5 ms·
> Any idea why so many would be bisexual vs fully homosexual? This number is really what makes me believe it is more of the ‘woke’ politics being pushed. I view
by hnbad 5y ago
> Any idea why so many would be bisexual vs fully homosexual? This number is really what makes me believe it is more of the ‘woke’ politics being pushed. I view this as (potentially) individuals who have no group and who are desperate to cling to something that makes them a victim in this world.
Biphobia is a thing and it is a thing in gay/lesbian communities just as it is among straight people and your statement demonstrates why that is: straight people just see bisexuals as gay or lesbian and gay or lesbian people see them as traitors or cowards, especially if they live in a stable "straight passing" relationship.
Bisexuals aren't just "homosexuals who aren't committed enough". Research dating all the way back to Kinsey demonstrates that most people aren't fully hetero- or homosexual in whom they find sexually attractive regardless of what they identify as. If anything, "fully" homosexual or heterosexual people would be expected to be the exception if there were no hangups around these labels and identities.
> desperate to cling to something that makes them a victim in this world
There's a grain of truth in this perception but sadly it's tainted by American culture war bullshit. Teens and young adults have always experimented with identity and social roles so it's unsurprising they'll "try on" identities relating to themselves and that some of them will be whatever gets hotly debated today.
But this is very much a "now that we have stopped physically punishing children for using their left hand all of a sudden everybody is left-handed" dynamic to this, too. Social acceptance of left handed people led to a sharp increase in the number of left handed people followed by a period of stabilization leading to a steady proportional demographic because there were already left handed people living "in the closet" (knowingly or not) and they were finally able to "come out" once being left handed became socially acceptable. There were probably also some people unsure if they may have been left handed all along and giving it a try to see what felt more natural and then settling one way or the other, but left-handedness wasn't a "trend" or a "social contagion" or an "epidemic", just a way of being human that was previously suppressed and now normalizing.
And even today left-handed people encounter some discrimination or bias (intentional or not) in their daily lives. Utensils may still be needlessly tailored to right-handed people or left-handed alternatives may be unavailable simply because nobody considered the need for them or left-handed people are just expected to make do because they're a minority and shouldn't cause a fuss (and they can just try to use their right hand anway, right?).
But it would probably sound ridiculous to you if I said "I think kids these days are just claiming they're left-handed because they want to be victims" -- and I don't think it would have sounded as ridiculous when left-handedness was only just gaining acceptance and there was a sudden massive spike in the number of people claiming to be left-handed.
So here's a thought: why are identities like being bisexual (which if we can trust Kinsey mostly just means not making any assumptions about who you might find attractive by gender alone) considered "victim" roles? If it's because they're being treated badly, why don't we just stop treating them that way? So what if it means some kids who were "only doing it to be the victim" end up being caught in the crossfire and end up being victimized less?
- solarhoma 5y agoI agree with your train of thought on most of your post. Though disagree with the below segment. >And even today left-handed people encounter some discrimination or bias (intentional or not) in their daily lives. Utensils may still be needlessly tailored to right-handed people or left-handed alternatives may be unavailable simply because nobody considered the need for them or left-handed people are just expected to make do because they're a minority and shouldn't cause a fuss (and they can just try to use their right hand anway, right?). Right handed people are roughly 90% of the world population. So, as a business owner, why would you cater half your production to something that only 10% of the population finds appealing? Which brings me back to my original point. Why over represent people so drastically?
- hnbad 5y ago> Right handed people are roughly 90% of the world population. So, as a business owner, why would you cater half your production to something that only 10% of the population finds appealing? Wheelchair users only make up an estimated 1% of the US population. Would you argue businesses shouldn't try to make their storefronts wheelchair user accessible, e.g. installing ramps or wider pathways were applicable? The point isn't just that left-handed people hardly find any products that actively cater to them, it's that many products explicitly exclude them by design. And alternatives are often hard to find and/or more expensive. I'm not accusing any business of making a deliberate decision to be inaccessible. Inaccessibility is the default because the group is in the minority. But through statistical bias alone left-handedness effectively acts as a disability. The question is ultimately one of equality of opportunity. Do you think that society should be shaped in such a way that statistical bias is compensated or do you think that society should reflect the statistical bias of its makeup (or option C: that society should be shaped by the biases of those with the political power and capital to shape it). If you think statistical biases should be compensated, you will necessarily end up with "dramatic overrepresentation" because the status quo is the consequence of many lifetimes of statistical bias shaping our society. Note that there is no objectively "right or wrong answer" as this is a question about your values. And this is also what makes the question so polarizing as there's simply no way to pave over values that are the polar opposite of each other. BTW this is ultimately the value difference that underpins the distinction between the political left and right, progressivism and conservatism, anarchism and statism: one proposes that hierarchies (i.e. power imbalances) are undesirable and should be avoided, the other believes in a (in Christian conservatism literally divinely ordained) "natural order" that is self-justified and desirable, and that any deviation from it or correction for it is a step towards societal decay (or literal "evil"). Most people tend to not use such an explicit language as they've never analyzed their own opinions (or "vibes" as the kids call it these days) in such detail but if pushed on it they usually steer one way or the other, though often with reservations that tend to be more pragmatic than ideological.