More Americans Identify as LGBT than ever before

[Sundiata]

It takes so much courage to be honest with one's self about your feelings. Anyone who identifies as LGBT has my respect on those grounds alone, man. Given how hard life is for everyone that's a huge step that sets the tone for how a person lives their life.

[Ainland]

I am going to ask a un popular question
How many of theses LGBT are only LGBT because it is now the cool thing to say or had goofy adults pound it (figuratively) in to there head that are LGBT ?

Why don't you start by establishing with actual objective evidence that this is a thing that happens.

They literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim. Asking a question means you're trying to find something out.

Personally, I reckon the numbers in that category are small. Although I'm sure there are people in certain groups who "identify" as bisexual, or these new identities such as "pansexual' or "polysexual", etc. when actually they are heterosexual, because doing so allows them to gain some oppression points that they admire.

Although there will perhaps also be those who are gay, but who don't wish to 'identify' with "LGBT community", and find it very difficult, particularly because there are gay people who are very keen to retain those conflating factors. If you're feminine, or promiscuous, it may be easier to hide behind the banner of LGBT and say it's just part of being gay; anyone who opposes is simply homophobic. But such conflations are very unhelpful, for acceptance and understanding of homosexuality, both among wider society, and among individuals who are struggling with their sexuality.

[The New California Republic]

Why don't you start by establishing with actual objective evidence that this is a thing that happens.

They literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim. Asking a question means you're trying to find something out.

It seemed like a very loaded question though.

[Necroghastia]

They literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim. Asking a question means you're trying to find something out.

It seemed like a very loaded question though.

Particularly with the follow-up:

In certain groups (Wealthy white upper class liberals . Who view it as a status symbol to have a
LGBT child)

[The New California Republic]

It seemed like a very loaded question though.

Particularly with the follow-up:

In certain groups (Wealthy white upper class liberals . Who view it as a status symbol to have a
LGBT child)

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

[Vassenor]

Particularly with the follow-up:

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

[Auzkhia]

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

Social Conservatives and TERFs are shaking hands yet again!

[Kilobugya]

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

Are TERF actually a real thing in the "real world", apart from a vocal but very small group on the Internet ? Here in France I don't think they really exist.

[Auzkhia]

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

Are TERF actually a real thing in the "real world", apart from a vocal but very small group on the Internet ? Here in France I don't think they really exist.

Yeah, especially in the UK

There's some in the US but they are a fringe group, though they are latching onto the renewed GOP/conservative attack on trans people in the culture wars.

[The New California Republic]

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

Are TERF actually a real thing in the "real world", apart from a vocal but very small group on the Internet ? Here in France I don't think they really exist.

They hijacked London Pride a few years ago.

[Vassenor]

Are TERF actually a real thing in the "real world", apart from a vocal but very small group on the Internet ? Here in France I don't think they really exist.

They hijacked London Pride a few years ago.

And forced the withdrawal of healthcare from trans* teens and kids last year.

[Nakena]

Plus it's the classic TERF claim about TRAs forcing gay kids to be trans instead.

Are TERF actually a real thing in the "real world", apart from a vocal but very small group on the Internet ? Here in France I don't think they really exist.

Yes they are a real thing. Feminist Current's is one of their leading hate sites and based in Canada and led by Meghan Murphy.

[Ainland]

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

It's not a theory. It was literally a question. Not a claim.

If you think the answer is none, say none.

[Kilobugya]

And forced the withdrawal of healthcare from trans* teens and kids last year.

Ah Sorry to hear that I'm glad we don't have much of them here...

[The New California Republic]

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

It's not a theory. It was literally a question. Not a claim.

If you think the answer is none, say none.

It was a loaded question.

[Vassenor]

Yup, the "they literally asked a question, they didn't make a claim" theory rings hollow.

It's not a theory. It was literally a question. Not a claim.

If you think the answer is none, say none.

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.

The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.

[Ainland]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

[The New California Republic]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

Can do both. Answers have been given by a few people for both eventualities, so...

[Ainland]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

Can do both. Answers have been given by a few people for both eventualities, so...

