</tle><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M12.1303 0.000379039C10.9833 -0.00959082 9.87819 0.431464 9.05309 1.22855L9.04556 1.23593L7.79145 2.48303C7.50587 2.767 7.50453 3.22877 7.78844 3.51441C8.07235 3.80004 8.53401 3.80139 8.81959 3.51741L10.0698 2.27423C10.6194 1.74503 11.3546 1.45229 12.1177 1.45892C12.8824 1.46556 13.6139 1.77236 14.1546 2.31323C14.6954 2.8541 15.0021 3.58577 15.0087 4.35065C15.0154 5.11353 14.7229 5.84857 14.1943 6.39829L12.0116 8.58145L12.0115 8.58155C11.7159 8.87739 11.36 9.10617 10.9682 9.25237C10.5764 9.39857 10.1577 9.45878 9.74051 9.42889C9.32337 9.39901 8.91752 9.27975 8.55051 9.07918C8.1835 8.87862 7.8639 8.60146 7.6134 8.26649C7.3722 7.94396 6.91526 7.87807 6.5928 8.11933C6.27034 8.36059 6.20447 8.81763 6.44567 9.14016C6.82142 9.64261 7.30082 10.0584 7.85134 10.3592C8.40186 10.66 9.01062 10.8389 9.63634 10.8838C10.2621 10.9286 10.8901 10.8383 11.4779 10.619C12.0656 10.3997 12.5994 10.0565 13.0429 9.61274L15.2302 7.42494L15.2391 7.4159C16.036 6.59062 16.4769 5.48529 16.467 4.33797C16.457 3.19066 15.9969 2.09316 15.1858 1.28185C14.3746 0.470545 13.2774 0.0103489 12.1303 0.000379039ZM7.29806 5.11625C6.67234 5.07142 6.0443 5.16173 5.45654 5.38103C4.86882 5.60031 4.33502 5.94355 3.89153 6.38727L1.70423 8.57506L1.69534 8.5841C0.898438 9.40939 0.457483 10.5147 0.467451 11.662C0.477418 12.8094 0.937512 13.9069 1.74864 14.7182C2.55976 15.5295 3.65701 15.9897 4.80407 15.9996C5.95113 16.0096 7.05622 15.5685 7.88132 14.7715L7.89035 14.7626L9.13717 13.5155C9.42192 13.2307 9.42192 12.7689 9.13717 12.4841C8.85243 12.1993 8.39077 12.1993 8.10602 12.4841L6.86392 13.7265C6.31432 14.2552 5.57945 14.5477 4.81675 14.5411C4.05204 14.5344 3.32054 14.2276 2.77979 13.6868C2.23904 13.1459 1.93231 12.4142 1.92566 11.6494C1.91904 10.8865 2.21146 10.1514 2.74011 9.60172L4.92287 7.41846C5.21854 7.12262 5.57437 6.89384 5.96621 6.74763C6.35805 6.60143 6.77674 6.54123 7.19389 6.57111C7.61104 6.601 8.01688 6.72026 8.38389 6.92082C8.75091 7.12138 9.0705 7.39855 9.32101 7.73352C9.56221 8.05605 10.0191 8.12194 10.3416 7.88068C10.6641 7.63942 10.7299 7.18238 10.4887 6.85985C10.113 6.3574 9.63359 5.94165 9.08307 5.64081C8.53255 5.33997 7.92378 5.16107 7.29806 5.11625Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Copy lk</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="16" height="17" viewBox="0 0 16 17" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path d="M10.6543 1.38723C10.3533 0.960814 9.95383 0.61341 9.48976 0.374567C9.02902 0.137956 8.51908 0.0130716 8.00115 0.0100098C7.86087 0.0101844 7.72354 0.0502687 7.60519 0.125581C7.48684 0.200893 7.39237 0.308324 7.3328 0.435326L5.00368 5.67077H3.029C2.72335 5.66964 2.42059 5.73003 2.13876 5.84833C1.85692 5.96663 1.60177 6.14043 1.38849 6.35938C1.16707 6.57502 0.991841 6.83346 0.873459 7.11897C0.755078 7.40447 0.696022 7.71108 0.699885 8.02014V13.691C0.699885 14.3087 0.945273 14.9012 1.38207 15.338C1.81886 15.7747 2.41128 16.0201 3.029 16.0201H13.348C13.8951 16.021 14.425 15.8283 14.8438 15.4762C15.2626 15.1241 15.5434 14.6352 15.6366 14.0961L16.6493 8.4252C16.7252 8.09192 16.7252 7.74582 16.6493 7.41254C16.566 7.08205 16.4104 6.7742 16.1936 6.51128C15.9746 6.25 15.7017 6.03926 15.3936 5.89355C15.0762 5.7467 14.7306 5.67068 14.3809 5.67077H10.5328L11.0391 4.37457C11.2397 3.88784 11.3162 3.35894 11.2619 2.83533C11.1853 2.30894 10.9763 1.81065 10.6543 1.38723ZM4.75052 14.5518H3.029C2.91049 14.5525 2.79303 14.5296 2.68349 14.4844C2.57394 14.4392 2.47452 14.3726 2.39102 14.2885C2.23609 14.1199 2.14945 13.8997 2.14799 13.6708V8.02014C2.14913 7.901 2.17389 7.78328 2.22082 7.67377C2.26775 7.56427 2.33592 7.46515 2.4214 7.38216C2.50369 7.29576 2.60267 7.22698 2.71233 7.17998C2.822 7.13298 2.94007 7.10874 3.05938 7.10874H4.7809L4.75052 14.5518ZM10.6746 7.05811H14.3809C14.5145 7.05821 14.6462 7.08942 14.7657 7.14925C14.8875 7.20532 14.9948 7.28845 15.0796 7.39229C15.1675 7.49052 15.2301 7.60871 15.2619 7.73659C15.2922 7.8665 15.2922 8.00162 15.2619 8.13153L14.2493 13.8024C14.2087 14.017 14.094 14.2106 13.9252 14.3492C13.7619 14.4812 13.558 14.5528 13.348 14.5518H6.19862V6.45052L8.43659 1.38723H8.52773C8.9042 1.50037 9.23304 1.73413 9.4636 2.05252C9.69416 2.37092 