Wikipedia's article on "Acquired Homosexuality" begins: Acquired homosexuality is the discredited idea that homosexuality can be spread, either through sexual "seduction" or "recruitment" by homosexuals or through exposure to media depictions. Au contraire! As I explain in
Alright, this is the first time I've actually commented on a Substack. I guess this is also where I publicly come out as bisexual since it's relevant to the conversation & can hopefully shed some light. While I find your argument interesting, I think you make a few errors in your reasoning:
You question the decline of closeting by asking: "Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?"
Here, I think you underestimate the power of the status quo. I've talked to quite a few people who have always considered themselves straight, but when the topic of sexuality arises they admit *some level* of homosexuality/homosexual ideation. But these are people with children, sometimes grandchildren, who have been married for decades. There's no conscious or subconscious driver for them to identify as bisexual; they are unlikely to act on it or actualize their sexuality, therefore the risk/reward metric is against coming out. At best, nothing changes. At worst, maybe their spouse or children etc. feel betrayed. I'll specify: I'm not claiming that these people feel repressed against coming out etc. My position is that they've lived as straight for decades, so why bother thinking about their sexuality? They're doing just fine as is.
You then state: "Another weakness of the closeting story is that mainstream stigma against bisexuals was always milder than against any of the other groups. Yet it is bisexuality that has exploded."
I think this fact *supports* the closeting story if anything. Think about it: someone who is only same-sex attracted is more likely to come out regardless of stigma because they are unable to live a romantic life without coming out. However, someone who is able to live a perfectly content life with only opposite-sex partners despite some same-sex attraction has a greater barrier to coming out due to stigma. The decline of anti-gay stigma reduces the perceived costs for coming out, allowing those edge cases (bisexuals) to feel freer to identify as they wish.
Additionally, I would argue that the reduced stigma has further allowed bisexuals like myself to attach words to their attractions. Throughout my entire childhood, growing up in a conservative Christian household with zero engagement/recruitment opportunities, I still held some attraction to my male peers. But in the absence of words to explain these feelings, I viewed these as nothing more than intrusive thoughts, much like the French l'appel du vide (call of the void)—you know, the voice that tells you to swerve into oncoming traffic or step off the cliff despite you having zero suicidal ideation. The reduction of stigma gave me tools to reassess how I feel toward different sexes and realize that while I'm mostly sexually attracted to women, I also hold some sexual attraction toward men.
Additionally, when you say "Younger people’s identities, however, have turned out to be much more flexible than I ever would have imagined back in the 1980s," I wonder what your understanding was of the counterculture of the late 60s and 70s. From the Stonewall Riots to hippie/"free love" culture, I wonder if this is just a failure of imagination on the part of 1980s Bryan and people like him. This isn't a moral judgement, but simply an observation with 20/20 hindsight that the signs have always been there that peoples' sexualities are very flexible, especially at earlier ages where "experimentation" (sexual and non-sexual) is frequent.
You then say "the identity that has grown the most is the identity that asks the least."
I think this gets back to the decline of closeting issue. If my coming out is not necessary for me to live a fulfilling romantic and family life, why would I—a man married to a woman—do so in the face of anti-gay stigma? Now that the stigma is almost entirely gone, it's much easier to come out. Where the only people who came out in the past were those who *needed to* in order to be romantically and sexually active, now people like me are able to come out because, well, it's just how we feel and who cares? Coming out is a much lesser deal for bisexuals now because it's just a matter of "cool, what do you want for dinner?"
Finally, you wrap up with this: "Yet over time, the LGBT phenotype is exploding while the LGBT genotype is imploding ."
I don't know that there's much serious argumentation that homosexuality is heritable. If there is, I haven't seen it. We don't know much about the genetics indicators of homosexuality, but most recent research has shown that it's not *nature VS nurture*, but *nature AND nurture*. Studies have identified a few different genetic markers that *might* be indicators of homosexuality, but they're not entirely reliable. One study estimated that genetics may account for ~25% of homosexual identification. So while you're likely correct that there is some significant cultural impact, I think you misunderstand the opposing view to yours and also overweight the impact of "recruitment."
At the end of the day, homosexuality and its subsets are multivariate in causal nature that we'll likely never fully understand due to the complex nature of the brain that guides them. I think your analysis is likely correct in *some* part, but your weighting is significantly off and your understanding of the motivations of coming out (especially for those of us who are "asked the least") is way off.
Now, I'm just one case of a broad spectrum of different types of LGBT people, but I hope this helps explain some aspects and clarify some confusion. Keep up the interesting conversations and analysis—glad you're on Substack now!
Excellent points throughout, and I generally agree. I'm gen-x and bisexual and about a Kinsey 2, and am quietly out, ie I'm happy to say I'm bisexual but don't generally mention it if I doesn't come up. I suspect I'm right on the cusp -- if I'd been five years older, at least in the particular milieu in which I grew up, I suspect I wouldn't have bothered to be out unless it was er, immediately and directly relevant with a particular person.
Thanks for your comment! I also think there is likely a significant epigenetic aspect to sexual orientation, which speaks to your "nature AND nurture" point. There are also considerations for the various ways in which estrogens are floating around, such as that entering the water from birth control (and not filtered out because it's a newly recognized issue) or microplastics somehow getting everywhere. I would be surprised if increased estrogen (and the concomitant drops in testosterone) didn't have an effect on the prevalence of varying gender identities and sexual orientations, especially prior to the completion of puberty given the incredibly plasticity of the brain in that time range.
Also I'm not sure to what degree GSM (gender/sexual minorities) genotypes are imploding seeing as they likely arise through the interactions of multiple genes in addition to the environment. There could be plenty of people who carry a large share of these genes but who still have a normal (yes, normal) phenotype and end up reproducing at a rate similar to any other person. And then there are those like me who are very much gay and intend to have lots of kids...
Yes, epigenetics! There is a false binary between “genetic” and “environmental”. Through chemicals, stress, weather, diet, and activity, and habit, different genes can be toggled off and on. So it doesn’t make sense to claim that something is either purely genetic or purely social recruitment.
Sexual preference is a spectrum. Most straights have some gay in us. Most gays have some straight.
I particularly remember a stag party where, as was the custom at the time, a porn video was shown supposedly to train the bridegroom to be. The two girls were the stuff wet dreams are made of but the stud was older, bepaunched, balding and nothing exceptional in the trouser department. I remember the groans of disappointment. The stud in a porno has to be sexy in a way that men will think sexy. Men get more turned on by a porno if the stud is sexy.
I didn't know that stag parties were to train the groom - what a ridiculous concept - men were expected to be experienced even when women were not. (This is before my time.) But to your main point, yes, porn videos are only fun to watch (IMHO) if the guy(s) as well as the girl(s) are attractive.
Is that a form of homosexuality? I would say yes, but I think of myself as open-minded and you should ask a bunch of outspokenly anti-gay frat boys whether they prefer an old fat guy or a young stud in the (hetero) porn that they watch. I'd bet a large sum of cash on the stud.
Bingo. I believe social status to be a major force in the increase. Identifying as LTBGTQIAP+ offers a heightened social status among particularly the affluent - it also affords a person greater political power. It has been identified as a protected class that affords preferential treatment in hiring, in college tuition, and in the general victim/grievances pyramid of culture and media.
Declaring oneself bi-sexual or “non-binary” is an easy way for whites to escape being tagged with the slur of “oppressor.” These claims are a verbal assertion that most importantly requires no action on the part of the claimant. When my kids were in high school in the 90s, bi-sexuality dominated. Today the fad is “non-binary.” The latter is even encouraged in children by leftist parents who are proud to have a child who so declares.
This is a disease of advanced societies and it is dangerous. That is not to say that bi-sexuality doesn’t exist although “non-binary” is nonsense.
