Comment by graypegg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by graypegg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Occam’s razor, do you think there was anything dissuading people from officially recording themselves as being gay in the 1950s? What about the 1980s?

It’s worth looking at large societal trends from a lens of skepticism, I agree with you there. But I don’t think the change is as big as you might imagine it is.

Edit: the parent comment was edited to just a single hyphen, here’s the original as written

> Openly discussing reasons for the sudden exponential rise in the LGBT lifestyle shouldn't be as taboo as it is. It's a phenomenon that the public in general doesn't to look into. I don't think the explanation is as simple as "We threw off the shackles of religion". I think it's fair to ask "Are there chemicals in our food, or some chemical that we regularly come into contact with that may be causing this rapid change?" People born before 1950 it was less than 1 in 100, people born after 1997 it's more than 1 in 5. I'm not condemning, I just think it's odd, and I'm not really allowed to ask why without being shunned.

Replying here to the comment which was removed:

You can and should talk about the biological and social origins of homosexuality if it interests you. But, you should avoid doing it in a way that's insulting.

I would also suggest, since it's a sensitive topic affecting people that have been persecuted, making sure the comments are thoughtful and non-reductionist.

For people who'd prefer to be cavalier about the subject though, there's not lack of spaces on the internet to do so.

The other comment was deleted about being called a homophobe. As I was writing it I was unable to add my comment. So I will add it here (to be clear, this is not directly to the person I am responding too, just adding it to the thread).

-----

Wether or not you would actively try to restrict the rights of the community, there is clearly some about of homophobia there.

Otherwise why bother asking the question and thinking about it. Especially when you seem dismissive of the religion aspect when that's a very real aspect that has an impact outside of just churches.

Especially when we go farther and farther into our history being gay or even trans was far more accepted and normal (sometimes in slightly different ways like Rome) in some societies.

The harm that religion has done on many areas of humanity, like how we treat woman, should be well understood and not hard to point the same thing at LGBT+.

Why bother thinking...

For the record, I don't think something like chemicals or whatever make people gay, I actually believe something that is for some reason more inflammatory. The religious aspect is a major driver. The prevalence of homosexuality is a social thing, sexuality is largely not innate and is learned behavior. I don't believe Roman society as it existed for example would be possible if it were otherwise. A society with institutional pederastry, where men were often expected to engage in sex with other men, one where there wasn't even a word for homosexuality, but that had strict codes of sexual conduct nonetheless, is absolutely impossible if sexuality were innate from birth in the majority of the population.

I find this subject very interesting because I’m bi, and in my case it was difficult to come out even though my entire family is supportive and progressive. If it’d been the 50s, I would never have done so. I think you’re missing the fact that societal support extends to familial support, and that the latter is very impactful to people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com