9.81365 2.75627 9.80368 3.14925C9.8181 3.39741 9.78015 3.64583 9.69229 3.87836L9.23659 5.04292C9.15397 5.273 9.12623 5.51921 9.15558 5.76191C9.1877 6.00427 9.27425 6.23623 9.40875 6.44039C9.5535 6.6376 9.74028 6.80017 9.95558 6.91634C10.1774 7.03206 10.4244 7.0912 10.6746 7.08849V7.05811Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Facebook</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="21" height="16" viewBox="0 0 21 16" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M2.22192 2.20503C2.36754 1.77115 2.78269 1.45455 3.26639 1.45455H17.9332C18.4169 1.45455 18.8321 1.77118 18.9777 2.2051L10.5999 8.02107L2.22192 2.20503ZM2.16639 3.94198V13.4545C2.16639 14.0529 2.66307 14.5455 3.26639 14.5455H17.9332C18.5365 14.5455 19.0332 14.0529 19.0332 13.4545V3.94206L11.0204 9.50462C10.7679 9.67991 10.4318 9.67991 10.1793 9.50462L2.16639 3.94198ZM20.4999 2.55809V13.4545C20.4999 14.8562 19.3465 16 17.9332 16H3.26639C1.85304 16 0.699707 14.8562 0.699707 13.4545V2.54545C0.699707 1.14379 1.85304 0 3.26639 0H17.9332C19.3407 0 20.4904 1.13441 20.4998 2.52818C20.5 2.53816 20.5001 2.54813 20.4999 2.55809Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Email</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path d="M6.785 1.92766C5.45134 1.57031 4.08049 2.36176 3.72314 3.69543L0.444815 15.9303C0.0874636 17.264 0.878901 18.6348 2.21255 18.9922L5.37495 19.8396V7.66664C5.37495 6.40099 6.40096 5.37498 7.66661 5.37498H19.4723C19.3299 5.30548 19.1788 5.24858 19.0201 5.20604L6.785 1.92766Z" stroke="none"></path><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M8.44161 7.4C7.86632 7.4 7.39995 7.86637 7.39995 8.44167V22.1081C7.39995 22.6834 7.86631 23.1498 8.4416 23.1498L22.1083 23.15C22.6836 23.15 23.1499 22.6836 23.1499 22.1083V8.44167C23.1499 7.86637 22.6836 7.4 22.1083 7.4H8.44161ZM10.3999 9.65C9.84766 9.65 9.39995 10.0977 9.39995 10.65C9.39995 11.2023 9.84766 11.65 10.3999 11.65H18.3999C18.9522 11.65 19.3999 11.2023 19.3999 10.65C19.3999 10.0977 18.9522 9.65 18.3999 9.65H10.3999ZM10.3999 14.15C9.84766 14.15 9.39995 14.5977 9.39995 15.15C9.39995 15.7023 9.84766 16.15 10.3999 16.15H15.3999C15.9522 16.15 16.3999 15.7023 16.3999 15.15C16.3999 14.5977 15.9522 14.15 15.3999 14.15H10.3999Z" stroke="none"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Not</div></button><button tabInx="0" id="trigger73961" aria-expand="false" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-ntrols="dialog73962" ariaLabel="View more" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="100" height="100" viewBox="0 0 100 100" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><circle cx="23" cy="50" r="9"></circle><circle cx="50" cy="50" r="9"></circle><circle cx="77" cy="50" r="9"></circle></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Other</div></button></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="post-hear"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt post-label"><a href=" class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-upperse--IDkUL ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd">Reports</a></div><h1 class="post-tle unpublished">Born This Way? The Rise of LGBT as a Social and Polil Inty</h1><h3 class="subtle">CSPI Report No. 6</h3><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-directn-lumn--Rq7pk ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-bottom-16--KVxKv"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-directn-lumn--Rq7pk ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-y-16--ohCEm"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-jtify-start--_8fEd ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-12--rODKq"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexGrow--mx4xz ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-8--HFpIK facepile"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__fac--FVkdk ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__size-40--pH6IT"><div class="profile-hover-rd-target ontend-rear2-ProfileAndPublitnHoverCard-module__profileHoverCardTarget--Od_YL"><a href=" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexAuto--CnX9I ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" /><img src=" siz="100vw" alt