So, the basis for all of the "pride" crap just took a shot to the mouth...

[Valatar]

99.whatever percent of humanity has nothing to be proud about for their sex or their sex lives.  It isn't an accomplishment unless you're having sex while skydiving or doing some other astounding feat.  It's just sex.  Most people will do it.  If you're sitting around trying to come up with a flag for yourself because you're super into licking elbows or whatever insane fetish turns your crank, you are a terribly shallow person.  Find a hobby.

[Ghostmaker]

The heritable component of homosexuality appears to be around ~20%, which falls well below the threshold of characteristics widely considered to be hereditary (Race, Height, Weight, IQ, Hair & Eye Color, etc). It's below even the threshold of things that are presumed to be completely voluntary, like political affiliation, or what TV shows you like.

It's not very surprising when you consider there's never been a reasonable explanation for how a homosexual orientation would persist in a population over many generations. Back in the 90s you heard many very bad arguments like "Gay Uncle" theory and so on, which are dismissed with even a cursory look at real world data. It's been more than 30 years of desperately searching for those "gay genes" and yet the strongest association that keeps cropping up is the comorbidity of perverse sexual behavior with other mental illnesses.

More evidence that LGBTQ+ is a "fad", not an "orientation":

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/forty-percent-of-brown-university-students-say-they-are-lgbt-suggesting-social-contagion

*Note, there is obvious bias in this source.  However, the underlying data needs explanation, and their interpretation is one possible one.  I'm not seeing an alternative that sufficiently explains how the small percentage of the population that identifies as LGBTQ+ has all managed to go to Brown...

I'd like to see the methodology. I wonder if it's not so much social contagion as it is 'fad' and protective coloration.

[jhkim]

The heritable component of homosexuality appears to be around ~20%, which falls well below the threshold of characteristics widely considered to be hereditary (Race, Height, Weight, IQ, Hair & Eye Color, etc). It's below even the threshold of things that are presumed to be completely voluntary, like political affiliation, or what TV shows you like.

More evidence that LGBTQ+ is a "fad", not an "orientation":

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/forty-percent-of-brown-university-students-say-they-are-lgbt-suggesting-social-contagion

*Note, there is obvious bias in this source.  However, the underlying data needs explanation, and their interpretation is one possible one.  I'm not seeing an alternative that sufficiently explains how the small percentage of the population that identifies as LGBTQ+ has all managed to go to Brown...

I'd like to see the methodology. I wonder if it's not so much social contagion as it is 'fad' and protective coloration.

Here's the original poll from The Brown Daily Herald. I'd note that there has been almost no growth in the "homosexual" category, but large growth in "bisexual" and "other" categories (later subdivided into subcategories like "queer" and "questioning").

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/06/lgbtq-student-self-identification-has-doubled-since-2010-according-to-herald-polling-data

It's not clear to me how much this is "contagion" and how much it is changing labels for the same behaviors. Decades ago, there were many studies that showed that a significant percentage of self-identified straight people often had some non-heterosexual thoughts and experiences. But now it is more trendy to identify oneself "bisexual" for this, while decades ago it was strongly condemned and people would be fired/cancelled for such admissions.

---

A common parallel I've seen has been with left-handedness. Handedness is still not fully understood, but is only weakly heritable. However, it's also true that the number of left-handed people massively increased over the 20th century, from 3% to 12% in the U.S.


https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/09/sinister-statistics-do-left-handed-people-die-young.html

The only reasonable explanation of this rise is the change in society. As this science paper put it,

The rate of enforced right-handedness varies between cultures, but has typically shown a decline over recent decades: in many countries, proportions of left-handers have increased with time, probably because society has become more tolerant of variation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8

[GeekyBugle]

The heritable component of homosexuality appears to be around ~20%, which falls well below the threshold of characteristics widely considered to be hereditary (Race, Height, Weight, IQ, Hair & Eye Color, etc). It's below even the threshold of things that are presumed to be completely voluntary, like political affiliation, or what TV shows you like.

More evidence that LGBTQ+ is a "fad", not an "orientation":

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/forty-percent-of-brown-university-students-say-they-are-lgbt-suggesting-social-contagion

*Note, there is obvious bias in this source.  However, the underlying data needs explanation, and their interpretation is one possible one.  I'm not seeing an alternative that sufficiently explains how the small percentage of the population that identifies as LGBTQ+ has all managed to go to Brown...

