If you are referring to Simple Homer’s post, what you are seeing is the assumption that “visibly gender-nonconforming” is strongly related to “willing to identify as gay”. Or maybe also what **boytyperanma **suggested about a “third sex”. There is a very strong string in this thread that it would be hard to find out the gay percentage in a lot of countries because so many people are not willing to be out in repressive cultures, which includes being unwilling to have a visibly gender-nonconforming appearance.
If we are talking about countries, it is a lot harder to move from a gay-unfriendly country to a gay-friendly one, than to move about in the US and go from, I don’t know, Pittsburgh to San Francisco.
The biggest problem with the question in the OP is that if you are looking at “true feelings” rather than just being self-identified as gay, then how do you define “gay”? I think it’s pretty widely accepted that there is a continuum of orientations from strictly straight through bisexuality (or pan-sexuality) to strictly gay. Where do you draw the line?
My own personal, biased opinion, only tenuously supported by research so far, is that the most hard-wired tendency to be attracted to the same sex is inborn but is not genetic. It is based on circumstances during pregnancy, such as the mother’s hormone levels and so on, and so is entirely situational. On that basis, it might well turn out that some cultural practices that could affect this (such as bearing children in later years) might vary greatly from one culture to another. It might even be affected by diet or weather. For myself, I hope we never find out.
Roddy