This was actually one key point in helping me understand and figuring out the biology and genetics behind gender dysphoria and the rest of the LGBT.
Here is a presentation that I gave last summer. Slightly out of date with some details given what has been learned since, but the main aspects are all there. The presentation focus's primarily on explaining the gender dysphoria aspect the second half touches on the rest of the LGBT. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PdGQlNfY39JX9iPowsBh... Overall it is complex with many possible variants.
Given the sensitive nature I am not rushing to publish, but working on getting it right. Once the key aspects were figured out there is a ton to investigate in this area.
The reason religious groups tend to be so anti-gay (and in many prominent cases anti-birth control, anti-prostitution, pro-‘getting married and having kids’), is because those absolutely do directly correlate with increasing population and pro-social control of the population.
At least in an environment where how many soldiers you can field and how well you can direct your population to do what society wants (as compared to what the individuals want) matters. Which is pretty much all of history, with some very rare and historically ephemeral exceptions.
Most of the world still operates this way, and we’ll likely go back to operating this way in a generation or three anyway. It’s pretty fundamental to our biology and at least historic human social dynamics and economics.
> We’ll likely go back to operating this way in a generation or three anyway.
This is actually the argument of a work of fiction I'm working on, and I'm very curious about your chain of reasoning.
I see no evidence that other potential options currently in play are as good or better at reproducing, so eventually, the ‘old’ patterns will win out. Albeit fit to the current context.
I suspect we’re in the equivalent of the pre-Victorian era right now. I suspect the current dynamics will trend towards harems of voluntarily ‘kept’ women (on the lower status side for the women) and ‘in charge’ women in the high status side with staffs of ‘kept’ men, and lots of sexless men/Johns, until it breaks and we rotate again.
Notably, these dynamics have occurred many, many, many times over human history.
The dynamic with Will Smith seems to be an example of the latter, for instance. Most male pro sports players, actors, and businessmen being the former.
Against - birth control is a major change in human reproductive ‘physics’ (similar to nuclear weapons in the ‘physics’ of war).
So maybe something else entirely will emerge. I currently don’t see any clear winners though on that front, not that we aren’t trying. I see a massive shift towards it, actually, as people ‘get what they want’ more effectively in the short term, allowing those able to play the long game better to prosper.
The societal backlash is building though, and in 20-30 years when the current generation of women no longer get the benefits they previously enjoyed (and/or their kids are old enough to vote), we’ll see it. If we aren’t already.
Counter-Against - while we haven’t had any new world wars since inventing the nuke, it’s not like shooting/bombing/invading has stopped, has it? It’s just switched to a different presentation of the same shit.
We are getting more efficient at maximizing the damage and speeding up the iterations though.
I don't think the global fertility rate is in any way impacted by LGBT people not having children, even if it's a factor, it is just minuscule compared to the effects of e.g. better education and living in a post-industrial economy.
And because labor is so expensive, it’s hard to live/get things done?
Like….. has been increasingly the trend?
We have a ways to go, but population decreases leave a vacuum - and nature abhors a vacuum.
Birth control allows us to resist nature, but at some point someone is going to come up with something that neutralizes its effects (ideological, I’m guessing), and that person/group is going to reproduce to fill the vacuum.
LGBT doesn’t need to materially impact the numbers to be targeted - they just need to be clearly having an easier time while the other groups are ‘working harder’. That is more than sufficient to get demonized/‘other’d’/targeted, etc.
However, if left ‘unchecked’ (in a religious/societal sense), I’d be shocked if LGBTQ didn’t move the population growth rate needle at least 5-10%. Maybe as much as 25% if we count bi/trans/aro/childless by choice/BDSM/poly in the mix - anyone not producing children in the socially ‘right’ way.
Society wide? That is huge.
At least based on all the conservative sex scandals, and wives who suddenly learn their husbands have a side boy toy (or are going to the nearest public park or gay club at 2am), and women I’ve know that suddenly realize they’re actually lesbians when they’re 40.
Conversion “““therapy””” does not work, it is torture and has never worked but religious nutjobs keep insisting because they think it’s a choice, or because they like it, or because they think it’s their duty to “fix” people.