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

[jhkim]

~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/

Those are predominantly people who call themselves "bisexual". I think Valatar expressed it fairly well,

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.

In the natural world, many animals will hump just about anything. Bonobos are pretty much all pansexual, for example. So I think this is mostly just shifting definitions.


I suspect you're blurring what is natural with traditional cultural mores around sex. Rules like no sex before marriage or strict monogamy or no same-sex pleasure aren't laws of nature. They're cultural rules. Paleolithic societies had much different sexual mores than 1950s America, for example. Some societies like the Greeks normalized some homosexual behavior. Other societies like Hindu normalized some transgenderism (the hijra).

I agree with many things in 1950s culture -- but some of them I think were wrong and should be changed - like racial segregation for one, and also how LGBT people were treated.

[GeekyBugle]

~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/

Those are predominantly people who call themselves "bisexual". I think Valatar expressed it fairly well,

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.

In the natural world, many animals will hump just about anything. Bonobos are pretty much all pansexual, for example. So I think this is mostly just shifting definitions.


I suspect you're blurring what is natural with traditional cultural mores around sex. Rules like no sex before marriage or strict monogamy or no same-sex pleasure aren't laws of nature. They're cultural rules. Paleolithic societies had much different sexual mores than 1950s America, for example. Some societies like the Greeks normalized some homosexual behavior. Other societies like Hindu normalized some transgenderism (the hijra).

I agree with many things in 1950s culture -- but some of them I think were wrong and should be changed - like racial segregation for one, and also how LGBT people were treated.

I suspect you don't know jack shit about my position on natural vs cultural mores.

No, I'm not talking about if being gay is or isn't natural, I'm clearly talking about the incredible percentage (that doubled  in one decade) as something that's NOT natural, the increase not if homosexuality is or isn't.

Now, care to try again?

[jhkim]

I suspect you don't know jack shit about my position on natural vs cultural mores.

No, I'm not talking about if being gay is or isn't natural, I'm clearly talking about the incredible percentage (that doubled  in one decade) as something that's NOT natural, the increase not if homosexuality is or isn't.

Now, care to try again?

Sorry. I should have phrased that as a question rather than a suspicion. I don't claim to know your view on this.


For me, I don't think the LGBT rate doubling in one decade is any more or less unnatural than the rate of left-handers going up by x6 over four decades.

It's a cultural shift. It's not natural or unnatural.

Culture can have rapid change as fads (which fade) and revolutions (which don't).

But most of that doubling has to do with no change in behavior, just change in what language is used for the same behavior. i.e. A woman who made out with another woman in college used to call herself straight, but now is more likely to call herself bisexual.

[GeekyBugle]

I suspect you don't know jack shit about my position on natural vs cultural mores.

No, I'm not talking about if being gay is or isn't natural, I'm clearly talking about the incredible percentage (that doubled  in one decade) as something that's NOT natural, the increase not if homosexuality is or isn't.

Now, care to try again?

Sorry. I should have phrased that as a question rather than a suspicion. I don't claim to know your view on this.


For me, I don't think the LGBT rate doubling in one decade is any more or less unnatural than the rate of left-handers going up by x6 over four decades.

It's a cultural shift. It's not natural or unnatural.

Culture can have rapid change as fads (which fade) and revolutions (which don't).

But most of that doubling has to do with no change in behavior, just change in what language is used for the same behavior. i.e. A woman who made out with another woman in college used to call herself straight, but now is more likely to call herself bisexual.

Or we're forcing queer ideology down kids throats and making it so that being straight is now being demonized. So teens and young adults are more likely to adopt an "identity" that shields them and gives them accolades instead of making them the bad guys by default.

You call it a fad, I call it indoctrination, grooming and demonization.

[jhkim]

For me, I don't think the LGBT rate doubling in one decade is any more or less unnatural than the rate of left-handers going up by x6 over four decades.

It's a cultural shift. It's not natural or unnatural.

Culture can have rapid change as fads (which fade) and revolutions (which don't).

But most of that doubling has to do with no change in behavior, just change in what language is used for the same behavior. i.e. A woman who made out with another woman in college used to call herself straight, but now is more likely to call herself bisexual.

Or we're forcing queer ideology down kids throats and making it so that being straight is now being demonized. So teens and young adults are more likely to adopt an "identity" that shields them and gives them accolades instead of making them the bad guys by default.

You call it a fad, I call it indoctrination, grooming and demonization.

Regarding demonization...

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

[GeekyBugle]

For me, I don't think the LGBT rate doubling in one decade is any more or less unnatural than the rate of left-handers going up by x6 over four decades.

It's a cultural shift. It's not natural or unnatural.

Culture can have rapid change as fads (which fade) and revolutions (which don't).