width="80" class="ontend-ponents-rponsive_img-module__img--Pgjj2 facepile-face ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__face--uAQkp ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__size-40--pH6IT ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__first--TZamh ontend-ponents-Facepile-module__last--DT3p3" /></picture></a></div></div></div></div></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-directn-lumn--Rq7pk"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-11--k1e8b ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-pub-primary-text--RzL7j ontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-upperse--IDkUL ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd"><div class="profile-hover-rd-target ontend-rear2-ProfileAndPublitnHoverCard-module__profileHoverCardTarget--Od_YL"><a href=" class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ratn-hover-unrle--BEYAn ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ">Eric Kfmann</a></div></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-4--zeW5_"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-11--k1e8b ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-pub-sendary-text--OzRTa ontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-upperse--IDkUL ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd">May 30, 2022</div></div></div></div></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexGrow--mx4xz ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-jtify-space-between--NvIcg ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-16--TpblU ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-y-16--ohCEm ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-top-tail-themed--e17yZ ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-bottom-tail-themed--eVwFY post-ufi"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-8--HFpIK"><div class="like-button-ntaer post-ufi-button style-button"><a role="button" class="post-ufi-button style-button has-label wh-borr"><svg role="img" style="height: 20px; width: 20px;" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="#000000" stroke-width="2" stroke="#000" xmlns=" class="in"><g><tle></tle><svg xmlns=" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-heart"><path d="M19 14c1.49-1.46 3-3.21 3-5.5A5.5 5.5 0 0 0 16.5 3c-1.76 0-3 .5-4.5 2-1.5-1.5-2.74-2-4.5-2A5.5 5.5 0 0 0 2 8.5c0 2.3 1.5 4.05 3 5.5l7 7Z"></path></svg></g></svg><div class="label">13</div></a><div role="dialog" class="modal typography out gone share-dialog popup"><div class="modal-table"><div class="modal-row"><div class="modal-cell modal-ntent no-fullscreen"><div class="ntaer"><button tabInx="0" type="button" data-ttid="close-modal" class="pencraft modal-btn modal-ex-btn no-marg ontend-pencraft-Button-module__inButton--xpBoH ontend-pencraft-Button-module__buttonBase--T0hXz ontend-pencraft-Button-module__size_40--RASvV ontend-pencraft-Button-module__prry_sendary--UEXV6 ontend-pencraft-Button-module__fill_empty--OPYgN ontend-pencraft-Button-module__round--D6jfD"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="sendary" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-x"><le x1="18" x2="6" y1="6" y2="18"></le><le x1="6" x2="18" y1="6" y2="18"></le></svg></button><div class="share-dialog-tle">Share this post</div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-directn-lumn--Rq7pk ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-32--uRr14 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-x-24--ViY5j ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-top-32--hE9Ly ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-bottom-48--OND"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-8--wF5Sz ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-tail--MiH57 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-radi-12--AmQy9 social-preview-box post"><div class="social-image-box"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" /><img src=" siz="100vw" alt loadg="lazy" width="120" class="ontend-ponents-rponsive_img-module__img--Pgjj2 social-image" /></picture></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-directn-lumn--Rq7pk ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-y-8--exiCC ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-left-12--eE6bp"><h4 class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-16--fFowu ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-bold--Ps9DB ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-primary--ud4Z0 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__hear4--hH3cg">Born This Way? The Rise of LGBT as a Social and Polil Inty</h4><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY"></div></div></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-jtify-space-between--NvIcg ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-8--HFpIK share-dialog-buttons-wrapper"><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="20" height="16" viewBox="0 0 20 16" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M12.1303 0.000379039C10.9833 -0.00959082 9.87819 0.431464 9.05309 1.22855L9.04556 1.23593L7.79145 2.48303C7.50587 2.767 7.50453 3.22877 7.78844 3.51441C8.07235 3.80004 8.53401 3.80139 8.81959 3.51741L10.0698 2.27423C10.6194 1.74503 11.3546 1.45229 12.1177 1.45892C12.8824 1.46556 13.6139 1.77236 14.1546 2.31323C14.6954 2.8541 15.0021 3.58577 15.0087 4.35065C15.0154 5.11353 14.7229 5.84857 14.1943 6.39829L12.0116 8.58145L12.0115 8.58155C11.7159 8.87739 11.36 9.10617 10.9682 9.25237C10.5764 9.39857 10.1577 9.45878 9.74051 9.42889C9.32337 9.39901 8.91752 9.27975 8.55051 9.07918C8.1835 8.87862 7.8639 8.60146 7.6134 8.26649C7.3722 7.94396 6.91526 7.87807 6.5928 8.11933C6.27034 8.36059 6.20447 8.81763 6.44567 9.14016C6.82142 9.64261 7.30082 10.0584 7.85134 10.3592C8.40186 10.66 9.01062 10.8389 9.63634 10.8838C10.2621 10.9286 10.8901 10.8383 11.4779 10.619C12.0656 10.3997 12.5994 10.0565 13.0429 9.61274L15.2302 7.42494L15.2391 7.4159C16.036 6.59062 16.4769 5.48529 16.467 4.33797C16.457 3.19066 15.9969 2.09316 15.1858 1.28185C14.3746 0.470545 13.2774 0.0103489 12.1303 0.000379039ZM7.29806 5.11625C6.67234 5.07142 6.0443 5.16173 5.45654 5.38103C4.86882 5.60031 4.33502 5.94355 3.89153 6.38727L1.70423 8.57506L1.69534 8.5841C0.898438 9.40939 0.457483 10.5147 0.467451 11.662C0.477418 12.8094 0.937512 13.9069 1.74864 14.7182C2.55976 15.5295 3.65701 15.9897 4.80407 15.9996C5.95113 16.0096 7.05622 15.5685 7.88132 14.7715L7.89035 14.7626L9.13717 13.5155C9.42192 13.2307 9.42192 12.7689 9.13717 12.4841C8.85243 12.1993 8.39077 12.1993 8.10602 12.4841L6.86392 13.7265C6.31432 14.2552 5.57945 14.5477 4.81675 14.5411C4.05204 14.5344 3.32054 14.2276 2.77979 13.6868C2.23904 13.1459 1.93231 12.4142 1.92566 11.6494C1.91904 10.8865 2.21146 10.1514 2.74011 9.60172L4.92287 7.41846C5.21854 7.12262 5.57437 6.89384 5.96621 6.74763C6.35805 6.60143 6.77674 6.54123 7.19389 6.57111C7.61104 6.601 8.01688 6.72026 8.38389 6.92082C8.75091 7.12138 9.0705 7.39855 9.32101 7.73352C9.56221 8.05605 10.0191 8.12194 10.3416 7.88068C10.6641 7.63942 10.7299 7.18238 10.4887 6.85985C10.113 6.3574 9.63359 5.94165 9.08307 5.64081C8.53255 5.33997 7.92378 5.16107 7.29806 5.11625Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Copy lk</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="16" height="17" viewBox="0 0 16 17" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path d="M10.6543 1.38723C10.3533 0.960814 9.95383 0.61341 9.48976 0.374567C9.02902 0.137956 8.51908 0.0130716 8.00115 0.0100098C7.86087 0.0101844 7.72354 0.0502687 7.60519 0.125581C7.48684 0.200893 7.39237 0.308324 7.3328 0.435326L5.00368 5.67077H3.029C2.72335 5.66964 2.42059 5.73003 2.13876 5.84833C1.85692 5.96663 1.60177 6.14043 1.38849 6.35938C1.16707 6.57502 0.991841 6.83346 0.873459 7.11897C0.755078 7.40447 0.696022 7.71108 0.699885 8.02014V13.691C0.699885 14.3087 0.945273 14.9012 1.38207 15.338C1.81886 15.7747 2.41128 16.0201 3.029 16.0201H13.348C13.8951 16.021 14.425 15.8283 14.8438 15.4762C15.2626 15.1241 15.5434 14.6352 15.6366 14.0961L16.6493 8.4252C16.7252 8.09192 16.7252 7.74582 16.6493 7.41254C16.566 7.08205 16.4104 6.7742 16.1936 6.51128C15.9746 6.25 15.7017 6.03926 15.3936 5.89355C15.0762 5.7467 14.7306 5.67068 14.3809 5.67077H10.5328L11.0391 4.37457C11.2397 3.88784 11.3162 3.35894 11.2619 2.83533C11.1853 2.30894 10.9763 1.81065 10.6543 1.38723ZM4.75052 14.5518H3.029C2.91049 14.5525 2.79303 14.5296 2.68349 