• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Remember these same assholes that started this shit in the 90’s about the “Gay Agenda” converting all the children? According to that very same fear mongering, we’re all supposed to be gay by now, cuz that’s how that works…

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      From a purely numbers standpoint, aren’t they kind of fight?

      Not many gay people were “out” in the 90s. Tons of gay people out today.

      So from a recordable numbers standpoint, the number of known gay people HAS gone up drastically since then.

      I think the bigger question to that fear mongering would be:

      “Yeah? And?”

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They’re not right because they numbers didn’t go up from conversion. They went up because people could admit who they are without fear of violence. The true number didn’t change, we just became capable of getting a more accurate count.

        • perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right, I think this is the point that the above comment is making as well. That the numbers of publicly/out gay people went up because of a more accurate count thanks to a less hostile sociopolitical climate.

          I think the point that’s being confused in that comment is that the fear mongering was obviously bullshit, and modern bigots pointing at any increase in LGBTQ+ identification nowadays may continue to use those statistics as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ platforms. Instead of engaging that argument that the hate mongers have always known is in bad faith, it’s much more to the point nowadays to make them explain what they think is wrong with increased LQBTQ+ identification, or as the original comment put it, “Yeah, and?”