No, some people don't feel so strongly about this as part of their identity.

I am definitely "male" and I definitely like "women", but it doesn't cause me mental anguish to think a man looks good. Other men clearly have a problem with that thought.

I used to be bothered by the fact that I was uncomfortable when men would find me attractive. But I've realized that what's actually uncomfortable is anyone that I don't want to date, not just men. And now that I'm married, that's everyone but my wife. That same feeling I used to get when a man admitted they were attracted to me, I'd now feel when a woman says it.

IMO, you seem like you're on a path of introspection. I'd encourage you to do that introspection with less worry about being "wrong" and more thought towards how everyone is different.

If you feel something that you think is morally or ethically wrong, then I'd worry about that. But "gender isn't part of my identity" isn't wrong, and it's probably a lot more normal than you'd think. I mean, who talks about what they aren't unless it's a hot social topic right now?

In this day and age, and especially as I grow older, I have more and more respect for men (and women) who look good, almost in a platonic fashion. Attractiveness is a summation of multiple fitness factors, and overall those factors have been on the decline.

Edit: It's also not easy to look good, especially if you are 30+. It takes effort.

You're not missing anything, the point of these kinds of articles is to elevate sexual identity above other aspects of identity (like honesty, moral compass, skills) and sell that to people who feel listless. It's the commodification of identity.

If you're gay, it's inevitably going to be important, but that's not the point of articles like this. It's healthy to be disinterested when it's a product.

The ultimate commodification of beauty is selling plastic surgery. No literally anyone can be a beautiful woman with a few surgeries and hormones.

The whole LGBT movement and stuff wouldn’t need to exist if people were accepting.

People aren’t. And still aren’t.

When you actively oppress people for who they are, it’s not surprising it becomes more important.

I don't think this exists because it "needs" to, it exists because people want to read it. I think it's healthy to question why the audience is so responsive. It could be altruism, but people don't usually read articles out of altruism.

Why do LGBT movements still exist in cultures that were/are very accepting of LBTQ individuals then?

Alternatively: why are they completely absent in the countries that need them the most?

Why do scarecrows still exist in fields with no birds?

Why are there no scarecrows in fields full of birds, where they would be needed the most?

I love this analogy and I'm stealing it unabashedly.

Thanks; this is a great perspective. It's similar to the idea of survivorship bias.

You can see them in more accepting countries, but many of those countries were far from accepting before.

The US wouldn’t need Black Lives Matter if they actually did. Skin color wouldn’t matter and wouldn’t be part of people’s identity if people weren’t racist.

That's interesting as I see BLM in it's current form increasing the racial divide.

Seems to me that they are exacerbating the left/right divide (with the neoliberal center-right facing some internal divides), but not so much the racial divide.

They do for now but that’s just because of history, and the fact that the more esoteric parts of lgbt+ still aren’t fully accepted. As more generations pass it won’t be needed (hopefully)

> Why do LGBT movements still exist in cultures that were/are very accepting of LBTQ individuals then?

Do you have examples in mind? I can't think of a single culture that accepts LGBT as much as non-LGBT. Even ones that are somewhat close only became that way in the past decade or two.

> Alternatively: why are they completely absent in the countries that need them the most?

Because being identified as LGBT could literally endanger your life in those countries.

It's indeed because the language is empty and it should raise flags.

The posed question isn't answered. The article mentions that a higher percentage of women are lesbians. It implies that sexual fluidity is the opposite of heterosexuality, i.e. gay/lesbian.

Also look at how this article treats sex and gender as stable categories. That's very weird coming from researchers that study sexual fluidity.

AIUI, pure homosexuality is rather more common in males than females. That's not to say that male bisexuality or fluidity is not a thing for some males, of course it is. But pure lesbianism is comparatively rare.

Any characteristic that is relatable can be part of your identity. Or, put another way, any differences between you and another person which makes your emotional responses different can be part of your identity.

People who can relate around a subject can form a group identity. If a person in a group has a different base reaction to the rest of the group (and especially if the reactions are incompatible, unaccepting of each other), the person can feel outside of the group. They will not identify with the group.

Sexuality is definitely part of a person's identity. Emotional responses to sex/sexuality are quite involuntary after all.

The drive for community identity is a function of perceived oppression. Safety in numbers.

I don't want to rule out you being deeply abnormal, but perhaps you just feel accepted for who you are.

probably cause its been so important to _other_ people.

also, science tells us that the larger a community of mammals is, the greater their visual diversity becomes.

since the internet can make you feel like your community is billions of people, the lengths people go to "identify" themxelves will be extreme.

so, yesn tubmlrizing the dragonkin with the co spiracy kin is a very nstural affair. even your "hot take" is part of a identity you are trying to create.

Completely agree.

I'm happy for people to attach their identity to their sexuality, but i dont get it either.

>> RE: It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me.

edit: I'm addressing identity as a whole - not in the context of s3xual preferences.

I am no psychologist - but an engineer. I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first.

Some people are heavy feelers and run events through feelings first, especially if extroverts which also means they might look to the external world for validation - and only then run their perspective through the logic domain of the brain.

Neither is right nor wrong; I've noticed feeling & sensor types seem to have 'higher highs, and lower lows' in life.

That's not what I've noticed in engineers.

What I've noticed most often is engineers, who say they are logical and thinking-first unemotionally, exhibiting:

Anger, frustration, anxiety, exasperation, beligerence, smugness, laughter.

You've almost certainly met engineers who agitatedly tell you how much they are logical, beligerently "reason" with colleagues, or gleefully put down people they regard as soft and emotional.

Those are emotions.

This isn't true of everyone of course. Some people really seem like the emotion chip wasn't fitted. But I have noticed intense emotions in a number of engineers who explicitly describe themselves as being unemotional, logical, and thinking clearly.

It's an interesting blind spot.

Well put. My uneducated guess is that people who lack emotional intelligence tend to dismiss emotions as unimportant and tend to believe they are more rational than average precisely because their low emotional intelligence makes it harder for them to understand the importance of emotions in themselves and in others.

claps This is very, very true.

Engineers like to put on a front of "I am an logical being therefore I don't feel emotion like the lesser emotional beings". But they show all sorts of emotions like anger, frustrations, superiority, anxiety, etc.

Our peers just don't have very developed emotional intelligence, and don't view their emotions for what they are.

It's a big blind spot, and I think it is further blinded by the lack of emphasis on emotional intelligence that boys experience in growing up. There's also this odd societal view that you cannot be both emotional and intelligent/logical.

> I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first.

Engineers process things emotionally, too—we’re all human. Often they just refuse to recognize or admit those emotions, and get really resentful when faced with them, or forced to question their own feelings.

>Neither is right nor wrong;

My friend, aren't you being a little too nice, here? How much do we bend backward to accommodate these 'feelers'. IMO option these 'feelers' are children who never grew up and continue to be parasites on the 'adults' around them. Granted that for many, their traits may be biologically innate, but the 'adults' have only so much of goodwill to spare...

And thinkers are automata with no empathy or compassion. Stop denigrating people for processing reality differently than you.