I just had a kind of mean girl 5th grader interrogate me, as children sometimes do, about my personal life. It usually starts with demanding my age, and then if I offer that I have a 25 year old son, without telling my age, they are easily derailed into a line of questioning about my marital status. I always refuse to answer, and the recent mean girl then prefaced all her questions, after an initial one assuming I had a wife, with whether I had a boyfriend or girlfriend or how long it has been since I did. When I was in the 5th grade you would never have suggested an adult was in a same sex relationship.
Isn't the best explanation here just social desirability bias? Media says non-straights are great, so it sounds good to say you're not straight. The vast majority of these newly identified bisexuals are just straight people, many of whom of had one or two awkward, unpleasant "experiments" because they felt being gay was virtuous.
Yeah I grew up in the 90s and was very pro LGB. Even went out to gay bars with gay friends. Even was kissed by a gay man once and didn't freak out. But straight as an arrow and to claim otherwise would be silly. Nevertheless I have no trouble imagining a 19-21 year old me born 20 years ago instead of 40+ saying they were "bi-sexual" just to fit in an score points.
Which, unfortunately, increases the risks of getting hit on by gay friends. And the difficulty turning down an offer. "Yeah, I'm bi but I'm just not into you" is much more a personal rejection than "thanks, I'm flattered but don't swing that way". It's another version of "it's not you, it's me".
Mmm. Maybe. But I feel like there's a difference between conformity (actually becoming like your peers) and SDB (saying the thing that sounds best to your peers).
As Gen Z, this whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me. Sexuality isn't a binary choice, nor is it spectrum, it's person-wise social interaction... I am attracted to some men, but not all. Likewise for women.
Strictly speaking, when asked on a survey, I am bisexual since I've had sex with both genders, but IRL im not "out" in the traditional sense because most people in my life don't care, nor do I.
"Bisexual" is a broad category with a clear threshold, one that in modern times is really easy to cross. Especially when in practice the other options are subsets (most gays have had straight sex), and the cost of answering is zero, you should expect regression to the broader category.
Claiming SDB here is a big deal, since it implies that ~10% of gen z is lying to themselves or others, which from my experience, is just wrong.
I always joke that humans don't actually have a theory mind, since they seem to behave as if everyone sees the world exactly the same as them and are just being irrational. This is why hard core pro-lifers think that libs are "evil baby killers who just want to have irresponsible sex" (my local Christian radio station), and hard core pro-choicers think that conservatives don't actually care about children and it's just a proxy war on women's rights.
Folks don't recognize that it's a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies.
In this less extreme case, I come on here and see people claim that large portions of genz are lying to themselves, arguing that it's just "normal behavior" and the trends are just cuz identity politics and SDB, but "normal" isn't very meaningful here. As noted, the threshold for classification is vague and we live in a different regime of social pressure.
My point is its a complicated self identity problem with multiple valid perspectives. There are genuine cases where people deceive themselves, but we should avoid crying wolf and save them for, like, holocausts and stuff.
Thoughts? Bridging worldviews rn is important and worth my time.
"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.
I'm pretty sure that's the hypothesis of the people who say this is all just people finally coming out. Even Millennials and Gen X are full of people lying to themselves, and perhaps Gen Z is too, but some future generation will finally reveal the true level of different sexualities in the population.
(Or at least, so goes one theory that completely agrees with the comment you left, but probably has the opposite view about the underlying facts.)
I get what you're saying, and there is group identity politics going on which is alarming more generally, but I think pinning these observations on our drive to conform is a little heavy handed when the movement is explainable just by removing cultural stigma.
Everyone is, as you said, to some extext "bi" due to "normal" experimentation, but nowadays there is little pressure to stop experimenting. If you are open to gay sex, even if you are not primarily gay, it makes sense to label yourself 'bi' and roll it into your identity, even if just for the practical purpose of communicating you sexual preferences.
I know if I was of my father's generation, I would identify as straight because sex isnt important enough for me to endure any stigma. Am I lying to myself, or just being more honest about the messy nature of sexual attraction?
In some sense it's probably semantics, I think my defintion of "bi" is different from yours. I view it as a classification of a sexual behavior, one which may become part of an identity if you choose. If you view it as strictly a category to signal your membership to the group of other bisexuals (which I argue is too cynical), then the SDB explanation makes sense.
When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
I doubt you are bi. You're a hetero with some gay experiences, clearly chosen and not born into.
How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity.
The study precisely viewed these as self-identified categories. You are probably right the survey failed to distinguish between people who feel bi and those who marked bi after mere experimentation. Thus, bi would be grossly over counted. This is distinguished from all other categories.
"Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity". This is precisely my point (that I made in the other thread about theory of mind)
You think these people see sexuality as you do, and thus think they are irrational for disagreeing. When confronted with someone who is clearly normal and rational with a carefully considered argument, opposed to concede that I may have a point, you say IM LYING TO MYSELF (sorry for yelling, cant italicise).
Like bro, there's a dude in bed sleeping as we speak lmao. Im bi. Period.
I can't comment on the methodology since I haven't seen the questions, but my argument is it is valid and not overcounting. The spike is expected and not alarming at all.
I never accused YOU of lying to yourself. Quite the opposite, you seem very self aware.
My comment was cautioning you to not discount that a large number of the non-hetero respondents, especially Bi, are lying to themselves. It's also possible self reported heterosexuals are actually gay.
I'm confused by one thing in the table maybe you can explain. It shows the percentage of men and women identifying as gay and lesbian. Doesnt gay exclusively apply to men and lesbian exclusively to women? How can a man be a lesbian? What am I missing here?
I guess I would then ask "So what?". If "they are mostly just conforming with the identity trend and seeking the social prestige it confers" what does that matter for them as individuals or for society?
Yea, It seems to hinge on an empirical fact about how people define bisexuality, which is something that neither of us probably care enough to figure out lol.
Caplan, there is a serious misunderstanding on your part of what a biologically caused trait is. Heredity isn't the only non-social cause for a phenotype. For instance there are many developmental variations that are non-heritable (look up for organic vs familial retardation for instance) hardness seem to have apattern of heritability similar to homosexuality, for instance, yet it is clearly a fairly congenital trait with little contribution of socialisation. To say that something is non-heritable is not to say that it is non-congenital, let alone to say that it is caused by social aspects of the environment. Those are different things which people get wrong all the time, similar to the misunderstanding you referenced about laymen not getting that heritability is a population bounded measure
Greg Cochran has written a few times about the gay pathogen possibility, and birth order increasing male homosexuality (possibly due to accumulated hormonal changes in the womb from repeated pregnancies) is a well known phenomenon. Both would be biological factors that aren't caused by heredity.
Sophistry. This would not explain why the incidence of nontraditional sexualities are increasing at an increasing rate.
Why are these "birth defects" increasing? Is it related to rising average temperatures, air pollution, water pollution, solar cycles, cosmic radiation, or some other identifiable environmental factor?
That's speculation at best, and empty criticism at worst.
Please note though that he admitted he thinks there are both heritable and chosen members in these classes. Environmental explanations could be confused either as choice or heritability. This would not explain the survey results.
That's not "sophistry" my dude, it is a basic correction about a misunderstanding of congeniality on this post lmao, and it is not irrelevant either. The number of people who say they are left-handed have increased TREMENDOUSLY, so did the number of autists and many people with learning disorders. All the obvious of them being identified (by themselves or others) more now than before. It is the more soft (easier to blend or not notice, better hide from a cost/effective) forms of autism that have "increased" similarly it is the bisexuals (who had the better chance of blend) who increased the most, not the gays. This applies too to the ones that were barely known or talked about until recently so they/we wouldn't notice them like the trans. Again, an increase in people calling themselves a thing or being recognise as a thing =/= an increase in that thing in itself. We usually think of the sexual orientation as being the attraction and feelings, not the identity. For evidence that this is pretty consistent with the past: it is fairly common for sexologists to observe self identified "straights" who have engaged in significant amounts of homosexual sex and enjoyed it, as well as those who deny attraction yet show quite pronounced sexual arousal at same sex erotica when measured with objective instruments etc. This is also true about gender dysphoria (many people seem to experience it, even if the distinct IDENTITY isn't there) Mind you, this is quite intuitive for most LGBT people, the resentment over there being a bunch of bisexuals among the straights (cause they fuck the gays occasionally and call themselves straights) as well as a general distrust of bisexuals as being duplicious and so on is a notorious "problematic" meme among gays. The idea that as much of 20% of people experience non heterosexual attraction to some level or at some point would be quite consistent with our research on sexual arousal of people decades ago, there isn't any need to suggest that people have become more lgb (per sexual attraction and arousal, not sexual identity) recently.
