6 ms·

Do you have a source on racial/class distribution for lgbt? Would be interested to see it

jacquesm 7y ago
Are you trolling? It would seem obvious that such things are distributed exactly the same no matter what ones social status or ethnic background is. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Do you have data to that effect? What you're saying runs contrary to the data I've seen (e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population...) and it doesn't matter how elegant a theory is, if the data doesn't fit. There of course may well be additional data that I'm missing, which is why I'm asking.
  - casefields 7y ago
    That’s such a shockingly small number.
- dondawest 7y ago
  It’s not obvious AT ALL. If you’re aware of the “cluster effect” of those with rapid-onset gender dysphoria, you’re aware that being trans is highly influenced by ones social conditions. You’re making an argument that nature is everything when it comes to one’s LGBT status and nurture means nothing, but there’s mountains of evidence to show this is not the case. If you want to tell me that it’s JUST A COINKYDINK that so many female movie stars have male children that JUST SO HAPPEN to be gender dysphoric, your “nature means everything and nurture means nothing” philosophy on LGBT status seems incredibly far-fetched.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    "Rapid onset gender dysphoria" is a fake diagnosis made up by transphobes. It's just the latest iteration of trying to divide trans people into the "good ones" and the "bad ones", just like the fake Blanchardian "HSTS/AGP" typology. The fact that you cite it is a strong signal about you, personally. Take queer people at their word or fuck off.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. That only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dondawest 7y ago
      I am queer. Will you take me at my word?
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. That only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dondawest 7y ago
      I don’t understand this at all. Can “kindness” not be “snarky”? Your labeling my substantive comments “unsubstantive” is really really weird to me.
- e1g 7y ago
  It’s an interesting question. For example, gender-at-birth should be evenly distributed, but in wealthy families kids skew towards male much more frequently than expected. As another factor, some social structures and norms will make it more difficult for LGBTQ people to come out - even with identical odds, there will be less visibility and personal experience within those groups.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    Do you have a link supporting this?
    - e1g 7y ago
      Re "Wealthy kids skew male"? Starting references are http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161014-why-billionaires-have-more-sons http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161014-why-billionaires-ha... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3302799/Rich-mothers-have-more-sons.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/330279... and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004195 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- badamp 7y ago
  That’s a needlessly hostile reply. Sickle cell, lupus, hypertension, IQ, diabetes, etc etc are all not distributed evenly across race or sex. Also, environmental factors and epigenetics interact in complex ways. I would not be at all surprised that there’s a prevalence difference among racial or social groups.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Science is not based on "obviousness" and "It would be very surprising if it wasn't." is not an argument, it is a confirmation that your are guessing. If someone has data, a point can be made, otherwise we can assume and "are you trolling" is not an appropriate reaction.

Are you trolling? It would seem obvious that such things are distributed exactly the same no matter what ones social status or ethnic background is. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
darkpuma 7y ago
Do you have data to that effect? What you're saying runs contrary to the data I've seen (e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population...) and it doesn't matter how elegant a theory is, if the data doesn't fit. There of course may well be additional data that I'm missing, which is why I'm asking.
- casefields 7y ago
  That’s such a shockingly small number.
dondawest 7y ago
It’s not obvious AT ALL. If you’re aware of the “cluster effect” of those with rapid-onset gender dysphoria, you’re aware that being trans is highly influenced by ones social conditions. You’re making an argument that nature is everything when it comes to one’s LGBT status and nurture means nothing, but there’s mountains of evidence to show this is not the case. If you want to tell me that it’s JUST A COINKYDINK that so many female movie stars have male children that JUST SO HAPPEN to be gender dysphoric, your “nature means everything and nurture means nothing” philosophy on LGBT status seems incredibly far-fetched.
- damnyou 7y ago
  "Rapid onset gender dysphoria" is a fake diagnosis made up by transphobes. It's just the latest iteration of trying to divide trans people into the "good ones" and the "bad ones", just like the fake Blanchardian "HSTS/AGP" typology. The fact that you cite it is a strong signal about you, personally. Take queer people at their word or fuck off.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. That only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dondawest 7y ago
    I am queer. Will you take me at my word?
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. That only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dondawest 7y ago
    I don’t understand this at all. Can “kindness” not be “snarky”? Your labeling my substantive comments “unsubstantive” is really really weird to me.
e1g 7y ago
It’s an interesting question. For example, gender-at-birth should be evenly distributed, but in wealthy families kids skew towards male much more frequently than expected. As another factor, some social structures and norms will make it more difficult for LGBTQ people to come out - even with identical odds, there will be less visibility and personal experience within those groups.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Do you have a link supporting this?
  - e1g 7y ago
    Re "Wealthy kids skew male"? Starting references are http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161014-why-billionaires-have-more-sons http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161014-why-billionaires-ha... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3302799/Rich-mothers-have-more-sons.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/330279... and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004195 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
badamp 7y ago
That’s a needlessly hostile reply. Sickle cell, lupus, hypertension, IQ, diabetes, etc etc are all not distributed evenly across race or sex. Also, environmental factors and epigenetics interact in complex ways. I would not be at all surprised that there’s a prevalence difference among racial or social groups.
AdrianB1 7y ago
Science is not based on "obviousness" and "It would be very surprising if it wasn't." is not an argument, it is a confirmation that your are guessing. If someone has data, a point can be made, otherwise we can assume and "are you trolling" is not an appropriate reaction.