Statistics as the Sword of Truth.
I read that four out of the sixteen male members of the Cabinet are now known to be homosexual. My co-author David Walton discussed the probability of this occurring by chance. I have worked out some figures, based on p148 of W M Harper, "Statistics", pub. Macdonald and Evans 1965/1982. A spot check by a Professor of Statistics confirmed the 9% - 4% figure*.
If 5% of males were homosexual, the chance that exactly four in a random sixteen would be homosexual is a negligible 0.6%. To give plausibility to the suggestion that there has been no conspiracy/manipulation to get four homosexuals into the Cabinet of 16 males, this number (0.6%) would have to be 5% or more. For this to be so, 9% or more of our male population would have to be homosexual.
More complete figures are as follows.
5% homosexuals in the male population gives;
a 37% chance of exactly one homosexual Cabinet member.
a 15% chance of exactly two homosexual Cabinet members.
a 3% chance of exactly three homosexuals.
a 0.6% chance of exactly four.
a 0.07% chance of exactly five.
9% homosexuals in the male population gives;
a 35% chance of exactly one homosexual Cabinet member.
a 26% chance of exactly two.
a 12% chance of exactly three.
a 4% chance of exactly four*.
a 1% chance of exactly five.
The best source for incidence of homosexuals in the community, ".... the culmination of nearly eight years' work (page ix)....", is Kaye Wellings, Julia Field, Anne M. Johnson & Jane Wadsworth; "Sexual Behaviour in Britain; The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles" pub. Penguin 1994, p183; "Those who, at this point in the interview schedule, describe their sexual experience as mostly or exclusively with others of the same gender is small, making up barely 1% of the total sample of men....". Then on p185; "The data provide no evidence of major discordance between preference and practice and seem to offer little support for the theory that large proportions of the population harbour unrealized fantasies about same-gender sex."
When using statistics in politics or sociology, we usually say that an occurrence is plausible if it has a 5% chance of happening. Thus, a 4 or more homosexual representation in the Cabinet is only plausible (that is, not the result of conspiracy or manipulation) if the general male population has 9% or more homosexuals. In fact, according to leading homosexuals, they represent only 2% or 3%, leading to the impossibility of such heavy Cabinet representation except in a society prejudiced against heterosexuals.
I believe that the manipulation will have been done, not by the small number of homosexuals, but by the much more numerous and power-hungry radical feminists, many of whom are lesbian or otherwise sexually dysfunctional, or have had bad experience with their men. They are vindictive against men and obstruct their preferrment; "Revenge is always sweet ...." - Suzanne Moore, The Guardian, 18may95, p5 [See "Reflections" on this website]. They do not see their future in a traditional family. Both homosexual and radical feminists are marginalised to the extent that the traditional family takes centre stage. Also, to the extent that the homosexual could be dismissed as a sort of non-threatening castrato, the radical feminist (particularly if lesbian) would prefer his preferrment to positions of power to that of a conventional male. The bigoted promotion of token male homosexuals camouflages an anti-male bias by making it appear to be a very un-bigoted acceptance of the homosexual and of the male.
Tragically for the traditional family, homosexuals and radical feminists in the Cabinet are peculiarly unable to work with enthusiasm to protect the family, because by definition it marginalises them. This makes sense of Baroness Jay's continuing attacks on the traditional family. [17feb00. We now hear from herself that ex-Minister Glenda Jackson fought with her husband and all her lovers, so she joins the "happy" deluded throng ruling us.]
The weakness in the above proposition is the assumption that politicians come from a cross-section of the community. The extraordinary promiscuity of Kennedy, Clinton, Lloyd George and so many others suggests otherwise. Possibly anyone who goes into politics is a high wire artist, willing to accept the sudden loss of office always threatened in both a democratic system and in a tyranny. Thus we have to broaden the conclusion to two possibilities; homosexuals are high-wire artists, and so are politicians, or there has been manipulation of the democratic process, I suggest by radical feminists. The tragically low expectation of life for male homosexuals - they die thirty years younger than do male heterosexuals - confirms that practising homosexuals are exactly the risk-takers that we would expect to be attracted to a profession as risky as politics. [17feb00 This idea of "life in the fast lane" is explored by the homosexual Randy Shilts in his 1987 Penguin book "And the Band Played On", for instance pp222-223.] Homosexuals make up 30% of the male membership of Alcoholics Anonymous, and they have a high suicide rate - 18% attempt it compared with 3% of men generally.
Whichever we conclude, we have to dump the concept of a homosexual being discriminated against. The Cabinet is too high an office to be dismissed as merely a homosexual ghetto in an otherwise homophobic society. Society's prejudice against heterosexuals when it comes to high office is clear for all to see.
The present clear evidence of homophilia rather than homophobia in today's society makes us free to argue against teaching children that homosexuality is a lifestyle to be admired. One who becomes a practising homosexual may be on the fast lane to cabinet office, or to a leading role in a ballet troupe, but he is much more likely to die.
Our ability to argue against smoking because it kills, while failing to distinguish between types of tobacco and methods of inhaling, and even by going light on distinguishing between correlation and causality, has never been attributed to bigotry. Similarly, we are not guilty of bigotry, the average life expectation for homosexuals being a frighteningly 30 years less than that for heterosexuals, much lower than that for smokers, when we argue strongly against any type of homosexual lifestyle. We are equally entitled to worry about children putting themselves at risk in either way, as a smoker or as a practising homosexual.
The idea that AIDS will cause a temporary surge in deaths of homosexuals but heterosexuals will catch up is more and more discredited as AIDS fails to break out of the ghetto, and as the death rate fails to increase. My website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ both itself and via hyperlink, gives the lie to that simple formula. Homosexual men will continue to live vastly shorter lives than heterosexuals, for a variety of reasons, enumerated by Stammers below. We may not urge children against smoking but fail to urge against that much greater threat to life, the homosexual lifestyle. That would be irresponsible and illogical, even if Politically Correct. Political Correctness, carefully analysed, has the seeds of its own destruction. Rational analysis has not yet been criminalised in our tortured society.
For statistics on the very low expectation of life for homosexuals, see Paul Cameron and William Playfair, "Psychological Report", pub. 1998. An excellent summary of causes of death among homosexuals, with bibliography, is Dr. Trevor Stammers, FYC Bulletin No. 89, Autumn97, tel. 01865 556848, email firstname.lastname@example.org
[Later published in "Male View", jan/mar99, p19.] Copy sent to my M.P. Kerry Pollard, 17feb00. Watch his future votes!
Ivor Catt 2dec98
Sins of the Fathers