If it wasn't implicit, I was referring to the person who did not assume good faith and give a sensible answer.

[The New California Republic]

Can do both. Answers have been given by a few people for both eventualities, so...

If it wasn't implicit, I was referring to the person who did not assume good faith and give a sensible answer.

Well, not much you can do about that I'm afraid.

[Ainland]

If it wasn't implicit, I was referring to the person who did not assume good faith and give a sensible answer.

Well, not much you can do about that I'm afraid.

I don't know what to do with this lol. I'm just here, sharing my views, like everyone else!

[The New California Republic]

Well, not much you can do about that I'm afraid.

I don't know what to do with this lol. I'm just here, sharing my views, like everyone else!

Good stuff.

[Prydania]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

I broadly assume good faith on the internet because it's better than not assuming that, but sometimes the person in question is so obvious in their conduct that it would be foolish for me to do so. I don't believe the person was "just asking a question" in good faith here. I believe they were asking a "question" meant to push a reactionary, bigoted viewpoint, given their follow-up statement. As much as I wish they weren't doing that it would be foolish for me to assume the best when all the available evidence is telling to I shouldn't.

To take the tone of your question and turn it around on the bigots in this thread...

How much would it really hurt to just accept your fellow human beings regarding their own personal orientations?
If you don't know a LGBTQ+ person then why do you care what strangers you don't know do in their bedrooms with significant others?
If you do know a LGBTQ+ person then why do you want to make that person's life miserable by forcing them to deny how they were born?

You see a lot of bad faith arguments here- that the number of open LGBTQ+ is only increasing because it's "trendy" or because of "pedophiles."
Both of which are nonsense arguments the study itself disproves, and are only desperate goalpost moving by people who REALLY want to remain bigoted when society is by and large moving to be more open.

So again...how much would it really hurt to just accept your fellow humans for who they are? It seems like the people upset about the fact that society is more accepting are expending far too much energy to remain bigoted.

You might point out that these questions I aim at transphobes and homophobes are loaded- and they are. I'm making a point about the ridiculousness of their continued bigotry and how silly it is that they jump through hoops to justify hating someone for an innate trait.

[Ainland]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

I broadly assume good faith on the internet because it's better than not assuming that, but sometimes the person in question is so obvious in their conduct that it would be foolish for me to do so. I don't believe the person was "just asking a question" in good faith here. I believe they were asking a "question" meant to push a reactionary, bigoted viewpoint, given their follow-up statement. As much as I wish they weren't doing that it would be foolish for me to assume the best when all the available evidence is telling to I shouldn't.

To take the tone of your question and turn it around on the bigots in this thread...

How much would it really hurt to just accept your fellow human beings regarding their own personal orientations?
If you don't know a LGBTQ+ person then why do you care what strangers you don't know do in their bedrooms with significant others?
If you do know a LGBTQ+ person then why do you want to make that person's life miserable by forcing them to deny how they were born?

You see a lot of bad faith arguments here- that the number of open LGBTQ+ is only increasing because it's "trendy" or because of "pedophiles."
Both of which are nonsense arguments the study itself disproves, and are only desperate goalpost moving by people who REALLY want to remain bigoted when society is by and large moving to be more open.

So again...how much would it really hurt to just accept your fellow humans for who they are? It seems like the people upset about the fact that society is more accepting are expending far too much energy to remain bigoted.

You might point out that these questions I aim at transphobes and homophobes are loaded- and they are. I'm making a point about the ridiculousness of their continued bigotry and how silly it is that they jump through hoops to justify hating someone for an innate trait.

I don't think you were aiming the second part at me, but just to clarify, I absolutely 'accept' gay people. Like that shouldn't even be a thing. Sexual orientation should, in my view, just be an irrelevance. It should literally tell you nothing about someone, other than that they fancy men or women.

[Auzkhia]

I mean how much would it really hurt to just assume good faith, and give a sensible answer? A better and more effectively approach than all this, I'd argue.

I mean, sealioning is absolutely a thing and it can be hard to tell sometimes, but I definitely think I can tell. I still responded mostly to show anyone lurking here that they can get challenged and will have something to chew on.