I'd like to see the methodology. I wonder if it's not so much social contagion as it is 'fad' and protective coloration.

Here's the original poll from The Brown Daily Herald. I'd note that there has been almost no growth in the "homosexual" category, but large growth in "bisexual" and "other" categories (later subdivided into subcategories like "queer" and "questioning").

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/06/lgbtq-student-self-identification-has-doubled-since-2010-according-to-herald-polling-data

It's not clear to me how much this is "contagion" and how much it is changing labels for the same behaviors. Decades ago, there were many studies that showed that a significant percentage of self-identified straight people often had some non-heterosexual thoughts and experiences. But now it is more trendy to identify oneself "bisexual" for this, while decades ago it was strongly condemned and people would be fired/cancelled for such admissions.

---

A common parallel I've seen has been with left-handedness. Handedness is still not fully understood, but is only weakly heritable. However, it's also true that the number of left-handed people massively increased over the 20th century, from 3% to 12% in the U.S.


https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/09/sinister-statistics-do-left-handed-people-die-young.html

The only reasonable explanation of this rise is the change in society. As this science paper put it,

The rate of enforced right-handedness varies between cultures, but has typically shown a decline over recent decades: in many countries, proportions of left-handers have increased with time, probably because society has become more tolerant of variation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8

False equivalence, lefties use the right hemisphere while righties use the left one, we know this for a fact.

Meanwhile you can't point to a physical difference between straights and everybody else.

Furthermore, I might think you're onto something if it was homosexuality that was increasing, but it's not, it's mainly the TQ+.

As for the "social contagion vs fad/shield" can anyone tell me what's the difference? IMHO those are just different words to describe the same phenomenon.

[jhkim]

Here's the original poll from The Brown Daily Herald. I'd note that there has been almost no growth in the "homosexual" category, but large growth in "bisexual" and "other" categories (later subdivided into subcategories like "queer" and "questioning").

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/06/lgbtq-student-self-identification-has-doubled-since-2010-according-to-herald-polling-data

It's not clear to me how much this is "contagion" and how much it is changing labels for the same behaviors. Decades ago, there were many studies that showed that a significant percentage of self-identified straight people often had some non-heterosexual thoughts and experiences. But now it is more trendy to identify oneself "bisexual" for this, while decades ago it was strongly condemned and people would be fired/cancelled for such admissions.

---

A common parallel I've seen has been with left-handedness. Handedness is still not fully understood, but is only weakly heritable. However, it's also true that the number of left-handed people massively increased over the 20th century, from 3% to 12% in the U.S.


https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/09/sinister-statistics-do-left-handed-people-die-young.html

The only reasonable explanation of this rise is the change in society. As this science paper put it,

The rate of enforced right-handedness varies between cultures, but has typically shown a decline over recent decades: in many countries, proportions of left-handers have increased with time, probably because society has become more tolerant of variation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8

False equivalence, lefties use the right hemisphere while righties use the left one, we know this for a fact.

Meanwhile you can't point to a physical difference between straights and everybody else.

Furthermore, I might think you're onto something if it was homosexuality that was increasing, but it's not, it's mainly the TQ+.

As for the "social contagion vs fad/shield" can anyone tell me what's the difference? IMHO those are just different words to describe the same phenomenon.

Given the neurological difference between righties and lefties, then the massive increase in lefties over 40 years is even more remarkable. It demonstrates the power of social effects to change people. Neurological differences among LGBT people are less well understood (and politically controversial), but they have been studied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation

I'm not sure about the terminology, but what I was pointing to is the difference between actual behaviors and declared self-identity. Someone might have a few same-sex encounters but still call themselves heterosexual -- but another person with the same experiences might call themselves bisexual.

I think "social contagion" implies a change in behavior - i.e. when around LGBT people, someone is more likely to engage in same-sex romance. The "trendiness" explanation is that someone who engages in a minority of same-sex romance is more likely to publicly call themselves "bisexual". I'm sure that both are true to some degree, but I suspect "trendiness" is much more common.

