I think the OP title is misleading–it’s only 20% of Z GENERATION, not 20% of TOTAL population
Totally disagree with that statement. Its 20% of the whole population. Over the lifetime of that population, not just a sent point in their lives.
There are very few medical papers, because medically transitioning minors doesn’t happen. The idea that this is something we need to worry about is 100% the product of transphobic propaganda.
Which, of course, is part of the point. The LUG from the nineties might answer a survey, “I was lesbian, but now I’m straight” and not be counted as LGBT, but the LUG from the 2010s would answer “I’m in a heterosexual relationship now, but I’m still Bi”.
I identify as a straight cis woman. The label fits well enough, and I’ve never felt compelled to identify otherwise. And God knows, that was the easy way to identify when i was 20.
I mean, sure, I’ve been attracted to women. But less often than I’ve been attracted to men, and mostly to women who are kinda masculine. (Some of those “women” turned out to be trans men. 
) And I’ve never been in a relationship with a woman. So it doesn’t seem appropriate to imply I’ve been oppressed as a lesbian or anything.
And yeah, I’ve never felt entirely comfortable with femininity. I’ve said this:
And yeah, I’m masculine enough that my junior year college roommates said they would prefer not to room with me, because i wasn’t feminine. And before having kids i fantasized about having breast reduction surgery, but wanted to be able to nurse babies. (And the softer, post-baby breasts are easier to deal with. Or maybe i just got used to them. I still wouldn’t opt for reconstruction if i had to have them removed for cancer or something.)
But … that’s about the worst I’ve suffered. I know trans people who really suffered. Who hated their bodies. Who felt compelled to seek out hormones, or bind awkward parts, or… I’m mostly okay with my body.
So i still identify as a straight cis woman. But i doubt i would if i were 20.
That article is on my list of "reasons to make sure my subscription to The Economist doesn’t get renewed. It’s all about fear mongering and denying people care.
I was having a similar thought, particularly as I am aware of a degree of bisexuality in myself, but not so as I would identify as bisexual. A kind of self-selecting and individualized bisexual erasure. Had I grown up in an environment more accepting of LGBT+ identities, not so committed to notions of heteronormativity, it is conceivable that I might identify differently.
Aye, perhaps this. Going by the “otherwise hidden” part, some of us (I’m a GenXer baby, yeah 
) aren’t really sure, we don’t know which label, if any of them apply. There are so many it seems like, and some of them sound so similar that we’re not sure which is which. I am a very specific variety of asexual, but there are nuances to that, for me, that I still am not sure what label/category/box to check is appropriate for me.
OK, I don’t know how you did it. I mean, I’ve seen some pretty quick work here. But how did you quote my post before I posted it?
That’s an awesome power. Please promise me you’ll never abuse it.
I read a book a few years ago - Everybody Lies by Davidovich. He examines anonymized Google search data, and comes to the conclusion that about 5% of men are gay, based on the porn they search for in private. Women, apparently, harder to nail down but it seems also roughly 5%, since straight women will also occasionally look at lesbian porn. The percentage holds whether a repressive southern Red state or a progressive state like California or New York.
I recall growing up (60’s), that the general awareness of gender issues was, to put it mildly, seriously lacking. There was no distinction between gay, effeminate, trans, cross-dressing, etc. Gayness in men was attributed to absent father, domineering mother, and other Freudian horse droppings. The popular wisdom was that gay men wanted to be women, and that it was a lifestyle choice. And as one character says in the movie Mambo Itlaiano - “choosing to be gay?? Why would anyone want another reason to get beat up in high school?”
My thought is that I didn’t have to learn what aspects of sex were attractive to me, as a straight male. The female form in variou aspects was intrinsically interesting and attractive. It seems to me this is true for all humas - the brain is specifically wired in development as to what turns a person on, and for some that is not an attraction to what their gender equipment at birth would indicate.
Similarly, people identify as a certain gender role. This too seems to be wired in during development and can be different than their physical equipment. An illustration of this is the book https://www.amazon.ca/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561 which tells the story of a baby whose penis was burned off during a botched circumcision, (Collective male groans here…) A know-it-all medical expert decided the simplest thing was to do full surgery and raise him as a girl since his theory was gender roles were learned. Despite never going through male puberty, despite being raised with a girl’s role and no male genitalia most of his childhood, he knew there was a problem, he knew things were wrong. So the brain has ingrained a gender identity role that society cannot alter. Presumably, with trans as with gay, the wiring is different (I won’t and can’t say “wrong”). They have one type of physical equipment but the other type of brain programming. Or… for some, a mix of two poles.
