Lowri Turner: “the electorate hates fags, and rightly so”

TV presenter Lowri Turner made some “interesting” remarks lately, asserting in a Western Mail column that sexual orientation has an actual effect on ability and thus, in her mind, right, to participate in government – and that in particular, gay men should not govern. She also tells us bisexuality doesn’t exist, and other little nuggets of wisdom. Lots of people blogging on this, btw. eg, this one‘s quite good/coherent.

Wow. I can of course tolerate people who are small-minded, closed-minded, bigoted and generally unpleasant to their fellow humans, so long as they’re not in government, anyway. Turner is, however (worse!) all over the shop with her logic.

To summarise, we have her telling us that sexual orientation is fixed, that bisexuals are fooling themselves (oh, that old chestnut!), and that if you’re gay you shouldn’t be running the country because, um, you’re not capable. For some reason.

She defends this last point in time-honoured fashion:

Before I am accused of prejudice, I should say that not only are some of my best friends gay, but probably most of them are. I work in the media, for goodness sake. It is precisely because I know such a lot of gay men that I can say that I don’t think many of them are capable of representing the interests of the vast majority of people. Their lifestyles are too divorced from the norm. They are not better or worse, but they are different.

Does she really believe she can speak authoritatively of all gay men just because she works in the media? Furthermore, I’d assert, with tongue only slightly in cheek, that the reason their lifestyles are “divorced from the norm” isn’t that they’re gay – it’s that they work in the media. (Just kidding Bash.)

Anyway, she then contradicts her assertion that “they are not better or worse, but they are different”, by explaining how “they” are, in fact, worse:

“Gay men face challenges of their own, but they do not face those associated with having children which is the way most of us live. … My gay friends have not sat in accident and emergency with a small child. They have not had to make the decision over whether to give them MMR. They have not struggled to get their child statemented or gone through the schools’ appeals process.”

No Lowri, gay men (and women) never have children in their life. You’re absolutely right. They never do. They never adopt, for example. And when they do they make an even bigger mess of it than straights, even straights with jobs in the media. By the way, I’m being sarcastic at this point.

There’s more of the same, and she does seem obsessed with the parental experience. Saying that gay men don’t have the experience of sitting in casualty with a small child is crazy – gross and patently untrue overgeneralisation. I will grant that you’d probably find it happens less than with straight parents (purely on numbers, I mean), but that doesn’t validate the point. Further, if your next statement is “thus all gay men know nothing of children”, and the one after that is “thus, this particular gay man should not govern”, you clearly haven’t grasped the idea of rational thinking yet. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what she does. It’s also a deeply flawed argument in that it would apply equally well (if it worked) to straight people who happen to be childless.

Anyway, has she never heard of the Conservative Party? ;-)

Keeping it Welsh (The Western Mail is published from Cardiff), I wonder what Adam Price MP (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East & Dinefwr), gay and in parliament, thinks about all this, by the way…

7 Responses to “Lowri Turner: “the electorate hates fags, and rightly so””

  1. February 3rd, 2006 | 9:24 pm

    Nice entry :)

    I might point out that rational thought rarely applies to politics in any form. If it did then the very desire to become a politician would be grounds enough to ban a person for life from ever becoming one.

  2. February 3rd, 2006 | 9:45 pm



    Reading something like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it’s something I try and forget I’ve read as soon as possible. Everything I want to say back to that article has been said already, so it just frustrates me if I keep thinking about it.

    Why is it that I read so many good retorts to articles like this online, and yet it’s this kind of article which actually gets published? If there are sensible people writing in journals and blogs, how come they never seem to appear in newspapers?

  3. Rich
    February 6th, 2006 | 10:30 am

    You’ve omitted her most heinous crime – naming her kids Merlin and Griffin.

  4. Danke
    February 8th, 2006 | 1:13 pm

    Wanted: Pointless, lisping, fat-a*sed wench with poorly considered views for President. Previous experience on low-grade TV preferred. A startlingly bad personal approach to the more traditional values that you supposedly subscribe to would also be beneficial. Particularly should you use the press to further the bitterness felt towards your own adulterous spouse while handing over your beloved, ridiculously-named children to the nanny. No gays or darkies.

  5. March 4th, 2006 | 5:16 pm
  6. Geo7863
    July 1st, 2006 | 9:47 pm

    Merlin and Griffin..what…good show, the two masterly pieces of engineering that powered the supermarine spitfire…well The ‘Griffon’ was anyway… and the spitfire was instrumental in defeating the nazis and we all know what thier views on fudgepacking were dont we…ps i used to work with Lowri and her twin sister in Budgens supermarket in Muswell Hill back in the early 80′s…she was a nice kid back then

  7. rupert shortt
    September 5th, 2006 | 1:52 am

    lowri turner is full of s–t
    her ‘gay friends have not sat in accident and emergency with a small child. They have not had to make the decision over whether to give them MMR. They have not struggled to get their child statemented or gone through the schools’ appeals process.’
    perhaps not – but they may well be the nurses who treat or teach those children –
    i don’t think she’s got any gay friends – she just thinks she has.