I found the accent thing bizarre, surely his folks have seen him do shows/interviews with his "transatlantic" accent - don't they think it odd that he speaks to them in a Scots accent?
Didn't watch much of the program - I find Barrowman annoying. (Is it only me that thinks he's getting more and more like Mike Myers with all the gurning, by the way?) I'd like to make a few points/ask some questions, though.
I was under the impression that the "1 in 10" figure is currently being called into doubt. I don't personally know any gay people (though I guess that I might, but just not know that they're gay), and have only worked with a couple. Surely, if the "1 in 10" figure is correct, I should know quite a few?
Also, most of what I saw of the program seemed to be concentrating on physiological causes/markers for gay men. I know Barrowman is a man(!), but did they look at such studies for gay women?
Following on from this, from jake's post, they obviously (at least briefly) looked at environment. Was there any more apart from a "twins" comparison?
A couple of the bits showed JB waiting for test results, worried that he might not show as "gay"? Why was he so worried? Surely he knows that he's gay, and so doesn't need to pass a "gay test"? (Or was he just being a drama queen?)
Finally, when they showed Barrowman's partner at the end, he just seemed like a "normal" guy (ie not as camp/flamboyant as Barrowman). Obviously, being gay does not equal being camp. Was any reason given, or perhaps someone could explain why so many gay men do assume the whole camp persona? Or is it just the ones employed as TV presenters? It's always bugged me because it seems that being "camp", as opposed to homosexual, seems not to be a biological function.