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

[Eirikrautha]

Before the study, let's look briefly at the big divide between modern "woke" views on sex and sexuality and the un-woke view.

Two basic points of contention: the role of biology and the nature of sexuality.  The woke approach declares that biology plays a large role in sexuality (though not exclusively) and that people's sexuality develops from some internal characteristics that are expressed either before, during, or after puberty.  To the woke, a person could internally be homosexual, but repress these feelings to appear heterosexual.  They would then posit that this repression would cause unhappiness or conflict, as the person is repressing their "true self."  Likewise, the woke would scoff at the idea that a heterosexual could be "trained" to be gay, or that a gay can be trained to be happily heterosexual.  This is the number one defense used against accusations of grooming of children: that LGBT children are born and not made.  The woke will assert that, since the LGBT community is just being true to itself, they are equally "normal" with respect to sexual behavior and (going down the rabbit hole of Critical Theory) are being oppressed by being excluded from the concept of "normality."  LGBT children aren't being "groomed," they are just "discovering" their true sexuality.

The un-woke (hereby referred to as the "rational" observer) would not agree with these assumptions.  First, they would recognize that heterosexual relationships are the normal attractions of the human species.  However, they would note that human beings do not have a sex instinct, like many other animals.  We have a sex drive, and urge towards sexual activities that is pretty fluid and trainable.  For most people, the sex drive develops at puberty and follows a predictable path towards heterosexual attraction.  For some, due to chemical, biological, or environmental factors, it does not.  In some cases, like severe trauma or early introduction to sex, this can associate the sex drive with other "non-standard" sexual practices (bondage, BDSM, homosexual practices, etc.).  So it is possible to "train" a person (in a limited fashion, and depending on circumstances) to find sexual pleasure in non-standard sexual practices, including LGBTQ practices.

So, how can this conflict in ideas be tested?  Well, at its most basic, if sexuality is primarily inherent, then you would expect sexual identities to be relatively static.  If anything, most changes would be from the socially acceptable heterosexual baseline (which most kids are accustomed to via social pressure) towards non-standard sexualities as those become more widespread and accepted.  So, if any change occurred at all, you would expect it to be from straight towards gay, lesbian, bi, trans, etc., as the person's "true" sexuality became undeniable.  On the other hand, if sexuality is flexible, learnable, and not an inherent "identity," then you would expect people to change sexualities more frequently and in both directions, as they found sexual practices that are equally pleasing.  So which is it?

Enter a Duke (of all places) University study: https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/60/3/659/373516/Sexual-Orientation-Identity-Mobility-in-the-United

Turns out that, not only do heterosexual people transition to gay, but LGBT people transition to heterosexual at almost twice the rate.  From the study:

In a six year time span, a sample of 22,673 British people who were interviewed in two waves

• 8.6 percent of people who identified as gay and lesbian in the first wave changed their identity to heterosexual by the second wave
• 3.3 percent of those who identified as heterosexual in the first wave changed to a LGBTQ identity by the second
• For bisexuals - 44 percent changed their identity to heterosexual.
• those who identified as "other" (including transgender individuals) – 69.6 percent changed to heterosexual by the second survey

So, what is there to be "Proud" of?  If sexuality is that fluid, it cannot represent a concrete, inborn "identity."  It must reflect sexual practices, which can change over time.  Therefore, the rational objection to normalization of LGBTQ+ behaviors by schools and the media is confirmed: membership in those groups would be very small if left to those who were overwhelming biologically predisposed to such behaviors.  The woke activists are recruiting.  And, as accused, Pride is simply a celebration of sexual practices... which is inappropriate for impressionable children.

Game, set, and match.

[David Johansen]

One study does not a tennis match win.

[Klava]

i think most of the liberal asylum patients have long abandoned the notion that it matters whether or not sexuality is determined/influenced by nature or nurture (or a combination of both). anything goes with their kind now it seems - logic, tradition, societal norms and practices be damned. any study at this point is too little too late - we'll have to re-educate the next generation, starting with formal logic, i'm afraid.

[David Johansen]

FORMAL LOGIC!!! FORMAL LOGIC!!! Why do you hate school teachers?

[oggsmash]

  I think they abandoned the "born that way" path when the search for "gay genes" turned out to be a waste of time.  Might want to look for "batshit crazy genes" and see how they match with trans people.  But that is a study that wouod never be funded, much less published.

[GeekyBugle]

A recent study, among university students. It doesn't prove what you think it does, I think it proves declaring yourself to be a part of the LGBTQWERTY is fashionable and people fall out of it.

Not that I think there's a genetic component to being gay, it probably is epigenetic at best with a strong environmental component to it.

For example, gay ppl start having sex younger and with an older partner compared to the heterosexual population. What does this mean? We don't know because we can't ask the question (we = the scientists).

[oggsmash]

  "Older partner" aka groomer.

[GeekyBugle]

  "Older partner" aka groomer.

It's very probable, do you remember Milo's defense of his rapist? How he said not all sexual relations between adults and minors were detrimental to the minor?

I'm willing to accept that when the difference in age is about one year tops, anything else and someone deserves a bore 4 slug to the head.

[David Johansen]

Honestly, I think people are complex and diverse and the causes of various gender issues are probably complex and diverse as well.  Looking for a single cause seems myopic.  I do think the current fashionable youth revolution has dovetailed strongly into the trans and non-binary narrative.

[BoxCrayonTales]

The evidence I've seen suggests sexual orientation is determined by hormone exposure in the women affection the neurological structures responsible for sexual attraction. You're attracted to men, women, and/or both. Usually you're attracted only to the opposite sex, but a minority is same-sex attracted instead of or in addition to the opposite sex. Or at the very least, they seek out the same sex for sexual escapades and this may be for pragmatic reasons like birth control or emotional reasons like "it's not really cheating on my wife if it's a dude." Some of these may be closeted homosexuals, but the 10% figures I've seen in some studies are way too high for that to sound plausible (as natural selection would weed out exclusive homosexuality to the absolute minimum possible).

I don't think homosexuality is a learned behavior. I think more people are more bisexual than we give credit for.

I think a lot of these so-called "closeted gay men" (particularly men in power) engage in such behavior for psychosexual rather than neurological reasons. Why was "homosexuality" widespread among Roman rulers? I don't think it was. I think they got off on abusing weaker men and were more open about it.

For comparison, we have a fair amount of information about gigolos in ancient Japan. it's too much to be explained by homosexuality but can't be explained by any kind of woke crusade because they were (and still are) hugely patriarchal and conservative. Homosexuality isn't considered a moral sin, but you're expected to get married and have kids regardless of your personal desires.

But to put it simply: I think humans are more complex than we give credit for and cannot be neatly slotted into boxes.

[tenbones]

You mean "another shot in the mouth."

/rimjob... oops. /rimshot!

[Trond]

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).

[Zelen]

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.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

  I think they abandoned the "born that way" path when the search for "gay genes" turned out to be a waste of time.

There was also the philosophical landmine that if homosexuality could be proven to have a traceable genetic basis, logically some people would inevitably choose to test for that gene and abort fetuses shown to bear it in the same way too many people do with Down's syndrome fetuses.

(This was actually the basis of an episode of the short-lived TV show Century City, a rather clever fusion of legal procedural and SF future predictions; in the episode in question, a genetic neonatologist was being sued by the parents for falsifying their child's in utero genetic scan to conceal the fact that the child would almost certainly grow up to be gay. In the universe of the show, this episode established that precisely this sort of thing was happening quite regularly, with the effect being a noticeable falloff in the number of children and youth identifying as gay; the doctor in question called it "a genocide against gay people!".)

[Eirikrautha]

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...