My 25 year old niece "came out" as bisexual. She is currently not dating, but has only ever dated young men. She has a decent marketing job and works all over the US. I don't know why she would adopt the "bisexual" label at this time but imo what's the harm? My observation has been women are more apt to identify as lesbian or bisexual than men are to identify as gay or bisexual. But this whole gender/sexual identification as something you are not is a somewhat recent phenomenon. It must be signaling. Like pretending to be a populist when you have a degree from Yale.
The whole trans panic thing I guess I just don't get. I must live a pretty quiet life here. I do see some people trying a little bit too hard to be supportive, and to be "allys." But I guess Ron Desantis believes it will take him all the way to the white house. It might. But not because I believe there is a real problem here. But what do I care? I'm an old rich white guy and Desantis will no doubt make me richer.
GG - was he ever on the left? I guess maybe he was seen as a Bernie Bro for a while there but he has always been first a "libertarian" (whatever that means today) and that generally puts him on the right side of the horseshoe? Not really the end of the horseshoe imo. That would be reserved for the White Nationalist Authoritarians? Maybe he's that, too. As someone noted above trying to place all this on a left/right axis is getting near impossible.
Andrew Sullivan. Goodness. He seems to have gone off the deep end lately.
Caplan. Commenter John Bowman deals with him pretty convincingly.
Ukraine. I try not to get too emotionally invested. I do think Russia is committing war crimes that grow more egregious by the day. It really is shocking to me that Putin thinks this is okay. I guess he figures winners don't go to the docket in The Hague. He's probably correct about that.
Re: "The horseshoe theory of politics is that the far left and the far right reach similar conclusions."
I take this as evidence that "left" and "right" are outdated concepts that don't carve politics at the joints.
Even if a "first past the post" electoral system tends to foster a two-party political system, there nonetheless will be many cross-cutting policy issues.
Might the median voter more or less agree with Robert Wright and Douglas Macgregor, whilst the military-industrial complex (per Glenn Greenwald) gets its way?
It seems unlikely that sexuality has changed that much. It seems more likely that being told that LBGTQ is good and straight is bad that kids are doing what they are told.
Many will regret having wasted much, and in some cases all, of their lives in such a confused state over sexual matters. But the fault lies mainly with their authority figures.
Why doesn't Bryan get more into the details of recruitment? Is it somehow too gross?
An older boy, or young man, or older man, befriends a pubescent boy, maybe 11-14. Maybe gets him drunk or high, but begins sexual explorations. (Legally molestations, but the boy is a kid, exploring.)
The young boy receives oral sex, has an ejaculation, it feels great.
Is told he's gay; his orgasm is proof.
This is not the only way, but this or some small variation is likely the most common path.
This is not desirable for society.
Or, if you're worried about too many people, maybe it is desirable. (I'm not; it's wrong.)
LibsOfTikTok is being banned by Twitter for reposting some of the kindergarten / early school age trans folk who are so eager to talk sex with curious kids, and perhaps even those not so curious. Such teachers are grooming the kids - sexualizing them. Innocent kids should not be sexualized.
"10 percent heartily approve; 20 percent are basically ok; 30 percent are not violently opposed but don’t see why it’s desirable; 40 percent are violently opposed."
Thanks for this set of 4 categories, tho I'd have preferred 5 for a neutral middle: (strong, slight, neutral, against, strongly against).
5% strong approve, 20% slight approve; 30% neutral; 10% against; 35% strongly against would be my guess.
Note the greater number strongly against than merely against. Many, possibly still most, "neutral" folk are essentially unaware - most disapprove as they become aware. As it becomes a more clear "Don't say Gay Groomer" issue, more of those currently neutral folk will be against it.
Sullivan is very right about the tiny minority of trans folk. Either they are "normal" or not. They are confused, if not mentally ill. That is not normal.
Our society needs to have space to allow non-normal, and sick people, to live reasonable lives. But if they are Minor Attracted People, wanting to sexualize the kids of normal folk, that seems like too much space.
Kids need protection and security. Most parents are going to be voting against sexualization for 8 year olds.
Sexuality, in the absence of objective evidence, relies on self-reporting. It is very likely that sexuality was under-reported in past, less accepting times, and now more readily reported plus an element of it being ‘fashionable’, so percentage increase now over then needs to be considered in that light.