[GeekyBugle]

Here's the original poll from The Brown Daily Herald. I'd note that there has been almost no growth in the "homosexual" category, but large growth in "bisexual" and "other" categories (later subdivided into subcategories like "queer" and "questioning").

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/06/lgbtq-student-self-identification-has-doubled-since-2010-according-to-herald-polling-data

It's not clear to me how much this is "contagion" and how much it is changing labels for the same behaviors. Decades ago, there were many studies that showed that a significant percentage of self-identified straight people often had some non-heterosexual thoughts and experiences. But now it is more trendy to identify oneself "bisexual" for this, while decades ago it was strongly condemned and people would be fired/cancelled for such admissions.

---

A common parallel I've seen has been with left-handedness. Handedness is still not fully understood, but is only weakly heritable. However, it's also true that the number of left-handed people massively increased over the 20th century, from 3% to 12% in the U.S.


https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/09/sinister-statistics-do-left-handed-people-die-young.html

The only reasonable explanation of this rise is the change in society. As this science paper put it,

The rate of enforced right-handedness varies between cultures, but has typically shown a decline over recent decades: in many countries, proportions of left-handers have increased with time, probably because society has become more tolerant of variation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8

False equivalence, lefties use the right hemisphere while righties use the left one, we know this for a fact.

Meanwhile you can't point to a physical difference between straights and everybody else.

Furthermore, I might think you're onto something if it was homosexuality that was increasing, but it's not, it's mainly the TQ+.

As for the "social contagion vs fad/shield" can anyone tell me what's the difference? IMHO those are just different words to describe the same phenomenon.

Given the neurological difference between righties and lefties, then the massive increase in lefties over 40 years is even more remarkable. It demonstrates the power of social effects to change people. Neurological differences among LGBT people are less well understood (and politically controversial), but they have been studied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation

I'm not sure about the terminology, but what I was pointing to is the difference between actual behaviors and declared self-identity. Someone might have a few same-sex encounters but still call themselves heterosexual -- but another person with the same experiences might call themselves bisexual.

I think "social contagion" implies a change in behavior - i.e. when around LGBT people, someone is more likely to engage in same-sex romance. The "trendiness" explanation is that someone who engages in a minority of same-sex romance is more likely to publicly call themselves "bisexual". I'm sure that both are true to some degree, but I suspect "trendiness" is much more common.

Yeah, because it used to be that they would beat the leftie out of you. How long has it been since being openly LGB was really being supressed by society? If that was the answer (as your comparison between the two seems to insinuate) you'd have seen the increase once it stoped being stigmatized. The first episode of Will & Grace aired on 1998 and was on the top 20 for all it's run until 2006.

La Cage aux Folles 1973 in theater, then 1978 in cinema and then in 1996 in the American remake.

Even in México, that was and is more conservative than the US song writer and singer Juan Gabriel was famous since 1971, and while he didn't openly said he was gay there was no fucking way anybody thought he was straight.

That's at least 27 years counting since 1996 but my guess is it's more close to 40.

[jhkim]

I'm not sure about the terminology, but what I was pointing to is the difference between actual behaviors and declared self-identity. Someone might have a few same-sex encounters but still call themselves heterosexual -- but another person with the same experiences might call themselves bisexual.

I think "social contagion" implies a change in behavior - i.e. when around LGBT people, someone is more likely to engage in same-sex romance. The "trendiness" explanation is that someone who engages in a minority of same-sex romance is more likely to publicly call themselves "bisexual". I'm sure that both are true to some degree, but I suspect "trendiness" is much more common.

Yeah, because it used to be that they would beat the leftie out of you. How long has it been since being openly LGB was really being supressed by society? If that was the answer (as your comparison between the two seems to insinuate) you'd have seen the increase once it stoped being stigmatized. The first episode of Will & Grace aired on 1998 and was on the top 20 for all it's run until 2006.

La Cage aux Folles 1973 in theater, then 1978 in cinema and then in 1996 in the American remake.

I don't think a gay comedies like La Cage aux Folles suggests an end to gay stigma, any more than popular black comedy like Amos 'n' Andy in the 1950s meant that racism against blacks was over. Most of the comedy is based on prejudices and stereotypes. Likewise, outside of comedy, popular 1970s films like Shaft or Foxy Brown are cool - but I don't think they meant that prejudice was over at the time. There were lots of popular black entertainers through the early 20th century - Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne, and so forth - which didn't mean there was no prejudice.

