easy example is Jade Goody. Doctors and charities talked about cervical cancer. Jade talked about what happened to her and there was a 60 per cent increase in young women all over Britain having cervical smears. I rest my case.”

In part two, to be published tomorrow, we ask what bodies such as Kick It Out are doing to tackle homophobia in the game.

Adrian Tippetts is a journalist and PR consultant.

On Saturday August 1st, over a million people will descend on Amsterdam for the city’s annual gay pride canal parade. But one addition to the party armada makes this year’s event extra-special.

One of the barges will feature several of the Netherlands’ top sporting personalities, including Dutch Olympic champions, such as swimmer Pieter van den Hoogenband, hockey player Minke Booij speed skater, Jochem Uytdehaage, and a number of professional footballers. The initiative, the brainchild of openly gay swimmer Johan Kenkhuis, aims to promote acceptance and tolerance of LGBT people in sport.

“It is fantastic that such a large group of top sports stars make this statement about the acceptance of homosexuality in Dutch sport,” Kenkhuis said to Dutch newspaper het Parool.

A silver medallist in the 4×100 m freestyle at the 2004 Olympics, Kenkhuis, now 29, won a string of championship titles during his decade-long career. His sexuality, which he was always open about, was never an issue to his team-mates. The press finally picked the story up when he casually mentioned in an interview that his boyfriend was also in Athens to support him.

He believes the issue of homophobia within top level sport – even football – is exaggerated and this hasn’t been communicated enough to the general public.

He told PinkNews: “In sports, especially at the highest level, it is all about winning, teamwork and fair play. You need your team-mates, your coach, the audience and even your competitors to win that gold medal; you can’t do it alone. That’s why we have to accept and respect all players for who they are. That’s an attitude that feels natural to all top athletes, but is never really brought to people’s attention.

“I initiated this project to do just this, and inspire the public to adopt these values, too. Homosexuality in sports at our level has never really been an issue. Of course, in some areas there’s still work to be done, but that’s why we are coming together on August 1st, to start make that change. It is about showing respect to each other to achieve victory: nothing else matters.”

Johan is keeping tight-lipped about which soccer players are sailing with him. “The players we invited reacted spontaneously and thought it was a great initiative,” he said.

The pressure on anyone in the limelight to guard their private life is great. While the gay community is keen to find role models, and celebrity-obsessed paparazzi go to great lengths for a story, Johan makes a plea for all sides to respect the athlete’s wishes when it comes to personal matters.

“It is always up to the athlete to be open about something that is private. Somehow, public figures are expected to tell all about their private lives. Why should they? This is no-one else’s business. Athletes are in the media because of their sporting performance and achievements, not because of their sexuality or other characteristics, right?”

Adrian Tippetts is a PR consultant and journalist, writing among others for Winq magazine in the Netherlands.

The 27-year old infantry platoon leader in the New York Army National Guard defied the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell gay military ban by announcing he was gay, live on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow TV show.

Choi is a co-founder of Knights Out, a new support group, comprising graduates from the US Military Academy of West Point, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans military personnel.

Speaking exclusively to PinkNews.co.uk, he said: “We all face the same dangers, and the prospect of never returning. But LGBT soldiers carry many extra burdens. We silently suffer the fear of coming out, the constant threat of being discharged at any minute, having to deny the existence of loved ones, and in some cases, even harassment and blackmail.”

It is arguably no coincidence that Daniel left Iraq as his relationship with his partner, who lives in New York, began to flourish.

On the distress gay couples suffer, he adds: “While straight couples say their goodbyes publicly at the send-off ceremony, we must do this in secret. If anything happened to us, our partners would not even be informed. They would have no rights, and be unable to make any kind of decisions on our behalf.”

“Considering all the things a soldier has to go through, we should be encouraging stronger relationships and stronger families. To deny the existence of that whole family and love relationship makes life unnecessarily harder,” Choi added.

One of the military’s most urgent concerns is the mental health of its service members.
Deaths by suicide after returning home – usually a result of post traumatic stress disorder – now outnumber those killed in combat.

LGBT service people are likely to be deprived of real help because any medical and psychiatric personnel they confide in are bound to disclose their sexuality to their superiors.

Choi says: “Right now, there’s a major drive to ensure all personnel get psychiatric help and counselling, so they can transition to civilian life. For the gay soldier, faced with the fear of coming out to their friends, and illegally serving, there is nothing but a discharge, without benefits, and no support.

“Every day of this law adds to the pain of those suffering in silence. It is treachery and hypocrisy of the lowest order to treat people who sacrifice their lives in this way.” 

After making headlines across America by coming out live on national television, First Lieutenant Dan Choi is feeling understandably elated.

The 27-year old infantry platoon leader in the New York Army National Guard defied the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell gay military ban by announcing he was gay, live on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow TV show.

Choi is a co-founder of Knights Out, a new support group, comprising graduates from the US Military Academy of West Point, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans military personnel.

The organisation’s mission is both to lobby for the rights of LGBT soldiers to openly serve their country, and to educate West Point’s future military leaders about the need to accept its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops.

Dan spoke candidly about the how DADT causes misery for LGBT soldiers, damages morale and threatens national security, while debunking the myths put out by right wing extremists intent on keeping the ban.

“Although getting into West Point wasn’t easy, and completing the four year programme wasn’t any easier, coming out as part of this group was the easiest decision of my service because it validates the foundational lessons of integrity and honor that West Point preached from day one,” he said.

“We swore to follow and execute every order unless it was immoral, unethical or illegal. Title 10 of the US code fails on all three counts because it forces the 65,000 LGBT soldiers serving in active duty to lie about our identity. We stand alongside all our soldiers that are serving their country selflessly in seeking to bring an end to this legislation.”

Even on economics alone – as if liberty and justice should have a price tag – DADT makes no sense. Some 12,500 otherwise able people have been ejected since the policy’s introduction in 1994.

The Pentagon estimated the cost of the policy in the period 1996-2006 alone to be over $360 million. More alarmingly, 800 of these discharges were personnel performing mission-critical roles, including 60 Arabic linguists.

Yet even these may be just the tip of the iceberg. It is impossible to know the number of lesbian and gay soldiers who cut their careers short, because they simply did not want to live a lie, and have the prospect of immediate, dishonourable discharge constantly over their heads.

Dan Choi himself is one such highly able gay serviceman who left active duty in Iraq of his own volition.

Graduating in 2003 with degree major in Arabic studies and a BSc in environmental engineering, and fully trained in infantry training, Choi was committed to playing his part in operation Iraqi Freedom. He proved an indispensable team leader, during his 2006-2007 tour of duty in Baghdad. It is precisely people of Choi’s calibre that has helped to keep the insurgency in check.

“I loved being in the country. My fluency in Arabic enabled me to build strong relationships with the local people and the local government officials, with whom I worked on establishing security and rebuilding efforts.

“But I lived in secret, horrified at the prospect of being kicked out of the army because of who I was.” Despite being a highly valued team member, Choi’s refusal to lie and live a secret, double life left him no alternative but to leave.

Ejecting brave men and women with specialist skills is a threat to national security and leads to a dangerously weakened military, as Choi explains: “On Monday, September 10th 2001, a message was intercepted by the State Department: tomorrow is zero hour.

“Despite its simplicity, nobody was able to translate it. Any of the dozens of linguists already discharged for being gay at the time would have done so easily.”

Adrian Tippetts is a PR consultant working in the graphics industry and occasional commentator on LGBT issues. His spare time revolves around DJ-ing, volunteering for the Albert Kennedy Trust and Belgian beer.