The other interesting aspect is that sex is pleasureable. It’s only that society has for various reasons at times repressed that enjoyment. We have had the myth of “slut shaming vs. saint” to control female sexuality; gay sex has been condemed; there’s always been that wave of puritanical though, that enjoying oneself is sinful and must be suppressed. I suppose the lesson from stories about prison and other institutions is that people will find ways to get pleasure despite what society says.
What I got from the Economist article was that there can/might be some consequences from long term use of puberty blockers. Any drugs have effects. Their warning is not “don’t do this” but “be aware we may find down the road that there are additional issues”. That’s not to say it should not be done - there’s only one way to find out if there are side effects. After all, there are side effects of replacement female hormones, but that doesn’t mean nobody uses them, either. The only way to know is to follow what happens. I would think if someone identifies themselves in a particular way, and continues to do so for years - then it’s not a passing fad, or attempt to be cool, it is something they truly identify with. If we have the means to help with this, to mitigate mental pain and anguish - we should do so.
But that is my point. If sexual-orientation is like being left-handed, as is often analogized - and it’s usually said that gay people didn’t choose to be gay - then it’s determined at birth. It doesn’t make sense that more and more people would be gay as homosexuality becomes more and more “popular.”
It means that 20% of the population was always gay - it’s just that, only in recent years, did the majority of them finally start identifying as such.
I’m not @DPRK.
But as a long-winded poster who edits the crap out of his posts I often find that I post something, and while I’m editing out all the typos I missed, all the missing or misplaced words, and maybe adding an afterthought paragraph or two, the page will update and I’ll see 3 fresh new posts below mine.
Which of course can then be quoted into my post while I’m still editing.
Now that the edit window remains open for IIRC 20 minutes, a lot can happen below your post in a fast-moving thread during those 20 minutes.
It’s a neat parlor trick I’d thought of, but I believe @DPRK’s manuever above is the first time I’ve seen it used.
Another point to ponder - I recall one psychologist discussing teenagers (decades ago, before gender was an issue) who mentioned that every teenager goes through a period of anxiety and self doubt trying to fit in with their peers and society - where they ask themselves “am I normal?”. This encompasses everything, to whether they fit in by liking things like the same music or TV or literature, to other things like “Is this hidden piece of me normal?” Gender of course is one of the largest pieces of identity, so it’s not surprising should teenagers wonder at it. A particular problem in our modern society with its emphasis on sex, is that a teen may think they are “not normal” (by the old-fashioned meaning of the word?) if they do not feel that sexual feelings are as big a part of their personality as the hype in media leads them to believe they should be.
it doesn’t help that many teen groups tend to pick on or ostracize those who deviate from the norm - again, not just in sexual issues, but in things like what topics they like, whether the play/follow the “right” sports or have the same cultural tastes as the “in” group.
You should see my interactions with discobot. For instance, @discobot, what did you say to the old man who tried to answer your question by writing on a sign when it was really foggy outside?
Reply hazy, try again
The figure seems suspect to me. I mean think about it. In any random group of 5 friends, 2 pair are couples and the fifth is gay, bisexual, trans? I don’t think so.
Even the 10% number seems high to me. I remember first hearing that number in college. Some joker made a comment that meant of the 20 men on our hall, 2 were fucking. Maybe they were (or wanted to in secret).
Right, just like how every time two heterosexual people of opposite genders come within a hundred yards of each other, they will invariably have sex (or want to in secret). There’s just no other way.
Over the last several decades, most information that I saw said that about 5% of people were gay.
There were various ways to interpret that. You could infer from it that 95% of people are straight but you could also take from it something like that some percentage of people are strictly dedicated to a particular sex (e.g. 10% with half being obligate gay and the other half being obligate straight) and a larger group that’s pretty much ambivalent and will happily get their emotional and physical rocks off with anything, so long as society allows it.
The latter probably has a better historical foundation to it since there have been some societies in the past (and present) that encouraged gay relationships and - so far as we can tell - the participants seem to have been randomly chosen from society not self-selected.
Personally, I’m still voting that our sexual instincts work like imprinting in birds but with the foundation being less about what you see as what you happen to be thinking about when you’re young. If you’re thinking about itchy wool clothing, then that will stick and you’ll have a fetish.
It seems high to me too. But on the other hand, theoretically, a huge number of people could be bisexual and in a heterosexual relationship, so we might never know they were bi.
This is does not consider environmental factors which could have changed the percentage of non-straight people between generations. Specifically, the amount of endocrine-disruptor chemicals released from plastics (notably bisphenol A) may be causing a significant increase in LGBT+, but especially transgenders, in recent generations over those of earlier generations.