You spent an awful lot of words to say that you didn't read the post carefully. Caplan directly addresses your fallacious point about people coming out of the closet. This data comes from a diverse pool of ages/generations. Regardless of whether some 70 year old was gay and repressed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, he is clearly not repressed TODAY. Nothing would stop him from truthfully answering an ANONYMOUS survey TODAY. This is NOT a time series. It is a contemporary snapshot.
While trans and non-binary are relatively new concepts, the concepts of gay, lesbian, and bisexual are ancient. People in the Traditional generation certainly knew what they were. They could certainly identify or not identify with them based on their own feelings and experiences.
You also argued my point for me. I said that Bisexual was over-estimated because of ambiguity in what Bisexual means. Many survey participants might respond Bisexual merely because they have had sex with both genders and not because of how they identify themselves. I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual. It was an experimentation and friendship intimacy thing, not a sexual orientation.
You also fallaciously attempt to pump up representation of fringe sexual classes by claiming many people have had mere THOUGHTS about homosexual sex. Me having a momentary and fleeting sexual attraction to a drop-dead gorgeous, six-foot tall, perfectly proportioned fourteen year old, post-pubescent girl doesn't make me a pedophile; it simply makes me a heterosexual male with natural attraction to certain female forms. It is my human self-discipline and moral sentiment that keeps me from acting on any urges I have. So no, momentarily thinking about gay sex does NOT make you gay, bi, or whatever. Thinking about physically harming someone doesn't make me a murderer or a threat to them.
Unlike Caplan, you are a political hack starting with a pre-determined conclusion and then working backward to justify it. Since Caplan made statements-against-interest in his post, he has revealed himself as having intellectual honesty.
Chil, dude. You dont even know me to conclude all of that. I know he addresses it, I just disagree with him
You are right that thinking about killing people dont make you a murder, murdering is about the act, not the thought. But if you get off on the idea you might be called a "sadist". It is strange that you come up with this silly example then fully understand that having had gay sex once might not mean you are non-straight. I didnt say "had a thought" I said "experienced sexual arousal at the same sex". Indeed, having being attracted to post pubescent teen doesnt make you a pedo lol, but being aroused by a a pre-pubescent one might. In fact, research on offending samples of pedophiles take as a given that measuring (checking how hard someone's peepee get and shit like that) arousal to pedo stimuli (such as seen a LITTLE GIRL or LITTLE BOY or being told stories in the form of pedophilic erotica or in some dubiously ethical ones straight up being showed child porn) gives you an accurate picture of whether or not someone is a pedo, they do this specifically cause pedos won't admit. That's the type of thing I had in mind as well as ACTUAL AROUSAL at the thought of a same sex person as self reported by the person "have you ever felt sexually attracted by an actual adult of the same sex" if the answer is YES than you ain't fully straight by the most strict definition of the word that many zoomers accept. This may be true of as much as 20% of people. And if you show LITERAL GAY PORN to men and try to measure their physiological sexual arousal materially by erections and all (again, the typical method to define who is kinda lying about it when it comes to pedos) you get many self ID straight man HORNY FOR IT. This is considered by many bisexuality and a person like this gets to identify as bisexual. It may as well be true that ZOOMERS and MILLENIALS who identify as bisexual ARE LIKE THIS. If you gonna claim the word doesnt apply, fine. But that's the threshold that gets you the label for them. Again, I am arguing that there is no need to state that the qualia of same sex attraction has been intensified in any way to explain this. If you gonna argue that the people I described ain't really bisexual because that's not what it means or whatever than sure, fine, what I was arguing was that one does need to postulate any change in patterns of attraction to explain this, if zoomers think this counts as bisexual, then they may call themselves that based on it. Simple as. If you agree that there haven't change to qualia than or disagreement is semantic and in my opinion uninteresting. Use words the way you please. If you think the self ID straight man who gets horny at gay porn is straight than call it that, whatever.
And for me being "a political hack" having a "working backwardson a pre-determined conclusion" for the first: im a random anon in a comment section, not the local pundit (or as the kids say: sir, this is a wendy's) for the second: this is precisely what I predicted, I didnt work backwards to a conclusion. My hypothesis has been that the qualia of sexual orientation is stable and that the true rate of homosexuality is about 2-5% and that bisexuality (per the above definition)is is much higher, maybe as much as 20%. That was my ACTUAL hypothesis years ago, "gay identification is going to stay under 5% but bisexual will go very much up" I came to this conclusion based on seeing research on sexual orientation of many kinds and well as having an 101 on the orthodoxy of the field. If gay identification had gone above 10% (or if ever does without straights being literally bullied into the closet in a bizarre kinda of reversed society) I would/will CONSIDER MYSELF DISPROVED. Pretty simple. Just like Caplan, I won my bet (I didnt bet in any shit but if I had I would have won). This my understanding of sexuality, its etiology and so on. It is fairly in accord with the orthodoxy at the field of empirical research on sexual orientation lol.
Yeah, I actually do know all that about you. You literally put yourself out there in your comments. It's like a tall, black, elderly woman posting her photo on the internet and then claiming other people don't know she is a tall, black, elderly woman.
Everything you are saying here is just mental masturbation that has NOTHING to do with the methodology and results of this research.
Ron: "San Diego is ancient greek for 'a whale's vagina.'"
Veronica: "Actually, it is Spanish for 'Saint Diego.'"
Ron: "Let's agree to disagree."
You're wrong. Plainly wrong. You still can't grasp the methodology even after Caplan and I both explained it to you. You don't get to disagree with it. You're not entitled to your own facts.
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omg😭😭😭
>I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual.
No, they're not, if the sex was consensual and pleasant for the woman you're referring to. That's what sexual orientation *is*. There's nothing deeper or more complicated about it. In a person whose primary sexuality is heterosexual, responding positively to any homosexual experience, or having any sort of homosexual desire, makes them bisexual, at least at the time the experience or desire is occurring.
I've phrased this in formal and somewhat medicalized terms, which I don't particularly like, to avoid using faddish or politically loaded language.
We largely dont like it because it is a ridiculous conclusory assertion with zero evidence.
Even with evidence, there is a large likelihood of being a spurious regression. Gayness has increased coincident with seed oil use over time. You might as well blame global warming or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
It might have helped if you led with some facts and evidence.
It sounds hokey on its face. Wouldn't we be consuming seed oils by eating seeds (such as nuts)? Why have we seen no connection between this and eating peanuts but see it with peanut oil? Ditto canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, rice bran, etc?
It's not unscientific to declare spurious regressions out of hand. That is literally the null hypothesis that must be rejected with strong evidence.
Im a big fan of this blog and your work but I would suggest as a transgender therapist who works with adults and children, the closeting effect is far more dramatic than you might realize. Also, people stay closeted for reasons including concerns about work, family and friend response, and internalized biases and self-loathing. I base much of this in my own (of course anecdotal) work in therapy where people reveal things they might not anywhere else. This is why I think the issue about generational difference is not so convincing that there is a recruitment factor.
Also, its important to note that another way to look at this is that while people may experience sensory impulses (attraction to the same gender or gender dysphoria, for example) without the language and representation, people will not identify. I know many gay men and women who transitioned to transgender once they made the connection between their internal experience and what the media was showing. Its also worth noting that many institutions are externally very tolerant but internally are not. I don't want to assume your breadth of knowledge on the topic but these are my suggestions. I don't identify as woke or a trans extremist so even if these proposals mentioned in this blog are true, I dont feel the need to disagree due to social desirability bias (hence my enjoyment of this blog).
