Explaining the LGBT Explosion
betonit.substack.comThe author seems to dismiss numerous claims that might contradict his thesis without any apparent evidence or argument beyond a “but nah, that clearly doesn’t sound right.” To me, he needs to do some work discussing each one of these claims before dismissal.
> Gays have far fewer biological children than straights. Fertility was conceivably equal back when almost all gays lived in the closet, but there can be little doubt that during the last fifty years, gay genes have become less prevalent.
“There can be little doubt” is not an argument. I have a little doubt!
> Could the rising LGBT share merely reflect the decline of closeting? In part. Still, if that’s the whole story, why is there such a massive generational pattern? Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?
> You could appeal to age-segregated social circles. Octogenarians fret more about the intolerance of fellow octogenarians, and draw little comfort from the tolerance of today's teen-agers.
Yep, that actually makes a ton of sense. You need to do work before dismissing this. Listing potential arguments against your thesis is a good start to being intellectually honest and critical, but it’s not enough.
> Being part of Gen X, I confidently assert that we were far less intolerant than earlier generations.
No amount of the author’s confidence is sufficient to convince me.
> Another weakness of the closeting story is that mainstream stigma against bisexuals was always milder than against any of the other groups.
Extra work needed here.
> What’s really going on? The best stories are the very mechanisms that Wikipedia dismisses: recruitment and the media.
At this point in the article, the author confidently confirms the thesis he was looking for, simply because he believes he has listed and dismissed all other possible causes. I believe the author is confident about all these claims, but more work is required to show that he is correct.
I find it reasonable to think that people can broaden their sexual interests over time somewhat like their experience of foods, arts and even work.
I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality" because it was used so long a an excuse to persecute homosexuals. But like many arguments in our society, I think it is the wrong hill to die on. Because to overly concern oneself with winning the argument over whether homosexuality is acquired or not somewhat cedes the ground to the authoritarians. It implies that there is something to be lost if homosexuality is acquired. That if it were, we should probably then accept some regulation of the sexual lives of consenting adults.
I do understand there is a purely scientific interest in many questions. At the same time, this seems one of those questions that's very easily confounded by a myriad of social factors.
> I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality"
Acquired homosexuality is actually very common in some settings, such as prisons. The catch is that not all homosexuality is equal; the kind of homosexuality that's common in prisons is easily described as toxic, hypermasculine, domination-based sex. The common social aversion to acquired homosexuality is clearly based on the idea that it must necessarily, to a greater or lesser extent share these characteristics; that much is clear even from primary sources that reflect this same aversion. But we should be very clear that the modern LGBT movement is advocating for something remarkably different: equal relationships between people of the same sex based on express consent, perhaps best typified by the idea of legal gay marriage (where the 'marriage' descriptor should be read as neatly encompassing analogous traditional practices, such as sworn brotherhood). How far can that sort of culture spread and even perhaps be "acquired"? And can it socially outcompete the legacy model of homosexuality as masculine domination, even in places where that model still carries some influence? I think these are very interesting questions for those who want to take this topic seriously, and not be limited by historical or present-day ideological stances!
Can't agree more. You see these imo weird and almost religious arguments that we need to justify that something is good and natural by some kind of divine standard in order to accept it. And as you say, that if we can't show that, it's ok to discriminate.
We, both legally through government and as a societal standard, should not be discriminating about what people do (whether its sexual, religious, or whatever), regardless of their internal motivations.
> hanging out with Group X causally raises the chance that you become an X
There are genetic traits and environmental traits. Hanging out with monkeys may make one act and behave as such, but if the genetic code doesn't include fur, you don't get fur.
In my case, it was pretty darn difficult to realize the fact that I'm bi in the first place. Despite all the evidence, I could've just as well never come to the moment it all became clear to me. I suppose not everyone has the level of self reflection required to accurately discern ones sexual interest from whatever was taught to be "normal". Also, I wish I knew this when I was younger.
This is less of an explanation, and more of a fan-fiction.
No data to back up the conclusions, no analysis of the survey methodology. Just speculation about mechanisms that aren't even validated to exist.
What about survivor bias here? Many gay men died of AIDS in the late 20th century, which might affect the numbers significantly.
In any case, I think the right interpretation is that more people are comfortable with reporting their sexuality truthfully and people are more open towards exploring their sexuality.
I can think of two reasons older people are still in the closet.
1.) They aren't in the closet, they just don't share personal things with people like the author.
2.) They remember the one time a university had a cool list of LGBT people and when the Nazi's stole it to use as a kill list.
The mantra “it’s not a choice” was a valid counter point to hideous attempts to “cure gayness.” But it never sat well with me. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, so why should there be anything wrong with choosing to be gay?
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are cultural constructs, but sexual attraction isn't (although its expression can be culturally influenced and mediated.) I think what's being presented here is a false dichotomy - after all, closeted gay people don't become straight because they choose to act straight.
To me, you can choose to act "gay" (whatever that entails) but but to be gay or straight isn't a choice. However, sexuality may be more fluid than many people realize, and this realization and the process of sexual self discovery, may appear to be choosing one or the other, because our society requires that it be one or the other.
What if the percentage of people is each segment of the “relationship lifestyle” hasn’t really changed over time. Rather, the willingness to engage and be open and get reported has changed. There’s always been lifelong bachelors or spinsters or whatever, and the way sexuality was discussed or referenced has certainly changed.
Maybe as another writer speculated that sexuality is a drive that can be applied in various directions and the choice or non choice can be influenced. But ya need fur genes to get fur.
Why should a high number of bisexuals shock you?
Because a lot of people like heteronormativity?
And a lot of people don't. That's always been the case, but because our culture tends to erase those identities' visibility and expression by enforcing heteroconformity, sometimes legally or with violence, it simply hasn't been as apparent.
Also, what 'heteronormative' is changes over time. It's perfectly heteronormative for men to kiss one another on the mouth in some cultures. And ancient cultures didn't even recognize our modern 'homosexual/heterosexual' axis, preferring to consider sexual behavior as normative within class or tribal lines, but considering same sex and different sex attraction as being not worth distinction.
a few 1990s studues showed 35-40% of homo/bisexual men self reported to being abused as children. it seems unthinkable that physical child abuse could have exploded to keep that percentage up, but maybe something else is having a similar effect?
Childhood sexual abuse among homosexual men. Prevalence and association with unsafe sex
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9127231/
Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014521...