14.4844C2.57394 14.4392 2.47452 14.3726 2.39102 14.2885C2.23609 14.1199 2.14945 13.8997 2.14799 13.6708V8.02014C2.14913 7.901 2.17389 7.78328 2.22082 7.67377C2.26775 7.56427 2.33592 7.46515 2.4214 7.38216C2.50369 7.29576 2.60267 7.22698 2.71233 7.17998C2.822 7.13298 2.94007 7.10874 3.05938 7.10874H4.7809L4.75052 14.5518ZM10.6746 7.05811H14.3809C14.5145 7.05821 14.6462 7.08942 14.7657 7.14925C14.8875 7.20532 14.9948 7.28845 15.0796 7.39229C15.1675 7.49052 15.2301 7.60871 15.2619 7.73659C15.2922 7.8665 15.2922 8.00162 15.2619 8.13153L14.2493 13.8024C14.2087 14.017 14.094 14.2106 13.9252 14.3492C13.7619 14.4812 13.558 14.5528 13.348 14.5518H6.19862V6.45052L8.43659 1.38723H8.52773C8.9042 1.50037 9.23304 1.73413 9.4636 2.05252C9.69416 2.37092 9.81365 2.75627 9.80368 3.14925C9.8181 3.39741 9.78015 3.64583 9.69229 3.87836L9.23659 5.04292C9.15397 5.273 9.12623 5.51921 9.15558 5.76191C9.1877 6.00427 9.27425 6.23623 9.40875 6.44039C9.5535 6.6376 9.74028 6.80017 9.95558 6.91634C10.1774 7.03206 10.4244 7.0912 10.6746 7.08849V7.05811Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Facebook</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="21" height="16" viewBox="0 0 21 16" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M2.22192 2.20503C2.36754 1.77115 2.78269 1.45455 3.26639 1.45455H17.9332C18.4169 1.45455 18.8321 1.77118 18.9777 2.2051L10.5999 8.02107L2.22192 2.20503ZM2.16639 3.94198V13.4545C2.16639 14.0529 2.66307 14.5455 3.26639 14.5455H17.9332C18.5365 14.5455 19.0332 14.0529 19.0332 13.4545V3.94206L11.0204 9.50462C10.7679 9.67991 10.4318 9.67991 10.1793 9.50462L2.16639 3.94198ZM20.4999 2.55809V13.4545C20.4999 14.8562 19.3465 16 17.9332 16H3.26639C1.85304 16 0.699707 14.8562 0.699707 13.4545V2.54545C0.699707 1.14379 1.85304 0 3.26639 0H17.9332C19.3407 0 20.4904 1.13441 20.4998 2.52818C20.5 2.53816 20.5001 2.54813 20.4999 2.55809Z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Email</div></button><button tabInx="0" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><path d="M6.785 1.92766C5.45134 1.57031 4.08049 2.36176 3.72314 3.69543L0.444815 15.9303C0.0874636 17.264 0.878901 18.6348 2.21255 18.9922L5.37495 19.8396V7.66664C5.37495 6.40099 6.40096 5.37498 7.66661 5.37498H19.4723C19.3299 5.30548 19.1788 5.24858 19.0201 5.20604L6.785 1.92766Z" stroke="none"></path><path fill-le="evenodd" clip-le="evenodd" d="M8.44161 7.4C7.86632 7.4 7.39995 7.86637 7.39995 8.44167V22.1081C7.39995 22.6834 7.86631 23.1498 8.4416 23.1498L22.1083 23.15C22.6836 23.15 23.1499 22.6836 23.1499 22.1083V8.44167C23.1499 7.86637 22.6836 7.4 22.1083 7.4H8.44161ZM10.3999 9.65C9.84766 9.65 9.39995 10.0977 9.39995 10.65C9.39995 11.2023 9.84766 11.65 10.3999 11.65H18.3999C18.9522 11.65 19.3999 11.2023 19.3999 10.65C19.3999 10.0977 18.9522 9.65 18.3999 9.65H10.3999ZM10.3999 14.15C9.84766 14.15 9.39995 14.5977 9.39995 15.15C9.39995 15.7023 9.84766 16.15 10.3999 16.15H15.3999C15.9522 16.15 16.3999 15.7023 16.3999 15.15C16.3999 14.5977 15.9522 14.15 15.3999 14.15H10.3999Z" stroke="none"></path></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Not</div></button><button tabInx="0" id="trigger73963" aria-expand="false" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-ntrols="dialog73964" ariaLabel="View more" type="button" class="button share-actn"><div class="actn-in"><svg role="img" width="100" height="100" viewBox="0 0 100 100" fill="none" stroke-width="1.8" stroke="#000" xmlns="><g><tle></tle><circle cx="23" cy="50" r="9"></circle><circle cx="50" cy="50" r="9"></circle><circle cx="77" cy="50" r="9"></circle></g></svg></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-14--Ume6q ontend-pencraft-Text-module__le-height-20--p0dP8 ontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf ontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR ontend-pencraft-Text-module__lor-sendary--WRADg ontend-pencraft-Text-module__ret--dW0zZ ontend-pencraft-Text-module__body4--Pl3xY">Other</div></button></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><a role="button" href=" class="post-ufi-button style-button post-ufi-ment-button has-label wh-borr"><svg role="img" style="height: 20px; width: 