I think it's more significant when there's a mainstream movie with a gay lead where it isn't a joke or a gimmick that they're gay. As a parallel, I think it was a significant shift in the 1990s to have black-lead action movies like Independence Day and Men in Black, where the lead being black wasn't noteworthy. The lead character just happened to be black.

[GeekyBugle]

I'm not sure about the terminology, but what I was pointing to is the difference between actual behaviors and declared self-identity. Someone might have a few same-sex encounters but still call themselves heterosexual -- but another person with the same experiences might call themselves bisexual.

I think "social contagion" implies a change in behavior - i.e. when around LGBT people, someone is more likely to engage in same-sex romance. The "trendiness" explanation is that someone who engages in a minority of same-sex romance is more likely to publicly call themselves "bisexual". I'm sure that both are true to some degree, but I suspect "trendiness" is much more common.

Yeah, because it used to be that they would beat the leftie out of you. How long has it been since being openly LGB was really being supressed by society? If that was the answer (as your comparison between the two seems to insinuate) you'd have seen the increase once it stoped being stigmatized. The first episode of Will & Grace aired on 1998 and was on the top 20 for all it's run until 2006.

La Cage aux Folles 1973 in theater, then 1978 in cinema and then in 1996 in the American remake.

I don't think a gay comedies like La Cage aux Folles suggests an end to gay stigma, any more than popular black comedy like Amos 'n' Andy in the 1950s meant that racism against blacks was over. Most of the comedy is based on prejudices and stereotypes. Likewise, outside of comedy, popular 1970s films like Shaft or Foxy Brown are cool - but I don't think they meant that prejudice was over at the time. There were lots of popular black entertainers through the early 20th century - Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne, and so forth - which didn't mean there was no prejudice.

I think it's more significant when there's a mainstream movie with a gay lead where it isn't a joke or a gimmick that they're gay. As a parallel, I think it was a significant shift in the 1990s to have black-lead action movies like Independence Day and Men in Black, where the lead being black wasn't noteworthy. The lead character just happened to be black.

Stigma, prejudice and racism will NEVER be over.

So, the fact that the movies were making black movie stars, that were watched and followed by white people isn't a sign that racism is less prevalent according to you.

Likewise a comedy isn't normalizing gays...

But a comedy chock full of stereotypes about white people isn't a sign of prejudice or racism against them?

Here's what you "progressives" forget: Peers joke among themselves, we moke, jeer, prod and bust each other's balls.

When I can't joke about X it means that X is in a superior social class than myself, like you can't joke about royalty, the Pope, etc.

Speedy Gonzales was full of stereotypes, would you agree? Guess who got offended about it and got it cancelled? Hint: It wasn't us Mexicans. We LOVE Speedy, because he was a lower class Mexican always sticking it to the Gringo Cat. Guess that's the real reason white leftard gringos wanted it banned.

[Valatar]

Yeah, I've got cash on the barrel here, those increased "queer and questioning" are a pile of girls who got tipsy on white claw and kissed another girl at a party once.  There is a definite fad going on at the moment for girls to declare that they're totes sort of into other girls, even if you never see them around one and/or they have a steady boyfriend.  It's easy, has zero cost to the girl, immediately provides them with validation from numerous sources, and never needs to be followed up on.

[jhkim]

I'm not sure how we're disagreeing, GeekyBugle. Putting together your two comments:

How long has it been since being openly LGB was really being supressed by society? If that was the answer (as your comparison between the two seems to insinuate) you'd have seen the increase once it stoped being stigmatized. The first episode of Will & Grace aired on 1998 and was on the top 20 for all it's run until 2006.
(...)
That's at least 27 years counting since 1996 but my guess is it's more close to 40.

Stigma, prejudice and racism will NEVER be over.

So, the fact that the movies were making black movie stars, that were watched and followed by white people isn't a sign that racism is less prevalent according to you.

You suggested that open LGB stigmatization was over for 27 years (or perhaps 40 years) -- but then you say that it will never be over.