I'm also not as swayed by the generational argument. But I am swayed by the disproportionate increase in bisexuals. It's the least committal form of non-straight identification, so that makes it a favorite of those who just want to identify as a "marginalized" class.
Yeah I also think these things are not equal in terms of gender and social desirability bias. Female bisexuality is a lot more socially desirable in many circle than male bisexuality. Think back to any parties thrown by frats in college (if one went). If two girls started kissing, there would be cheering. If it was two guys, different result.
…and in fact if you look at the recent numbers, females are declaring their bisexuality at a *far* greater rate than males.
Though I do wish the surveys published would make this fact more easy to observe. But presumably they do not because doing so would undercut the related gender-identity ideology.
Several decades ago, I knew a gay man who got into frequent arguments whenever "we're just born this way" came up in a gay rights group we both worked with. He was very much convinced he had been "recruited" as a youngster by what, from his description, sounded like predatory behavior to me. He didn't feel bad about his sexual orientation. He just saw himself as having been young and not even having sexuality on his radar, and then being shown something he decided he liked.
Who am I to question his experience and evaluation of that experience.
To a certain degree, "born this wayism" seems like a trap for LGBTQ persons. It denies their agency. The proper view, in my opinion, is "so long as you don't harm others, who cares whether your orientation/identity is innate or chosen?"
It doesn’t matter what some dude ‘thinks’. There are people who believe they are gay due to demonic possession. The best test of this hypothesis comes from the Sambia tribes in New Guinea. All males have to fellate older males starting from age 7 until age 13, and then they must teach younger males to do the same. This is because they believe semen causes male growth into manhood. Yet they don’t turn gay, just a few percent of men are same sex attracted.
If heterosexuals "recruit," then doesn't the presence of heterosexuals nearby (and IN) families potentially harm the children? -- since they now run an increased risk of being recruited into a lifestyle that precludes half the human race as partners, or exposes them to elevated risks of unwanted pregnancy?
"Potential consequences of poor decision-making" and "actual harm" are two entirely different things.
It also has disadvantages. For example, the medicalization of unfulfilled transgenderism as a mental illness ("gender dysphoria") raises the question of whether the appropriate "treatment" is attempting to align the body to the mind or vice versa. The current medical trend is toward the former, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. And once you've medicalized something, especially in the mental health field, the trend can easily be codified in coercive ways.
I have teenagers telling their parents they feel like oppressors if they do not have something. One child said At least I am Jewish, to illustrate the protection and coolness of victim idrntification.
This is 100% a big factor. Especially being a bog standard straight white male is like the kiss of death status wise (and shitty for your educational/employment prospects).
We have data on the prevalence of same sex intercourse. The numbers didn't went up. People identify as LGBT cause it's cool/fashionable. But they're not really lgbt.
I might disagree. I read some of the literature on sexology and I will share what I know:
Homossexuality is not genetic and it is not socially constructed. Instead, current evidence suggests that homossexuality appears to be a condition of sexual development, a condition that occurs during gestation, where the male fetus (gay male) is undermasculinized and a female fetus (lesbian) receives too much testosterone and masculinizes too much. The reason is that human fetus, including the brain, always begins with a female phenotype (and the brain is attracted to males). As it receives testosterone during gestation, male fetus develops a masculine phenotype (with a masculine brain). Homossexuality in males occurs when this process is incomplete and the fetus remains incompletely masculinized, resulting in a feminized brain which is attracted to other males. This explains why gay men have a more feminine phenotype than heterosexual males. Lesbianism occurs when a female fetus receives too much testosterone and it becomes too masculinized, which is why lesbians have a more masculine phenotype than heterosexual females.
It is a fact that there has been a decrease in the average testosterone levels of males over the past 50 years. If that is correlated with exposure to sex hormones in the womb that might suggest an increase in male homossexuality but also would suggest a decrease in female homossexuality, while the reported rates increased. However, sexologists do estimate that around 2-4% of males and 1-3% of females are homossexual which is consistent with reported rates of the younger generation for gay and lesbian identification.
I do agree that bisexual, "queer," and transgender identification is social phenomenon: the vast majority of people who claim to be bisexual, "queer", or transgender are heterosexual and it is caused by social contagion. Bisexual and "queer" identification is just straight people pretending to be "lgbt". While most people who claim to be transgender are either very gender non-comforming homossexuals who adopt a cross-sex identity to escape from homophobia or heterosexuals who suffer from mental disorders such as autism, narcissistic personality disorder or trauma from sexual abuse in childhood. Some are just straight guys with a crossdressing kink and claim to be transgender to manifest their kink in public without fear of social shaming.
The artificial intelligence that claimed to distinguish on the basis of skull structure actually turned out to be distinguishing on the basis of whether your dating profile pic had glasses or facial hair.
It's a bit simplistic to claim that all homosexuality derives from a single causal mechanism - it would be like claiming that all volcanoes derive from a single causal mechanism on the basis of observing the Pacific Ring of Fire, without noticing that Hawaii is right there in the middle of it.
How does that explain the large number of very masculine, muscular gay men and the large number of very feminine, girly lesbians? I think your viewpoint is outdated.
The theory is interesting, but so is biological/evolutionary utility, but how do you explain the disproportionate increase in young women bisexualism and lesbianism in Gen Z (vs. the increase in young males)?
Most of them are males who are autogynephiles. They are attracted to women, but also to themselves as women. They grow up acting very masculine. Think Caitlyn Jenner.
"Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?"
I mean this is really easy to answer? Objectively it's still much higher cost for older gen to come out.
"Being part of Gen X, I confidently assert that we were far less intolerant than earlier generations."
Bizarre! I am a millennial, and even I grew up hearing plenty of F slurs and remember even in my college years gay was commonly used as a synonym for bad.
Homosexuality was once the "aristocrat's disease", and probably not for genetic reasons. Progress and broader access to higher education have made more of us into aristocrats.
What if the majority of the population is in fact truly bisexual i.e. on the continuum, but just don't realize it? As it becomes more acceptable and there is more exposure to different sexual orientations, more people realize they actually are on the spectrum. This is different from being closeted which implies you already realized it at some point earlier but have a fear of coming out. The data on the prevalence of left-handedness is relevant to this discussion although not completely analogous. Also worth pointing out is that attraction, behavior, and identity are distinct. For example, someone may be attracted to people of the same-sex, but not necessarily identify as gay or bisexual and vice-versa. One additional point is that identity is political. People may identify as queer, feminist, anti-racist because they believe in equality and justice.
Alright, this is the first time I've actually commented on a Substack. I guess this is also where I publicly come out as bisexual since it's relevant to the conversation & can hopefully shed some light. While I find your argument interesting, I think you make a few errors in your reasoning:
You question the decline of closeting by asking: "Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?"
Here, I think you underestimate the power of the status quo. I've talked to quite a few people who have always considered themselves straight, but when the topic of sexuality arises they admit *some level* of homosexuality/homosexual ideation. But these are people with children, sometimes grandchildren, who have been married for decades. There's no conscious or subconscious driver for them to identify as bisexual; they are unlikely to act on it or actualize their sexuality, therefore the risk/reward metric is against coming out. At best, nothing changes. At worst, maybe their spouse or children etc. feel betrayed. I'll specify: I'm not claiming that these people feel repressed against coming out etc. My position is that they've lived as straight for decades, so why bother thinking about their sexuality? They're doing just fine as is.
You then state: "Another weakness of the closeting story is that mainstream stigma against bisexuals was always milder than against any of the other groups. Yet it is bisexuality that has exploded."
