Explaining the LGBT Explosion

Why should a high number of bisexuals shock you?

The author seems to dismiss numerous claims that might contradict his thesis without any apparent evidence or argument beyond a “but nah, that clearly doesn’t sound right.” To me, he needs to do some work discussing each one of these claims before dismissal.

> Gays have far fewer biological children than straights. Fertility was conceivably equal back when almost all gays lived in the closet, but there can be little doubt that during the last fifty years, gay genes have become less prevalent.

“There can be little doubt” is not an argument. I have a little doubt!

> Could the rising LGBT share merely reflect the decline of closeting? In part. Still, if that’s the whole story, why is there such a massive generational pattern? Why would older LGBTs stay in the closet as the stigma plummets?

> You could appeal to age-segregated social circles. Octogenarians fret more about the intolerance of fellow octogenarians, and draw little comfort from the tolerance of today's teen-agers.

Yep, that actually makes a ton of sense. You need to do work before dismissing this. Listing potential arguments against your thesis is a good start to being intellectually honest and critical, but it’s not enough.

> Being part of Gen X, I confidently assert that we were far less intolerant than earlier generations.

No amount of the author’s confidence is sufficient to convince me.

> Another weakness of the closeting story is that mainstream stigma against bisexuals was always milder than against any of the other groups.

Extra work needed here.

> What’s really going on? The best stories are the very mechanisms that Wikipedia dismisses: recruitment and the media.

At this point in the article, the author confidently confirms the thesis he was looking for, simply because he believes he has listed and dismissed all other possible causes. I believe the author is confident about all these claims, but more work is required to show that he is correct.

I find it reasonable to think that people can broaden their sexual interests over time somewhat like their experience of foods, arts and even work.

I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality" because it was used so long a an excuse to persecute homosexuals. But like many arguments in our society, I think it is the wrong hill to die on. Because to overly concern oneself with winning the argument over whether homosexuality is acquired or not somewhat cedes the ground to the authoritarians. It implies that there is something to be lost if homosexuality is acquired. That if it were, we should probably then accept some regulation of the sexual lives of consenting adults.

I do understand there is a purely scientific interest in many questions. At the same time, this seems one of those questions that's very easily confounded by a myriad of social factors.

What about survivor bias here? Many gay men died of AIDS in the late 20th century, which might affect the numbers significantly.

In any case, I think the right interpretation is that more people are comfortable with reporting their sexuality truthfully and people are more open towards exploring their sexuality.