20px;" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="#000000" stroke-width="2" stroke="#000" xmlns=" class="in"><g><tle></tle><svg xmlns=" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-msage-circle"><path d="m3 21 1.9-5.7a8.5 8.5 0 1 1 3.8 3.8z"></path></svg></g></svg><div class="label">1</div></a></div><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-8--HFpIK"><a role="button" href="javascript:void(0)" class="post-ufi-button style-button no-in has-label wh-borr"><div class="label">Share</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="visibily-check"></div><div class class><div class="available-ntent"><div dir="to" class="body markup"><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Summary<div id="§summary" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><ul><li><p>The last has seen a precipo rise the share of Amerins intifyg as LGBT, particularly among the youngt adults. Today, among those unr 30, a wi range of surveys nverge on a number of around 20%.</p></li><li><p>Government data om Canada and the UK dite that surveys might be overtimatg the extent of the rise LGBT inty. This veat mt be kept md unrstandg this report. Nohels, the ernment sourc dite that the trend is real, even if ls reliable surveys might exaggerate . The UK’s Office for Natnal Statistics fds that 7.6% of those 16-24 intify as LGBT, which n be taken as a low-end timate for that untry.</p></li><li><p>The most popular LGBT inty is bisexual, which is signifintly more mon among women than men.</p></li><li><p>When we look at homosexual behavr, we fd that has grown much ls rapidly than LGBT intifitn. Men and women unr 30 who reported a sexual partner the last five years dropped om around 96% exclively heterosexual the 1990s to 92% exclively heterosexual 2021. Whereas 2008 attus and behavr were siar, by 2021 LGBT intifitn was nng at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavr.</p></li><li><p>The thor provis a high-pot timate of an 11-pot crease LGBT inty between 2008 and 2021 among Amerins unr 30. Of that, around 4 pots n be explaed by an crease same-sex behavr. The majory of the crease LGBT inty n be traced to how those who only engage heterosexual behavr scribe themselv.</p></li><li><p>Very liberal iology is associated wh intifyg as LGBT among those wh heterosexual behavr, pecially women. It seems that an unrlyg psychologil disposn is clg people wh heterosexual behavr to intify both as LGBT and very liberal. The most liberal rponnts have moved om 10-15% non-heterosexual intifitn 2016 to 33% 2021. Other iologil groups are more stable.</p></li><li><p>Very liberal iology and LGBT intifitn are associated wh anxiety and prsn young people. Very liberal young Amerins are twice as likely as others to experience the problems. 27% of young Amerins wh anxiety or prsn were LGBT 2021. This relatnship appears to have strengthened sce 2010.</p></li><li><p>Among young people, mental health problems, liberal iology, and LGBT inty are strongly rrelated. Usg factor analysis two different studi shows that assumg one mon variable between all three tras explas 40-50% of the variatn.</p></li><li><p>Bee the rise LGBT inty is so heavily ncentrated on the polil left, s fluence on the balance of power between the two parti is likely to be limed.</p></li><li><p>College stunts majorg the social scienc and humani are about 10 pots more LGBT than those STEM. Meanwhile, 52% of stunts takg highly polil majors such as race or genr studi intify as LGBT, pared to 25% among stunts overall.</p></li><li><p>Var data sourc dite that genr nonnformy – trans and non-bary inty – reached s peak the last few years and has started to cle.</p></li><li><p>What kd of high school or llege a young person attends poorly predicts their likelihood of intifyg as LGBT. The one exceptn is Liberal Arts lleg, where 38% of stunts scribe themselv this way. This dit that schoolg might not have a large effect on chang LGBT inty.</p></li><li><p>Overall, the data suggt that while there has been an crease same-sex behavr recent years, socpolil factors likely expla most of the rise LGBT inty.