I think this fact *supports* the closeting story if anything. Think about it: someone who is only same-sex attracted is more likely to come out regardless of stigma because they are unable to live a romantic life without coming out. However, someone who is able to live a perfectly content life with only opposite-sex partners despite some same-sex attraction has a greater barrier to coming out due to stigma. The decline of anti-gay stigma reduces the perceived costs for coming out, allowing those edge cases (bisexuals) to feel freer to identify as they wish.
Additionally, I would argue that the reduced stigma has further allowed bisexuals like myself to attach words to their attractions. Throughout my entire childhood, growing up in a conservative Christian household with zero engagement/recruitment opportunities, I still held some attraction to my male peers. But in the absence of words to explain these feelings, I viewed these as nothing more than intrusive thoughts, much like the French l'appel du vide (call of the void)—you know, the voice that tells you to swerve into oncoming traffic or step off the cliff despite you having zero suicidal ideation. The reduction of stigma gave me tools to reassess how I feel toward different sexes and realize that while I'm mostly sexually attracted to women, I also hold some sexual attraction toward men.
Additionally, when you say "Younger people’s identities, however, have turned out to be much more flexible than I ever would have imagined back in the 1980s," I wonder what your understanding was of the counterculture of the late 60s and 70s. From the Stonewall Riots to hippie/"free love" culture, I wonder if this is just a failure of imagination on the part of 1980s Bryan and people like him. This isn't a moral judgement, but simply an observation with 20/20 hindsight that the signs have always been there that peoples' sexualities are very flexible, especially at earlier ages where "experimentation" (sexual and non-sexual) is frequent.
You then say "the identity that has grown the most is the identity that asks the least."
I think this gets back to the decline of closeting issue. If my coming out is not necessary for me to live a fulfilling romantic and family life, why would I—a man married to a woman—do so in the face of anti-gay stigma? Now that the stigma is almost entirely gone, it's much easier to come out. Where the only people who came out in the past were those who *needed to* in order to be romantically and sexually active, now people like me are able to come out because, well, it's just how we feel and who cares? Coming out is a much lesser deal for bisexuals now because it's just a matter of "cool, what do you want for dinner?"
Finally, you wrap up with this: "Yet over time, the LGBT phenotype is exploding while the LGBT genotype is imploding ."
I don't know that there's much serious argumentation that homosexuality is heritable. If there is, I haven't seen it. We don't know much about the genetics indicators of homosexuality, but most recent research has shown that it's not *nature VS nurture*, but *nature AND nurture*. Studies have identified a few different genetic markers that *might* be indicators of homosexuality, but they're not entirely reliable. One study estimated that genetics may account for ~25% of homosexual identification. So while you're likely correct that there is some significant cultural impact, I think you misunderstand the opposing view to yours and also overweight the impact of "recruitment."
At the end of the day, homosexuality and its subsets are multivariate in causal nature that we'll likely never fully understand due to the complex nature of the brain that guides them. I think your analysis is likely correct in *some* part, but your weighting is significantly off and your understanding of the motivations of coming out (especially for those of us who are "asked the least") is way off.
Now, I'm just one case of a broad spectrum of different types of LGBT people, but I hope this helps explain some aspects and clarify some confusion. Keep up the interesting conversations and analysis—glad you're on Substack now!
Excellent points throughout, and I generally agree. I'm gen-x and bisexual and about a Kinsey 2, and am quietly out, ie I'm happy to say I'm bisexual but don't generally mention it if I doesn't come up. I suspect I'm right on the cusp -- if I'd been five years older, at least in the particular milieu in which I grew up, I suspect I wouldn't have bothered to be out unless it was er, immediately and directly relevant with a particular person.
Thanks for your comment! I also think there is likely a significant epigenetic aspect to sexual orientation, which speaks to your "nature AND nurture" point. There are also considerations for the various ways in which estrogens are floating around, such as that entering the water from birth control (and not filtered out because it's a newly recognized issue) or microplastics somehow getting everywhere. I would be surprised if increased estrogen (and the concomitant drops in testosterone) didn't have an effect on the prevalence of varying gender identities and sexual orientations, especially prior to the completion of puberty given the incredibly plasticity of the brain in that time range.
Also I'm not sure to what degree GSM (gender/sexual minorities) genotypes are imploding seeing as they likely arise through the interactions of multiple genes in addition to the environment. There could be plenty of people who carry a large share of these genes but who still have a normal (yes, normal) phenotype and end up reproducing at a rate similar to any other person. And then there are those like me who are very much gay and intend to have lots of kids...
Yes, epigenetics! There is a false binary between “genetic” and “environmental”. Through chemicals, stress, weather, diet, and activity, and habit, different genes can be toggled off and on. So it doesn’t make sense to claim that something is either purely genetic or purely social recruitment.
Sexual preference is a spectrum. Most straights have some gay in us. Most gays have some straight.
I particularly remember a stag party where, as was the custom at the time, a porn video was shown supposedly to train the bridegroom to be. The two girls were the stuff wet dreams are made of but the stud was older, bepaunched, balding and nothing exceptional in the trouser department. I remember the groans of disappointment. The stud in a porno has to be sexy in a way that men will think sexy. Men get more turned on by a porno if the stud is sexy.
Orr maybe it's that we can understand how the stud gets those girls but find it a bit absurd to think the fat, bald, old guy gets them too.
I didn't know that stag parties were to train the groom - what a ridiculous concept - men were expected to be experienced even when women were not. (This is before my time.) But to your main point, yes, porn videos are only fun to watch (IMHO) if the guy(s) as well as the girl(s) are attractive.
Is that a form of homosexuality? I would say yes, but I think of myself as open-minded and you should ask a bunch of outspokenly anti-gay frat boys whether they prefer an old fat guy or a young stud in the (hetero) porn that they watch. I'd bet a large sum of cash on the stud.
You don't think using the name "Bear" gave anything away?
It has become very high status among affluent teenagers to claim exotic sexual orientation.
Bingo. I believe social status to be a major force in the increase. Identifying as LTBGTQIAP+ offers a heightened social status among particularly the affluent - it also affords a person greater political power. It has been identified as a protected class that affords preferential treatment in hiring, in college tuition, and in the general victim/grievances pyramid of culture and media.
You also get to claim victimhood, which itself is seductive and "high status" among a lot of social circles.
Declaring oneself bi-sexual or “non-binary” is an easy way for whites to escape being tagged with the slur of “oppressor.” These claims are a verbal assertion that most importantly requires no action on the part of the claimant. When my kids were in high school in the 90s, bi-sexuality dominated. Today the fad is “non-binary.” The latter is even encouraged in children by leftist parents who are proud to have a child who so declares.
This is a disease of advanced societies and it is dangerous. That is not to say that bi-sexuality doesn’t exist although “non-binary” is nonsense.
Doesn't work though. White "CIS gender" gay men are told to shut up and let the black transgenders run everything.
It was in bohemian circles 50 years ago too, but we naively thought there were only two sexes. What did we know. /s
So many genders, so little time!
I just had a kind of mean girl 5th grader interrogate me, as children sometimes do, about my personal life. It usually starts with demanding my age, and then if I offer that I have a 25 year old son, without telling my age, they are easily derailed into a line of questioning about my marital status. I always refuse to answer, and the recent mean girl then prefaced all her questions, after an initial one assuming I had a wife, with whether I had a boyfriend or girlfriend or how long it has been since I did. When I was in the 5th grade you would never have suggested an adult was in a same sex relationship.
A joke many millenials and Gen-Zs can relate to:
"How can you tell if a girl is bisexual?"
"Don't worry, she'll tell you."
Isn't the best explanation here just social desirability bias? Media says non-straights are great, so it sounds good to say you're not straight. The vast majority of these newly identified bisexuals are just straight people, many of whom of had one or two awkward, unpleasant "experiments" because they felt being gay was virtuous.
People also need to understand that maintaining a healthy sexual life requires self discipline.
It requires even more self-discipline now that positive rather than negative social points are scored for being sexually "nonconforming."