But most of that doubling has to do with no change in behavior, just change in what language is used for the same behavior. i.e. A woman who made out with another woman in college used to call herself straight, but now is more likely to call herself bisexual.

Or we're forcing queer ideology down kids throats and making it so that being straight is now being demonized. So teens and young adults are more likely to adopt an "identity" that shields them and gives them accolades instead of making them the bad guys by default.

You call it a fad, I call it indoctrination, grooming and demonization.

Regarding demonization...

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

"We need to abolish hetorenormativity"
"Abolish the CIStem"

Sound familiar?

What would you call the claim that heterosexual men are the oppressors?

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=theses

Please stop gaslighting, if you can't/won't engage in honest dialogue there's no reason for me to talk to you.

[jhkim]

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

"We need to abolish hetorenormativity"
"Abolish the CIStem"

Sound familiar?

What would you call the claim that heterosexual men are the oppressors?

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=theses

Please stop gaslighting, if you can't/won't engage in honest dialogue there's no reason for me to talk to you.

I added bold to a part of my answer above. I am not disagreeing that anti-straight bigots exist - I have seen it. I am saying that it has almost no real effect on my life, even though I am living here in the Bay Area. I'd like it to stop, but its power is limited. Based on what I've seen, I don't think that such oppression is causing mass numbers of people to falsely declare themselves LGBT in order to escape that demonization.

For comparison, I know many real LGBT people who during the past 2-4 decades have been concerned about serious consequences for coming out as LGBT. Some were cut off from their families, kicked out of communities, or even fired from their jobs. I think this level of demonization would cause people to not openly declare themselves LGBT and/or stay in the closet. Even though things have generally gotten better, this is still true today in many places.

[Eirikrautha]

I added bold to a part of my answer above. I am not disagreeing that anti-straight bigots exist - I have seen it. I am saying that it has almost no real effect on my life, even though I am living here in the Bay Area. I'd like it to stop, but its power is limited. Based on what I've seen, I don't think that such oppression is causing mass numbers of people to falsely declare themselves LGBT in order to escape that demonization.

For comparison, I know many real LGBT people who during the past 2-4 decades have been concerned about serious consequences for coming out as LGBT. Some were cut off from their families, kicked out of communities, or even fired from their jobs. I think this level of demonization would cause people to not openly declare themselves LGBT and/or stay in the closet. Even though things have generally gotten better, this is still true today in many places.

So, boys and girls, once again we have direct evidence of how the disingenuous leftards like to argue.  Note the statement: "I am saying that it has almost no real effect on my life, even though I am living here in the Bay Area."  This is intended to minimize the concern by asserting that it didn't affect him, so it's not a big deal.  Now let's imagine jhkim's response to a Clarence Thomas quote that asserts that racism hasn't played a huge part in his career or success (they are out there).  Who jhkim decide that racism is overblown because Clarence Thomas hasn't seen much of it and it didn't affect him?  Of course not!  This is why jhkim continues to attempt to use personal narrative (most of which he probably just makes up on the spot) as an argument for his opinions, but rejects such argument when they contradict his opinions.  A good definition of a "bigot" is someone who denies rights or privileges to others that they retain for themselves.  So, by that definition, jhkim is a massive bigot.

Also, he says "For comparison, I know many real LGBT people who during the past 2-4 decades have been concerned about serious consequences for coming out as LGBT. Some were cut off from their families, kicked out of communities, or even fired from their jobs."  Now, he really doesn't, and he knows most people won't call him on it.  But I will.  I want names, dates, and the documentation that these people you imagined know got fired because they were gay or trans.  I want to see the papers or emails.  More than likely, they were fired for being obnoxious assholes, as many alphabet activists are today.  Because I know a lot of alphabet activists, and they're mostly unhappy, angry, people who are terrible to work with... (see, if yours is "evidence", so is mine)

[Eirikrautha]

From that bastion of right-wingers, the Hill:

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4070174-why-europe-and-america-are-going-in-opposite-directions-on-youth-transgender-medicine/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Seems the Your-o-pee-uns have discovered that there's no scientific basis to treat the Ts with physical methods... mental therapy seems to be just as, if not more, effective.  But it's totally not a social contagion...

[Valatar]

Regarding demonization...

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

I agree, the current social push is not demonizing the straight people.  It isn't mentioning them at all, if it can help it.  Instead it's putting the various flavors of queer on the tallest pedestals it can.  They're interesting, poignant people with daring lives and big dreams who just want to love, etc, etc.  Draw them up in a comic with bright pastel colors and ship it to the nearest middle school, job's done.  Take your average adolescent, they're insane on hormones and a still-developing brain, their life's a huge mess and they have little agency, now give them an armload of books, comics, and movies where the gay kid is really cool and determined and happiness is vibrant and centered on how turbo gay they are.  Kids are dumb and easily led; if you don't think that the prevalence of this material is a strong influence, well, you don't remember your childhood.