</p></li></ul><div class="file-embed-wrapper" data-ponent-name="FileToDOM"><div class="file-embed-ntaer-rear"><div class="file-embed-ntaer-top"><img class="file-embed-thumbnail-flt" src=" /><div class="file-embed-tails"><div class="file-embed-tails-h1">Click "download" for a PDF</div><div class="file-embed-tails-h2">1.31MB ∙ PDF file</div></div><a class="file-embed-button wi" href=" rel><span class="file-embed-button-text">Download</span></a></div><a class="file-embed-button narrow" href=" rel><span class="file-embed-button-text">Download</span></a></div></div><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Introductn<div id="§troductn" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>In April, Ross Douthat observed that the share of young Amerins intifyg as lbian, gay, bisexual, or transgenr had risen precipoly over the last . This, he argued, was the ntext behd what he termed the new “LGBTQ Culture War” polics and the media. Douthat set out three possible explanatns for the phenomenon:</p><ol><li><p>LGBT, like left-handns, is a te exprsn of the range of human physlogil diversy, which until now had been reprsed by nservative social mor.</p></li><li><p>The rise LGBT reprents a form of youthful exploratn, and many will revert back to heterosexual and cisgenr intifitn later life.</p></li><li><p><span>Alternative sexual inti are a form of social ntagn, cubated onle and by tnal and medil stutns.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-1-59490300" href=" rel>1</a></div></p></li></ol><p><span>The battle over Florida’s Parental Rights Edutn Bill, dubbed the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill by progrsiv, is emblematic of this new culture war.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-2-59490300" href=" rel>2</a></div><span> Likewise, a claimed 1,000% rise transgenr inty sce 2010 has been hotly bated.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-3-59490300" href=" rel>3</a></div><span> Is this a rult of socializatn and imatn, or do sprg om the liftg of social barriers? This report fds evince for both the first and third proposns above. However, poss a val distctn between LGBT inty and behavr. The youthful surge is maly about LGBT inty, wh nsirably ls change sexual behavr. The rise is greatt for bisexualy, pecially among femal, wh ls change for gays and lbians. The growth LGBT intifitn shows no signs of slowg down among the young, but there is pellg evince that genr nonnformy peaked around 2020 and cled 2021. It appears ls prevalent among teenagers than those their early twenti.</span></p><p><span>In addn, there is an important polil dimensn to the rise. This report fds that much of the LGBT rise has occurred among very liberal or far left-wg young people. Is this bee such people are more liberated, or bee LGBT is now a kd of polil inty? The evince reviewed here dit that an explicly polil motivatn may be at work among wh and the universy ted, but this is ls likely to acunt for the rise LGBT inty among young mori and those whout a llege tn.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-4-59490300" href=" rel>4</a></div><span> The data suggt that while progrsiv form the re of the movement, there has also been a liberal shift the broar culture that has affected a wir range of people. This turn rais the qutn of the polil implitns of the LGBT surge. If, as the data show, sexual orientatn is highly rrelated wh polil beliefs, then might we expect to see Democrats benef om this shift the future? This report suggts perhaps not, as the LGBT rise is takg place largely wh the liberal votg bloc, limg s potential to shift the partisan balance.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Sexual Orientatn: Nature or Nurture?<div id="§sexual-orientatn-nature-or-nurture" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>There is an tablished lerature on sexual orientatn and the gree to which is herable, shaped by early life experience, or by broar cultural trends. Tw studi show that intil tws n have different sexual orientatns, suggtg that both gen and environment play a role.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-5-59490300" href=" rel>5</a></div><span> In terms of psychometrics, an early measure of sexual behavr was the Heterosexual-Homosexual Ratg Sle, known as the Ksey Sle after the pneerg sexualy rearcher Aled Ksey who first troduced </span><em>Sexual Behavr the Human Male</em><span> (1948). The sle rang om 0, pletely heterosexual, to 6, pletely homosexual, wh 3 reprentg equal sexual attractn to men and women.