Yeah I grew up in the 90s and was very pro LGB. Even went out to gay bars with gay friends. Even was kissed by a gay man once and didn't freak out. But straight as an arrow and to claim otherwise would be silly. Nevertheless I have no trouble imagining a 19-21 year old me born 20 years ago instead of 40+ saying they were "bi-sexual" just to fit in an score points.
Which, unfortunately, increases the risks of getting hit on by gay friends. And the difficulty turning down an offer. "Yeah, I'm bi but I'm just not into you" is much more a personal rejection than "thanks, I'm flattered but don't swing that way". It's another version of "it's not you, it's me".
Caplan covers this towards the end of the article under his discussion of conformity.
Mmm. Maybe. But I feel like there's a difference between conformity (actually becoming like your peers) and SDB (saying the thing that sounds best to your peers).
As Gen Z, this whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me. Sexuality isn't a binary choice, nor is it spectrum, it's person-wise social interaction... I am attracted to some men, but not all. Likewise for women.
Strictly speaking, when asked on a survey, I am bisexual since I've had sex with both genders, but IRL im not "out" in the traditional sense because most people in my life don't care, nor do I.
"Bisexual" is a broad category with a clear threshold, one that in modern times is really easy to cross. Especially when in practice the other options are subsets (most gays have had straight sex), and the cost of answering is zero, you should expect regression to the broader category.
Claiming SDB here is a big deal, since it implies that ~10% of gen z is lying to themselves or others, which from my experience, is just wrong.
Humans are masters of self-delusion. Never casually discount a suggestion people are lying to themselves.
I always joke that humans don't actually have a theory mind, since they seem to behave as if everyone sees the world exactly the same as them and are just being irrational. This is why hard core pro-lifers think that libs are "evil baby killers who just want to have irresponsible sex" (my local Christian radio station), and hard core pro-choicers think that conservatives don't actually care about children and it's just a proxy war on women's rights.
Folks don't recognize that it's a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies.
In this less extreme case, I come on here and see people claim that large portions of genz are lying to themselves, arguing that it's just "normal behavior" and the trends are just cuz identity politics and SDB, but "normal" isn't very meaningful here. As noted, the threshold for classification is vague and we live in a different regime of social pressure.
My point is its a complicated self identity problem with multiple valid perspectives. There are genuine cases where people deceive themselves, but we should avoid crying wolf and save them for, like, holocausts and stuff.
Thoughts? Bridging worldviews rn is important and worth my time.
Your “joke” is very insightful
"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.
I'm pretty sure that's the hypothesis of the people who say this is all just people finally coming out. Even Millennials and Gen X are full of people lying to themselves, and perhaps Gen Z is too, but some future generation will finally reveal the true level of different sexualities in the population.
(Or at least, so goes one theory that completely agrees with the comment you left, but probably has the opposite view about the underlying facts.)
I get what you're saying, and there is group identity politics going on which is alarming more generally, but I think pinning these observations on our drive to conform is a little heavy handed when the movement is explainable just by removing cultural stigma.
Everyone is, as you said, to some extext "bi" due to "normal" experimentation, but nowadays there is little pressure to stop experimenting. If you are open to gay sex, even if you are not primarily gay, it makes sense to label yourself 'bi' and roll it into your identity, even if just for the practical purpose of communicating you sexual preferences.
I know if I was of my father's generation, I would identify as straight because sex isnt important enough for me to endure any stigma. Am I lying to myself, or just being more honest about the messy nature of sexual attraction?
In some sense it's probably semantics, I think my defintion of "bi" is different from yours. I view it as a classification of a sexual behavior, one which may become part of an identity if you choose. If you view it as strictly a category to signal your membership to the group of other bisexuals (which I argue is too cynical), then the SDB explanation makes sense.
When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
I doubt you are bi. You're a hetero with some gay experiences, clearly chosen and not born into.
How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity.
The study precisely viewed these as self-identified categories. You are probably right the survey failed to distinguish between people who feel bi and those who marked bi after mere experimentation. Thus, bi would be grossly over counted. This is distinguished from all other categories.
"Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity". This is precisely my point (that I made in the other thread about theory of mind)
You think these people see sexuality as you do, and thus think they are irrational for disagreeing. When confronted with someone who is clearly normal and rational with a carefully considered argument, opposed to concede that I may have a point, you say IM LYING TO MYSELF (sorry for yelling, cant italicise).
Like bro, there's a dude in bed sleeping as we speak lmao. Im bi. Period.
I can't comment on the methodology since I haven't seen the questions, but my argument is it is valid and not overcounting. The spike is expected and not alarming at all.
I never accused YOU of lying to yourself. Quite the opposite, you seem very self aware.
My comment was cautioning you to not discount that a large number of the non-hetero respondents, especially Bi, are lying to themselves. It's also possible self reported heterosexuals are actually gay.
I'm confused by one thing in the table maybe you can explain. It shows the percentage of men and women identifying as gay and lesbian. Doesnt gay exclusively apply to men and lesbian exclusively to women? How can a man be a lesbian? What am I missing here?
Idk, I'd have to look at the actual data (i don't really care that much, sorry gotta work lol).
Wow, I've never seen anyone pull off a reverse "No True Scotsman" maneuver before. That's like the triple Axel of argumentative fallacy.
> When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
[citation needed]
Most Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, treat their employment as the center of their identity and existence.
I guess I would then ask "So what?". If "they are mostly just conforming with the identity trend and seeking the social prestige it confers" what does that matter for them as individuals or for society?
Good points, and I think it also ties in with the explosion in other identities such as deaf, autistic, disabled, etc.
Yea, It seems to hinge on an empirical fact about how people define bisexuality, which is something that neither of us probably care enough to figure out lol.
Caplan, there is a serious misunderstanding on your part of what a biologically caused trait is. Heredity isn't the only non-social cause for a phenotype. For instance there are many developmental variations that are non-heritable (look up for organic vs familial retardation for instance) hardness seem to have apattern of heritability similar to homosexuality, for instance, yet it is clearly a fairly congenital trait with little contribution of socialisation. To say that something is non-heritable is not to say that it is non-congenital, let alone to say that it is caused by social aspects of the environment. Those are different things which people get wrong all the time, similar to the misunderstanding you referenced about laymen not getting that heritability is a population bounded measure
Greg Cochran has written a few times about the gay pathogen possibility, and birth order increasing male homosexuality (possibly due to accumulated hormonal changes in the womb from repeated pregnancies) is a well known phenomenon. Both would be biological factors that aren't caused by heredity.
Sophistry. This would not explain why the incidence of nontraditional sexualities are increasing at an increasing rate.
Why are these "birth defects" increasing? Is it related to rising average temperatures, air pollution, water pollution, solar cycles, cosmic radiation, or some other identifiable environmental factor?
That's speculation at best, and empty criticism at worst.
Please note though that he admitted he thinks there are both heritable and chosen members in these classes. Environmental explanations could be confused either as choice or heritability. This would not explain the survey results.
That's not "sophistry" my dude, it is a basic correction about a misunderstanding of congeniality on this post lmao, and it is not irrelevant either. The number of people who say they are left-handed have increased TREMENDOUSLY, so did the number of autists and many people with learning disorders. All the obvious of them being identified (by themselves or others) more now than before. It is the more soft (easier to blend or not notice, better hide from a cost/effective) forms of autism that have "increased" similarly it is the bisexuals (who had the better chance of blend) who increased the most, not the gays. This applies too to the ones that were barely known or talked about until recently so they/we wouldn't notice them like the trans. Again, an increase in people calling themselves a thing or being recognise as a thing =/= an increase in that thing in itself. We usually think of the sexual orientation as being the attraction and feelings, not the identity. For evidence that this is pretty consistent with the past: it is fairly common for sexologists to observe self identified "straights" who have engaged in significant amounts of homosexual sex and enjoyed it, as well as those who deny attraction yet show quite pronounced sexual arousal at same sex erotica when measured with objective instruments etc. This is also true about gender dysphoria (many people seem to experience it, even if the distinct IDENTITY isn't there) Mind you, this is quite intuitive for most LGBT people, the resentment over there being a bunch of bisexuals among the straights (cause they fuck the gays occasionally and call themselves straights) as well as a general distrust of bisexuals as being duplicious and so on is a notorious "problematic" meme among gays. The idea that as much of 20% of people experience non heterosexual attraction to some level or at some point would be quite consistent with our research on sexual arousal of people decades ago, there isn't any need to suggest that people have become more lgb (per sexual attraction and arousal, not sexual identity) recently.
