The "gay panic defense" – in which someone claims they reacted violently because they witnessed homosexual behavior -- has been debunked in a new scientific study.

 

"Gay panic" is considered a legitimate defense in several US states. Defendants claim they could not control their actions after being witness to, or "victim" of, gay activity. They claim, then, that they cannot be held fully responsible for their behavior, no matter how extreme it may have been.

 

A new study published in the Psychology and Sexuality journal is calling such a defense a load of crap.

 

In the study, 120 men were shown a series of images, including pictures of gay men having sex. Their saliva was tested before and after for alpha-amylase, a chemical that is produced in saliva when a person is stressed. The study revealed that the level of alpha-amylase was the same for those participants who were shown to be tolerant of gay relationships and those who were not.

 

Researchers Breanna O’Handley and Karen Blair concluded that there was “no empirical evidence” to support a "gay panic" claim. 

 

Last week, Illinois politicians passed a motion that "gay panic" and "trans panic" were no longer legitimate legal defences.

 

"This historic vote is an important advance for LGTBQ civil rights. It sends a clear message -- at a time when LGBTQ people are disproportionately targeted as victims of violent crimes -- that no person's sexual identify is a valid reason to inflict harm," Chicago-based law professor Anthony Kreis said.

 

Unfortunately, California is the only other US state so far to ban this particular defence claim in court. Some other states have tried, but have failed to get any legislation through committee hearings.

 

In places where such a defense is permitted, maybe a change in name would lead to fewer people using it. The "I'm A Pathetic Wimpy Snowflake" defense is less likely to be used by all these supposedly hyper-hetero manly-men.