Gay gene. Genetics is more complex than a gene for this, a gene for that. Hæmophilia is a good example. The allele causing this - h - is resident on the X chromosome and is recessive to its counterpart allele H. So if a female is XHXH or XHXh no hæmophilia. But if during meiosis she produces some Xh ovæ, then she can produce an XhY boy with hæmophilia and possibly XHXh girl without hæmophilia, but who is able in later life to produce a hæmophiliac boy.
Now. A hæmophiliac boy XhY cannot sire a hæmophiliac son because he does not contribute the X chromosome. However, during meiosis he will produce Xh chromosomes, so he can sire a daughter XH (maternal) Xh (paternal). It would then be possible for his daughter to produce a hæmophiliac boy, so whilst a father cannot produce a hæmophiliac son, he can produce a hæmophiliac grandson.
So those with opinions about gay genes and not enough gays having children, might like to review their gay gene theory and only gays can beget gay sons and daughters. Evolution and genetics, just ain’t that obligingly simple.
Caplan answers his own question, at least in part. Gay identity has increased, because many if not most younger gay men no longer have to suppress their sexual identity.
"the wealth embodied in the education and skills (and health) of people is much more important than the wealth from produced capital–which includes everything physical from houses to business equipment."
This quote of Taylor's is particularly obtuse in that it refuses to see the horse dragging the cart.
Beyond the "social desirability", "recruiting" and "stigma" theses, I think a lot of the explosion in sexual identity talk is just symptomatic of people's willingness to talk about everything they might have, in previous generations, kept private. In a world where everyone is encouraged to be open about any belief they might have, it's not surprising that more people will admit to non-traditional sexual desires.
We know that publicly announcing a belief has psychological effects. Once we publicly commit to something, we quite often anchor ourselves to it. In a way that we do not with things we keep to ourselves. I'd assume this applies to sexuality as well as everything else. I think people should be free to do whatever they want, but I don't see the upside that most people seem to do to wearing their identities on their sleeves.
It sure would be easy for Russia to get out of this endless quagmire with an offer of a return to make explicit the status quo ante. The fact that he does not implies that there is something more than real politique resistance to Ukraine membership in NATO.
My 25 year old niece "came out" as bisexual. She is currently not dating, but has only ever dated young men. She has a decent marketing job and works all over the US. I don't know why she would adopt the "bisexual" label at this time but imo what's the harm? My observation has been women are more apt to identify as lesbian or bisexual than men are to identify as gay or bisexual. But this whole gender/sexual identification as something you are not is a somewhat recent phenomenon. It must be signaling. Like pretending to be a populist when you have a degree from Yale.
The whole trans panic thing I guess I just don't get. I must live a pretty quiet life here. I do see some people trying a little bit too hard to be supportive, and to be "allys." But I guess Ron Desantis believes it will take him all the way to the white house. It might. But not because I believe there is a real problem here. But what do I care? I'm an old rich white guy and Desantis will no doubt make me richer.
GG - was he ever on the left? I guess maybe he was seen as a Bernie Bro for a while there but he has always been first a "libertarian" (whatever that means today) and that generally puts him on the right side of the horseshoe? Not really the end of the horseshoe imo. That would be reserved for the White Nationalist Authoritarians? Maybe he's that, too. As someone noted above trying to place all this on a left/right axis is getting near impossible.
Andrew Sullivan. Goodness. He seems to have gone off the deep end lately.
Caplan. Commenter John Bowman deals with him pretty convincingly.
Ukraine. I try not to get too emotionally invested. I do think Russia is committing war crimes that grow more egregious by the day. It really is shocking to me that Putin thinks this is okay. I guess he figures winners don't go to the docket in The Hague. He's probably correct about that.
Yours Truly,
One of Your Few Democratic Commenters!
Re: "The horseshoe theory of politics is that the far left and the far right reach similar conclusions."
I take this as evidence that "left" and "right" are outdated concepts that don't carve politics at the joints.
Even if a "first past the post" electoral system tends to foster a two-party political system, there nonetheless will be many cross-cutting policy issues.
Might the median voter more or less agree with Robert Wright and Douglas Macgregor, whilst the military-industrial complex (per Glenn Greenwald) gets its way?
It seems unlikely that sexuality has changed that much. It seems more likely that being told that LBGTQ is good and straight is bad that kids are doing what they are told.