You spent an awful lot of words to say that you didn't read the post carefully. Caplan directly addresses your fallacious point about people coming out of the closet. This data comes from a diverse pool of ages/generations. Regardless of whether some 70 year old was gay and repressed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, he is clearly not repressed TODAY. Nothing would stop him from truthfully answering an ANONYMOUS survey TODAY. This is NOT a time series. It is a contemporary snapshot.
While trans and non-binary are relatively new concepts, the concepts of gay, lesbian, and bisexual are ancient. People in the Traditional generation certainly knew what they were. They could certainly identify or not identify with them based on their own feelings and experiences.
You also argued my point for me. I said that Bisexual was over-estimated because of ambiguity in what Bisexual means. Many survey participants might respond Bisexual merely because they have had sex with both genders and not because of how they identify themselves. I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual. It was an experimentation and friendship intimacy thing, not a sexual orientation.
You also fallaciously attempt to pump up representation of fringe sexual classes by claiming many people have had mere THOUGHTS about homosexual sex. Me having a momentary and fleeting sexual attraction to a drop-dead gorgeous, six-foot tall, perfectly proportioned fourteen year old, post-pubescent girl doesn't make me a pedophile; it simply makes me a heterosexual male with natural attraction to certain female forms. It is my human self-discipline and moral sentiment that keeps me from acting on any urges I have. So no, momentarily thinking about gay sex does NOT make you gay, bi, or whatever. Thinking about physically harming someone doesn't make me a murderer or a threat to them.
Unlike Caplan, you are a political hack starting with a pre-determined conclusion and then working backward to justify it. Since Caplan made statements-against-interest in his post, he has revealed himself as having intellectual honesty.
Chil, dude. You dont even know me to conclude all of that. I know he addresses it, I just disagree with him
You are right that thinking about killing people dont make you a murder, murdering is about the act, not the thought. But if you get off on the idea you might be called a "sadist". It is strange that you come up with this silly example then fully understand that having had gay sex once might not mean you are non-straight. I didnt say "had a thought" I said "experienced sexual arousal at the same sex". Indeed, having being attracted to post pubescent teen doesnt make you a pedo lol, but being aroused by a a pre-pubescent one might. In fact, research on offending samples of pedophiles take as a given that measuring (checking how hard someone's peepee get and shit like that) arousal to pedo stimuli (such as seen a LITTLE GIRL or LITTLE BOY or being told stories in the form of pedophilic erotica or in some dubiously ethical ones straight up being showed child porn) gives you an accurate picture of whether or not someone is a pedo, they do this specifically cause pedos won't admit. That's the type of thing I had in mind as well as ACTUAL AROUSAL at the thought of a same sex person as self reported by the person "have you ever felt sexually attracted by an actual adult of the same sex" if the answer is YES than you ain't fully straight by the most strict definition of the word that many zoomers accept. This may be true of as much as 20% of people. And if you show LITERAL GAY PORN to men and try to measure their physiological sexual arousal materially by erections and all (again, the typical method to define who is kinda lying about it when it comes to pedos) you get many self ID straight man HORNY FOR IT. This is considered by many bisexuality and a person like this gets to identify as bisexual. It may as well be true that ZOOMERS and MILLENIALS who identify as bisexual ARE LIKE THIS. If you gonna claim the word doesnt apply, fine. But that's the threshold that gets you the label for them. Again, I am arguing that there is no need to state that the qualia of same sex attraction has been intensified in any way to explain this. If you gonna argue that the people I described ain't really bisexual because that's not what it means or whatever than sure, fine, what I was arguing was that one does need to postulate any change in patterns of attraction to explain this, if zoomers think this counts as bisexual, then they may call themselves that based on it. Simple as. If you agree that there haven't change to qualia than or disagreement is semantic and in my opinion uninteresting. Use words the way you please. If you think the self ID straight man who gets horny at gay porn is straight than call it that, whatever.
And for me being "a political hack" having a "working backwardson a pre-determined conclusion" for the first: im a random anon in a comment section, not the local pundit (or as the kids say: sir, this is a wendy's) for the second: this is precisely what I predicted, I didnt work backwards to a conclusion. My hypothesis has been that the qualia of sexual orientation is stable and that the true rate of homosexuality is about 2-5% and that bisexuality (per the above definition)is is much higher, maybe as much as 20%. That was my ACTUAL hypothesis years ago, "gay identification is going to stay under 5% but bisexual will go very much up" I came to this conclusion based on seeing research on sexual orientation of many kinds and well as having an 101 on the orthodoxy of the field. If gay identification had gone above 10% (or if ever does without straights being literally bullied into the closet in a bizarre kinda of reversed society) I would/will CONSIDER MYSELF DISPROVED. Pretty simple. Just like Caplan, I won my bet (I didnt bet in any shit but if I had I would have won). This my understanding of sexuality, its etiology and so on. It is fairly in accord with the orthodoxy at the field of empirical research on sexual orientation lol.
Yeah, I actually do know all that about you. You literally put yourself out there in your comments. It's like a tall, black, elderly woman posting her photo on the internet and then claiming other people don't know she is a tall, black, elderly woman.
Everything you are saying here is just mental masturbation that has NOTHING to do with the methodology and results of this research.
Ron: "San Diego is ancient greek for 'a whale's vagina.'"
Veronica: "Actually, it is Spanish for 'Saint Diego.'"
Ron: "Let's agree to disagree."
You're wrong. Plainly wrong. You still can't grasp the methodology even after Caplan and I both explained it to you. You don't get to disagree with it. You're not entitled to your own facts.
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omg😭😭😭
Saint James
>I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual.
No, they're not, if the sex was consensual and pleasant for the woman you're referring to. That's what sexual orientation *is*. There's nothing deeper or more complicated about it. In a person whose primary sexuality is heterosexual, responding positively to any homosexual experience, or having any sort of homosexual desire, makes them bisexual, at least at the time the experience or desire is occurring.
I've phrased this in formal and somewhat medicalized terms, which I don't particularly like, to avoid using faddish or politically loaded language.
By the way, I resemble this remark.
We largely dont like it because it is a ridiculous conclusory assertion with zero evidence.
Even with evidence, there is a large likelihood of being a spurious regression. Gayness has increased coincident with seed oil use over time. You might as well blame global warming or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
It might have helped if you led with some facts and evidence.
It sounds hokey on its face. Wouldn't we be consuming seed oils by eating seeds (such as nuts)? Why have we seen no connection between this and eating peanuts but see it with peanut oil? Ditto canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, rice bran, etc?
It's not unscientific to declare spurious regressions out of hand. That is literally the null hypothesis that must be rejected with strong evidence.
Im a big fan of this blog and your work but I would suggest as a transgender therapist who works with adults and children, the closeting effect is far more dramatic than you might realize. Also, people stay closeted for reasons including concerns about work, family and friend response, and internalized biases and self-loathing. I base much of this in my own (of course anecdotal) work in therapy where people reveal things they might not anywhere else. This is why I think the issue about generational difference is not so convincing that there is a recruitment factor.
Also, its important to note that another way to look at this is that while people may experience sensory impulses (attraction to the same gender or gender dysphoria, for example) without the language and representation, people will not identify. I know many gay men and women who transitioned to transgender once they made the connection between their internal experience and what the media was showing. Its also worth noting that many institutions are externally very tolerant but internally are not. I don't want to assume your breadth of knowledge on the topic but these are my suggestions. I don't identify as woke or a trans extremist so even if these proposals mentioned in this blog are true, I dont feel the need to disagree due to social desirability bias (hence my enjoyment of this blog).