I was agreeing with your latter statement. Black TV and movie stars is generally a positive sign of reduced prejudice - Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald and others were positive progress. My disagreement is just that their existence meant that prejudice stopped.

Speedy Gonzales was full of stereotypes, would you agree? Guess who got offended about it and got it cancelled? Hint: It wasn't us Mexicans. We LOVE Speedy, because he was a lower class Mexican always sticking it to the Gringo Cat. Guess that's the real reason white leftard gringos wanted it banned.

OK, but being fast isn't a stereotype of Mexicans. I see him more as a breakout character. He's powerful, heroic and generous. I understand liking him, similar to how Uhura is idolized, because she was quite progressive for her time - even though her parts in the original series aren't all that empowered.

I'm partial to Charlie Chan. He was a brilliant detective who outsmarted others, which was far less racist than other movies of the time. His films are also the rare times you can see Asian actors in old Hollywood movies - playing his children. It can be grating how he's hammed up by a white actor, but I still can enjoy them.

[GeekyBugle]

I'm not sure how we're disagreeing, GeekyBugle. Putting together your two comments:

How long has it been since being openly LGB was really being supressed by society? If that was the answer (as your comparison between the two seems to insinuate) you'd have seen the increase once it stoped being stigmatized. The first episode of Will & Grace aired on 1998 and was on the top 20 for all it's run until 2006.
(...)
That's at least 27 years counting since 1996 but my guess is it's more close to 40.

Stigma, prejudice and racism will NEVER be over.

So, the fact that the movies were making black movie stars, that were watched and followed by white people isn't a sign that racism is less prevalent according to you.

You suggested that open LGB stigmatization was over for 27 years (or perhaps 40 years) -- but then you say that it will never be over.

I was agreeing with your latter statement. Black TV and movie stars is generally a positive sign of reduced prejudice - Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald and others were positive progress. My disagreement is just that their existence meant that prejudice stopped.

Speedy Gonzales was full of stereotypes, would you agree? Guess who got offended about it and got it cancelled? Hint: It wasn't us Mexicans. We LOVE Speedy, because he was a lower class Mexican always sticking it to the Gringo Cat. Guess that's the real reason white leftard gringos wanted it banned.

OK, but being fast isn't a stereotype of Mexicans. I see him more as a breakout character. He's powerful, heroic and generous. I understand liking him, similar to how Uhura is idolized, because she was quite progressive for her time - even though her parts in the original series aren't all that empowered.

I'm partial to Charlie Chan. He was a brilliant detective who outsmarted others, which was far less racist than other movies of the time. His films are also the rare times you can see Asian actors in old Hollywood movies - playing his children. It can be grating how he's hammed up by a white actor, but I still can enjoy them.

Two different problems my dude, the whole society or the vast majority of it vs individuals.

You'll never get rid of prejudiced individuals, those will always exist. But you shouldn't want to get rid of those, your goal should be to have the vast majority of society to be accepting.

Is your contention that the 80s were just as bad as the 50s in relation to prejudices? What about the 90s? Or any posterior decade since?

Again, no, prtejudice can never just stop. BUT when you have the black hollywood phenomenon, where white people are going to watch movies with mainly a black cast, enjoying them and some of those actors/characters becoming the heroes/idols you MUST accept that it has been reduced in an important %.

BUT white progressives weren't happy that black actors were getting ahead, so they destroyed the black film industry. Just like their party (Democrat) destroyed black Wall Street before, because they're racists.

But being fast isn't Speedy's ONLY trait, and the other mice are also there, but it took some white gringo karens to get it cancelled.

[Exploderwizard]

But being fast isn't Speedy's ONLY trait, and the other mice are also there, but it took some white gringo karens to get it cancelled.

White leftist females screech louder about being offended by everything than everyone else combined.

[Chris24601]

Given the neurological difference between righties and lefties, then the massive increase in lefties over 40 years is even more remarkable. It demonstrates the power of social effects to change people.

Yeah, it demonstrates that when you stop beating and abusing people into being right-handed (which happened as recently as my father, born a lefty, but became a righty because the teachers kept hitting his hand with a ruler when he tried to use his left hand) the numbers will go back to their actual genetically predisposed values.

Similarly, when we stop abusing kids with Marxist-derived queer theory I'm pretty sure the number of kids identifying as trans will drop right back through the floor.

