Unlikely, this isn’t an issue they are interested in devoting any time to. However, if you are interested in knowing about what other ugandan’s think, you should look at some of their online news sources, like http://www.observer.ug and I’m sure you could find others if you just searched for them.

My posting is quite clear that I am no expert in neuroscience and genetics. But I was once a researcher who wrote, co-wrote and presented scientific findings at various international conferences on electrical/electronics engineering. Anyone who is into research knows it is not too difficult for people to manipulate data to fit into a theory they are desperately trying to justify. In controversial subjects such as gayism, there are strong vested interests at play and the dominant interest—-at least in the West— is to justify the theory that gayism is “natural”, “in-born” and “okay”. The Euro-American gay lobby is so powerful and influential that scientists are under pressure to produce some information that appear to justify the theory. It is generally safe for a researcher to work from the predetermined answer (i.e. “Gayism is natural/inborn”) backwards to the question (i.e. “Is gayism natural/in-born ?”) and bend data along the way to fit the theory. On the other hand, a scientist working from the question to the answer is under pressure to self-censor if research results go contrary to the “received wisdom” of the gay lobby and even if such a researcher is brave enough to seek publication of his/her work in a journal, the peer-review team may be too scared to allow such work through, even if it meets all required standards for publication. No one wants to be door-stepped by angry gay activists or to have his/her academic tenure scrapped because of a piece of research work. This is the reality in Western countries.

Its just like study of climate change where scientists who question some of the theories or the accuracy of predictions made by computer simulation models are castigated as “climate change denialists”—a sinister term which ryhmes with “holocaust denial”. Many reputable climate scientists not sponsored by oil companies, but who happen to be skeptics have since learned the hard way that it pays to keep your views to yourself if you want more research funds and a renewal of your academic tenure when it expires. (BTW, I am not necessarily questioning the climate science, but I strongly believe that scientists should be free to be skeptical because scientific research has always thrived on skepticism).

Anyway, I was digressing. Now back to the subject of gayism :

The problem with research on gayism is that too many gay-friendly claims have been made by “maverick scientists” which ended up being declared “outright rubbish” or “inconclusive” by an overwhelming number of real honest scientists. Personally, I think that gayism research is one area of scientific investigation where voodoo gets mixed up with biological science. No where is this voodoo/science mix-up more apparent than in claims made about the numerical size of gay sex practitioners in every country in the world. There has been claims by some “scientists” that there were 500,000 gays in Uganda and 3 million gays in Nigeria. Now, the question Africans are all asking is how did these researchers get these numbers in a continent where gayism is so hidden that it is essentially invisible? A continent where proper record-keeping ranges from “inefficient ” to “non-existent”? The answer is probably voodoo-influenced guesstimates

If you want to be taken seriously, please let me know 3 studies you have carefully reviewed in the last year which even address biological factors in sexual orientation. If you want to claim some kind of ability to judge credibility, then lets talk specifics.

Surely Maazi isn’t that prolific!

A casual browsing through the google ‘hits’ seems to indicate that it’s a term that’s interchangeable with homosexuality and that it seems to be more popular in foreign cultures than in our own. That’s where I get disturbed. Why, when we are trying to understand and/or impact a foreign culture would we insist that those foreigners step up and use our language?

Having lived in Minnesota for much of my life, I can’t bring myself to call a ‘soft drink’ a ‘soda’ anymore. (In Minnesota, ‘soda’ means ‘a soft drink with ice cream’). I’m kinda stuck with the Minnesota usage of ‘pop’…short for ‘soda pop’ which has been in use at least since the 1950’s. When people here in Pennsylvania try to ‘correct’ my usage, it comes across not so much as a correction but as a rigidity on their part. They KNOW what I’m talking about but they insist that I say it their way. LOL. I wouldn’t score that highly in terms of ’embracing diversity’ and I wouldn’t score the criticism of the use of ‘gayism’ highly in terms of ‘cross cultural communication’.

There were valid points in Warren’s post but I, for one, was thrown off by this ‘correction’ which I found to be tacky.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb…..blah, blah, blah

Zoe,

I am no geneticist or neuroscientist, but I do have a Master’s Degree by Research in Electrical Engineering—-so I am a keen on scientific facts. But what I don’t like is rubbish being passed off as “science”. I know for a fact that there are all sorts of nonsense claims flying about, including the work of a “scientist ” who claimed he had discovered the mythical “gay gene”. There is simply no credible—-I repeat again — NO CREDIBLE scientific evidence that gayism is a genetic trait or that a person is born that way. Many gay propagandists masquerading as “scientists” have claimed lots of things in past and their work always get torn to shreds and junked when peer-reviewed by real honest scientists. Your claim is just one out of several funny ones out there. Africans are not moved by pseudo-scientific claims.