I'm also not as swayed by the generational argument. But I am swayed by the disproportionate increase in bisexuals. It's the least committal form of non-straight identification, so that makes it a favorite of those who just want to identify as a "marginalized" class.
Yeah I also think these things are not equal in terms of gender and social desirability bias. Female bisexuality is a lot more socially desirable in many circle than male bisexuality. Think back to any parties thrown by frats in college (if one went). If two girls started kissing, there would be cheering. If it was two guys, different result.
…and in fact if you look at the recent numbers, females are declaring their bisexuality at a *far* greater rate than males.
Though I do wish the surveys published would make this fact more easy to observe. But presumably they do not because doing so would undercut the related gender-identity ideology.
Several decades ago, I knew a gay man who got into frequent arguments whenever "we're just born this way" came up in a gay rights group we both worked with. He was very much convinced he had been "recruited" as a youngster by what, from his description, sounded like predatory behavior to me. He didn't feel bad about his sexual orientation. He just saw himself as having been young and not even having sexuality on his radar, and then being shown something he decided he liked.
Who am I to question his experience and evaluation of that experience.
To a certain degree, "born this wayism" seems like a trap for LGBTQ persons. It denies their agency. The proper view, in my opinion, is "so long as you don't harm others, who cares whether your orientation/identity is innate or chosen?"
It doesn’t matter what some dude ‘thinks’. There are people who believe they are gay due to demonic possession. The best test of this hypothesis comes from the Sambia tribes in New Guinea. All males have to fellate older males starting from age 7 until age 13, and then they must teach younger males to do the same. This is because they believe semen causes male growth into manhood. Yet they don’t turn gay, just a few percent of men are same sex attracted.
If heterosexuals "recruit," then doesn't the presence of heterosexuals nearby (and IN) families potentially harm the children? -- since they now run an increased risk of being recruited into a lifestyle that precludes half the human race as partners, or exposes them to elevated risks of unwanted pregnancy?
"Potential consequences of poor decision-making" and "actual harm" are two entirely different things.
Yes, "born this way" has rhetorical advantages.
It also has disadvantages. For example, the medicalization of unfulfilled transgenderism as a mental illness ("gender dysphoria") raises the question of whether the appropriate "treatment" is attempting to align the body to the mind or vice versa. The current medical trend is toward the former, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. And once you've medicalized something, especially in the mental health field, the trend can easily be codified in coercive ways.
I have teenagers telling their parents they feel like oppressors if they do not have something. One child said At least I am Jewish, to illustrate the protection and coolness of victim idrntification.
This is 100% a big factor. Especially being a bog standard straight white male is like the kiss of death status wise (and shitty for your educational/employment prospects).
We have data on the prevalence of same sex intercourse. The numbers didn't went up. People identify as LGBT cause it's cool/fashionable. But they're not really lgbt.
Doesn't that mean that everyone used to identify as straight because it was cool/fashionable, but they're not really straight?
Non-heterosexuality was one of the secular paradoxes I covered, where genetics selection is the opposite direction of the historical trend. https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/secular-genetic-phenotype-paradoxes
I might disagree. I read some of the literature on sexology and I will share what I know:
Homossexuality is not genetic and it is not socially constructed. Instead, current evidence suggests that homossexuality appears to be a condition of sexual development, a condition that occurs during gestation, where the male fetus (gay male) is undermasculinized and a female fetus (lesbian) receives too much testosterone and masculinizes too much. The reason is that human fetus, including the brain, always begins with a female phenotype (and the brain is attracted to males). As it receives testosterone during gestation, male fetus develops a masculine phenotype (with a masculine brain). Homossexuality in males occurs when this process is incomplete and the fetus remains incompletely masculinized, resulting in a feminized brain which is attracted to other males. This explains why gay men have a more feminine phenotype than heterosexual males. Lesbianism occurs when a female fetus receives too much testosterone and it becomes too masculinized, which is why lesbians have a more masculine phenotype than heterosexual females.
This theory is supported by empirical evidence: For example, machine learning software can even distinguish gay males from heterosexual males based on skull structure of their faces: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/07/artificial-intelligence-can-tell-your-sexuality-politics-surveillance-paul-lewis. This interview with sexologist James Cantor explains it in more detail: https://youtu.be/r6oJj6b5FQM.
It is a fact that there has been a decrease in the average testosterone levels of males over the past 50 years. If that is correlated with exposure to sex hormones in the womb that might suggest an increase in male homossexuality but also would suggest a decrease in female homossexuality, while the reported rates increased. However, sexologists do estimate that around 2-4% of males and 1-3% of females are homossexual which is consistent with reported rates of the younger generation for gay and lesbian identification.
I do agree that bisexual, "queer," and transgender identification is social phenomenon: the vast majority of people who claim to be bisexual, "queer", or transgender are heterosexual and it is caused by social contagion. Bisexual and "queer" identification is just straight people pretending to be "lgbt". While most people who claim to be transgender are either very gender non-comforming homossexuals who adopt a cross-sex identity to escape from homophobia or heterosexuals who suffer from mental disorders such as autism, narcissistic personality disorder or trauma from sexual abuse in childhood. Some are just straight guys with a crossdressing kink and claim to be transgender to manifest their kink in public without fear of social shaming.
The artificial intelligence that claimed to distinguish on the basis of skull structure actually turned out to be distinguishing on the basis of whether your dating profile pic had glasses or facial hair.
It's a bit simplistic to claim that all homosexuality derives from a single causal mechanism - it would be like claiming that all volcanoes derive from a single causal mechanism on the basis of observing the Pacific Ring of Fire, without noticing that Hawaii is right there in the middle of it.
How does that explain the large number of very masculine, muscular gay men and the large number of very feminine, girly lesbians? I think your viewpoint is outdated.
The theory is interesting, but so is biological/evolutionary utility, but how do you explain the disproportionate increase in young women bisexualism and lesbianism in Gen Z (vs. the increase in young males)?
Recent surveys on the sexuality of transgender people find that only something like 25% are straight (https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf). This seems to run counter the idea that transgender people are gay people who transition socially to escape homophobia.
Most of them are males who are autogynephiles. They are attracted to women, but also to themselves as women. They grow up acting very masculine. Think Caitlyn Jenner.
"Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?"
I mean this is really easy to answer? Objectively it's still much higher cost for older gen to come out.
"Being part of Gen X, I confidently assert that we were far less intolerant than earlier generations."
Bizarre! I am a millennial, and even I grew up hearing plenty of F slurs and remember even in my college years gay was commonly used as a synonym for bad.
My impression is that actually engaging in sex is in decline among the young. A lot of these teenage identities are pretty nominal rather than actual.
Much of it is posing. At 15, I and all my friends had intense, varied, exotic secret sex lives. Girls could not resist us.
Especially girlfriends in Canada.
Homosexuality was once the "aristocrat's disease", and probably not for genetic reasons. Progress and broader access to higher education have made more of us into aristocrats.
That seems to be consistent with androgenization of the arts as civilizations unfold, which is a topic often referenced by Camille Paglia.
What if the majority of the population is in fact truly bisexual i.e. on the continuum, but just don't realize it? As it becomes more acceptable and there is more exposure to different sexual orientations, more people realize they actually are on the spectrum. This is different from being closeted which implies you already realized it at some point earlier but have a fear of coming out. The data on the prevalence of left-handedness is relevant to this discussion although not completely analogous. Also worth pointing out is that attraction, behavior, and identity are distinct. For example, someone may be attracted to people of the same-sex, but not necessarily identify as gay or bisexual and vice-versa. One additional point is that identity is political. People may identify as queer, feminist, anti-racist because they believe in equality and justice.