For the US:
Women ~50%
African Americans ~12%
Disabled ~ 20%
Homosexual ~7%
It’s a lot more than 2% for any one of those categories, let alone them all. You’ve comfortably described a group that forms the majority of the US population, even when allowing for the homosexual, African American, disabled woman, who is in all 4 ‘minorities’.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_in_the_United_Sta...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_demographics_of_the_Un...
Re:
by lazycog512 on Monday February 10, 2025 @10:29AM
(#43001407)
rather, homosexuality as a secondary non-lifestyle, non-professed interest, often in one-off scenarios, is WAY more common than culture would like to admit, and the intelligence agencies are in the perfect position to precisely observe that fact.
I'm not the parent comment, and I think I get the gist of what you're saying. To be fair to the parent comment though, it's not just making recruiting easier. It's reducing the risk of compromise within your organization. Just one compromised employee can present a tremendous risk, which is nothing to 2%.
Re:
by ineedasername on Thursday February 13, 2025 @07:57AM
(#43035388)
Why recruiting? It’s not as if gay people universally stayed away from these jobs. Given the times plenty probably didn’t understand or accept this part of who they were until careers were in full swing. The issue would have been stopping a risk that was already known and actively exploited.
I don’t think this is at all why normalization occurred, that intelligence communities had anything to do with it, but if they had then it wouldn’t need to have been for recruitment.
the decades of civil rights expansions, first for women, then african-americans, then disabled, and eventually the gays -- that was all just the CIA trying to do recruiting 2% easier?