[oggsmash]

That crowd is too busy tearing down white men to bother with straight people (unless they are white straight men) but that comes next.  Just let it get to an actual fight.  Let it be resolved once and for all.

[oggsmash]

   Using the greeks as a normalization of homosexual behavor tells me you do not know wtf you are talking about.

[jhkim]

Regarding demonization...

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

I agree, the current social push is not demonizing the straight people.  It isn't mentioning them at all, if it can help it.  Instead it's putting the various flavors of queer on the tallest pedestals it can.  They're interesting, poignant people with daring lives and big dreams who just want to love, etc, etc.  Draw them up in a comic with bright pastel colors and ship it to the nearest middle school, job's done.  Take your average adolescent, they're insane on hormones and a still-developing brain, their life's a huge mess and they have little agency, now give them an armload of books, comics, and movies where the gay kid is really cool and determined and happiness is vibrant and centered on how turbo gay they are.  Kids are dumb and easily led; if you don't think that the prevalence of this material is a strong influence, well, you don't remember your childhood.

Glad we agree about demonization. And I agree that LGBT characters are frequently put on a pedestal, and I'd love to see them progress past that.

About straights not being mentioned or childhood influences, though, that seems like missing the forest. If you ask kids about the characters they think are really cool, common answers are going to be ones like Superman, Captain America, Harry Potter, Ariel, etc. If I look at the top box office right now, the leads are agent Ethan Hunt, Indiana Jones, agent Tim Ballard, and Spider-Man, among others. None of these characters are LGBT.

Straight characters are neither absent nor uncool in mainstream kids media.

--

Gay or other LGBT characters exist and often put on a pedestal -- but they are also most often the gay best friend or other side character, or perhaps the lead in a quirky off-mainstream story about gayness, where they are lauded for their bravery in being gay. I'd like to get to the point where we have mainstream stories where the main character just happens to be LGBT, and that is at most the second or third quality people say about them.

[Thor's Nads]

Interesting study.

I'm also reminded of David Bowie, who pushed all sorts of gender ideas hard in the 70s and 80s, only to turn out to be heterosexual (some say bi, but I remember his biographer noting that his lasting relationships were always with women).

Back then it was shocking and a way to get attention. Alice Cooper did the same thing, and he is horrified by what is happening now. Oh how things change.

[Nameless Mist]

I'm a straight, non-transgender man live in the gayest region of the country - the SF Bay area. I have never felt any concern at saying that I am straight in any local circles, like my job, community theater, church, or gaming conventions. There are a few times I've encountered someone who'd say some broad shit about men or straight people, but it had virtually no effect on me.

None of that comes anywhere close to the demonization of LGBT people that was standard in the 1990s, and is still common in many communities.

"We need to abolish hetorenormativity"
"Abolish the CIStem"

Sound familiar?

What would you call the claim that heterosexual men are the oppressors?

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=theses

Please stop gaslighting, if you can't/won't engage in honest dialogue there's no reason for me to talk to you.

I added bold to a part of my answer above. I am not disagreeing that anti-straight bigots exist - I have seen it. I am saying that it has almost no real effect on my life, even though I am living here in the Bay Area. I'd like it to stop, but its power is limited. Based on what I've seen, I don't think that such oppression is causing mass numbers of people to falsely declare themselves LGBT in order to escape that demonization.

For comparison, I know many real LGBT people who during the past 2-4 decades have been concerned about serious consequences for coming out as LGBT. Some were cut off from their families, kicked out of communities, or even fired from their jobs. I think this level of demonization would cause people to not openly declare themselves LGBT and/or stay in the closet. Even though things have generally gotten better, this is still true today in many places.

I'd actually argue that the prominence of LGBT activism is part of what drives reactions against that group.  Back when gay marriage was the controversial topic, a lot of people shifted in favor it, because activists were generally less militant about it.

Trans activists have gotten really militant, and the ESG agenda that is pushed in the corporate world now has only emboldened these types.  Plenty of people find themselves in workplaces where pronouns are a big deal, and if you say anything mildly critical about gender identity even on your private social media, you could potentially lose your job.

Of course, the most controversial part of the trans agenda is pushing laws forth that remove parental consent when it comes to transitioning children.  In some states, you can lose custody of your kids if you refuse to allow them to use hormone blockers, for example.  We've seen this most stringently enforced in parts of Europe.

So, while I agree that abusing LGBT people isn't good, I think society is vastly overcompensating in the opposite direction, particularly with regard to kids, women's sports, and private spaces for women.