Many will regret having wasted much, and in some cases all, of their lives in such a confused state over sexual matters. But the fault lies mainly with their authority figures.
Why doesn't Bryan get more into the details of recruitment? Is it somehow too gross?
An older boy, or young man, or older man, befriends a pubescent boy, maybe 11-14. Maybe gets him drunk or high, but begins sexual explorations. (Legally molestations, but the boy is a kid, exploring.)
The young boy receives oral sex, has an ejaculation, it feels great.
Is told he's gay; his orgasm is proof.
This is not the only way, but this or some small variation is likely the most common path.
This is not desirable for society.
Or, if you're worried about too many people, maybe it is desirable. (I'm not; it's wrong.)
LibsOfTikTok is being banned by Twitter for reposting some of the kindergarten / early school age trans folk who are so eager to talk sex with curious kids, and perhaps even those not so curious. Such teachers are grooming the kids - sexualizing them. Innocent kids should not be sexualized.
"10 percent heartily approve; 20 percent are basically ok; 30 percent are not violently opposed but don’t see why it’s desirable; 40 percent are violently opposed."
Thanks for this set of 4 categories, tho I'd have preferred 5 for a neutral middle: (strong, slight, neutral, against, strongly against).
5% strong approve, 20% slight approve; 30% neutral; 10% against; 35% strongly against would be my guess.
Note the greater number strongly against than merely against. Many, possibly still most, "neutral" folk are essentially unaware - most disapprove as they become aware. As it becomes a more clear "Don't say Gay Groomer" issue, more of those currently neutral folk will be against it.
Sullivan is very right about the tiny minority of trans folk. Either they are "normal" or not. They are confused, if not mentally ill. That is not normal.
Our society needs to have space to allow non-normal, and sick people, to live reasonable lives. But if they are Minor Attracted People, wanting to sexualize the kids of normal folk, that seems like too much space.
Kids need protection and security. Most parents are going to be voting against sexualization for 8 year olds.
Sexuality, in the absence of objective evidence, relies on self-reporting. It is very likely that sexuality was under-reported in past, less accepting times, and now more readily reported plus an element of it being ‘fashionable’, so percentage increase now over then needs to be considered in that light.
Gay gene. Genetics is more complex than a gene for this, a gene for that. Hæmophilia is a good example. The allele causing this - h - is resident on the X chromosome and is recessive to its counterpart allele H. So if a female is XHXH or XHXh no hæmophilia. But if during meiosis she produces some Xh ovæ, then she can produce an XhY boy with hæmophilia and possibly XHXh girl without hæmophilia, but who is able in later life to produce a hæmophiliac boy.
Now. A hæmophiliac boy XhY cannot sire a hæmophiliac son because he does not contribute the X chromosome. However, during meiosis he will produce Xh chromosomes, so he can sire a daughter XH (maternal) Xh (paternal). It would then be possible for his daughter to produce a hæmophiliac boy, so whilst a father cannot produce a hæmophiliac son, he can produce a hæmophiliac grandson.
So those with opinions about gay genes and not enough gays having children, might like to review their gay gene theory and only gays can beget gay sons and daughters. Evolution and genetics, just ain’t that obligingly simple.
Caplan answers his own question, at least in part. Gay identity has increased, because many if not most younger gay men no longer have to suppress their sexual identity.
"the wealth embodied in the education and skills (and health) of people is much more important than the wealth from produced capital–which includes everything physical from houses to business equipment."
This quote of Taylor's is particularly obtuse in that it refuses to see the horse dragging the cart.
Beyond the "social desirability", "recruiting" and "stigma" theses, I think a lot of the explosion in sexual identity talk is just symptomatic of people's willingness to talk about everything they might have, in previous generations, kept private. In a world where everyone is encouraged to be open about any belief they might have, it's not surprising that more people will admit to non-traditional sexual desires.
We know that publicly announcing a belief has psychological effects. Once we publicly commit to something, we quite often anchor ourselves to it. In a way that we do not with things we keep to ourselves. I'd assume this applies to sexuality as well as everything else. I think people should be free to do whatever they want, but I don't see the upside that most people seem to do to wearing their identities on their sleeves.
It sure would be easy for Russia to get out of this endless quagmire with an offer of a return to make explicit the status quo ante. The fact that he does not implies that there is something more than real politique resistance to Ukraine membership in NATO.