The strongest neural association with transgenderism is actually autism; not because the two are actually related, but because the predators have an easier time preying on people who already don't feel quite right about how they interact with others.

You can judge people by their fruits and the same people pushing genital mutilation of kids are the same ones screeching about a movie shedding light on child trafficking while praising pedo friendly films like "Cuties."

[jhkim]

Given the neurological difference between righties and lefties, then the massive increase in lefties over 40 years is even more remarkable. It demonstrates the power of social effects to change people.

Yeah, it demonstrates that when you stop beating and abusing people into being right-handed (which happened as recently as my father, born a lefty, but became a righty because the teachers kept hitting his hand with a ruler when he tried to use his left hand) the numbers will go back to their actual genetically predisposed values.

Similarly, when we stop abusing kids with Marxist-derived queer theory I'm pretty sure the number of kids identifying as trans will drop right back through the floor.

From what I read earlier, left-handedness seems likely to be epigenetic rather than strictly inherited. But the experience is the same - and I 100% agree that left-handed kids shouldn't be beaten into being right-handed.

Your father's experience is similar to the experience of many older-generation transgender people I know. For example, my transgender friend Marie grew up as a boy in East Texas in the 1970s, and by Marie's account of that time, if a boy acted girly, he was likely to be beaten up by his peers. There have always been transgender people throughout history. I have seen accounts of transgender people in the 1950s - 1980s, and they are full of overt oppression -- fired from their jobs, arrested by the police, cut off from their families, etc. I don't want kids indoctrinated to be transgender, but they should be able to behave without being beaten or bullied.


For me, my niece came out as transgender two years ago at age 20. I didn't do anything to encourage this, but now that she has come out, I'm still there to love and support her. Last month, I went to her college graduation and helped her move to her new apartment. I don't claim to know about her experience, but it's her life.

By the current numbers, say, in California the rate of transgender 13-17 year olds is 1.93% while in Texas the rate is 1.42%. (ref) So while lefty California has a higher rate, the difference isn't as great as many imply. I don't give a damn if the number of transgender people drops down - as long as whatever percentage they are, they should be treated fairly and equally.

[GeekyBugle]

Given the neurological difference between righties and lefties, then the massive increase in lefties over 40 years is even more remarkable. It demonstrates the power of social effects to change people.

Yeah, it demonstrates that when you stop beating and abusing people into being right-handed (which happened as recently as my father, born a lefty, but became a righty because the teachers kept hitting his hand with a ruler when he tried to use his left hand) the numbers will go back to their actual genetically predisposed values.

Similarly, when we stop abusing kids with Marxist-derived queer theory I'm pretty sure the number of kids identifying as trans will drop right back through the floor.

From what I read earlier, left-handedness seems likely to be epigenetic rather than strictly inherited. But the experience is the same - and I 100% agree that left-handed kids shouldn't be beaten into being right-handed.

Your father's experience is similar to the experience of many older-generation transgender people I know. For example, my transgender friend Marie grew up as a boy in East Texas in the 1970s, and by Marie's account of that time, if a boy acted girly, he was likely to be beaten up by his peers. There have always been transgender people throughout history. I have seen accounts of transgender people in the 1950s - 1980s, and they are full of overt oppression -- fired from their jobs, arrested by the police, cut off from their families, etc. I don't want kids indoctrinated to be transgender, but they should be able to behave without being beaten or bullied.


For me, my niece came out as transgender two years ago at age 20. I didn't do anything to encourage this, but now that she has come out, I'm still there to love and support her. Last month, I went to her college graduation and helped her move to her new apartment. I don't claim to know about her experience, but it's her life.

By the current numbers, say, in California the rate of transgender 13-17 year olds is 1.93% while in Texas the rate is 1.42%. (ref) So while lefty California has a higher rate, the difference isn't as great as many imply. I don't give a damn if the number of transgender people drops down - as long as whatever percentage they are, they should be treated fairly and equally.

~40% of Brown University's students identify as LGBTQMNOP+

Are you telling me this is something natural?

https://nypost.com/2023/07/10/brown-university-students-identifying-as-lgbtq-doubled-in-10-years-to-nearly-40-percent/