</span></p><p><span>In the 1950s, Ksey claimed that 37% of men and 11% of women had a same-sex experience, though his sample has been cricized for havg a selectn bias. Subsequent rearch based on physlogil measur of aroal fds that many more people experience “cintal homosexual feelgs and ntacts” than “persistent and strong feelgs and equent same-sex experienc.” Rearch also fds that male aroal is more bimodal and female aroal more spectral. This lks to accumulated survey fdgs recent s showg that women (87%) are ls likely than men (93%) to intify as ‘pletely heterosexual’ on the Ksey Sle.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-6-59490300" href=" rel>6</a></div></p><p><span>The fdgs dite that there is physlogil variatn patterns of sexual attractn. Society creat l that ern when we exprs emotns, such as when is appropriate to lgh or cry.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-7-59490300" href=" rel>7</a></div><span> Likewise, we might expect that culture and centiv n play a role reprsg or enuragg people to intify wh their feelgs, however fleetg. The evince here appears to show that people wh strong attractns, pecially liberals, no longer feel reprsed when to intifyg as non-heterosexual. However, also dit that very liberal young people wh cintal homosexual feelgs are creasgly intifyg as LGBT. I pos that a mon psychologil orientatn unrli both strong polil liberalism and non-heterosexual intifitn. This has teracted wh a more mornist, transgrsive youth culture. Subgroups that are equipped wh the right psychologil predisposns are phed towards intifyg as both LGBT and very liberal.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">The Rise of the LGBT Populatn?<div id="§the-rise-of-the-lgbt-populatn" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>There has been a dramatic rise the LGBT share of the US populatn sce 2012, and pecially sce 2017. Gallup’s 2021 annual survey of more than 12,000 Amerin adults found a pronounced rise, om 5.6% 2020 to 7.1% 2021. In fact, this was twice as high as the share 2012, driven largely by rapid LGBT growth among Gen Z and Millennials. The General Social Survey (GSS) fields a smaller sample than Gallup of around 2,000 people, but is known as a very high-qualy, natnally reprentative survey. The 2021 GSS, like the Gallup data, saw LGBT share tick up to 7.6% om 6% 2018 and 4% 2012.</p><p><span>It is important to regnize that young people who are high psychologil openns or other characteristics associated wh non-heterosexual inty may be more likely to plete surveys, and this may be biasg the data. In Bra, YouGov fds that a quarter of the 5,407 18-20-year-olds s Profil panel 2022 intified as LGBTQ, wh no clear difference by age.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-8-59490300" href=" rel>8</a></div><span> However, the 2019 official Office of Natnal Statistics (ONS) figur, g a siar qutn on a 320,000 natnal sample, fds that only 7.6 percent of 16-24 year-olds intified as LGBTQ s most recent release.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-9-59490300" href=" rel>9</a></div><span> This suggts the share of sexual mori uld be overstated surveys by a factor of 2 or 3. And if we pare the 0.8 percent transgenr and non-bary share of Gen-Z the 2021 Canadian cens wh Gallup’s 2.1 percent transgenr Gen-Z timate for the Uned Stat the same year, seems plsible that the genr nonnformg share is ls than half of what surveys suggt. While Canadian cens and UK ernment data suggt that surveys are overtimatg the share of LGBT-intifyg dividuals, they also dite that the rise LGBT inty over time is real. Nohels, reviewg the data this paper, is important to keep md that the top-le rults on LGBT inty and behavr might be exaggerated.</span></p><p>As Figure 1 reveals, the sharpt crease LGBT share acrdg to Gallup was among Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012 (i.e., now unr 25), wh the LGBT proportn doublg om 10.5% 2017 to 20.8% 2021. The share also rose imprsively among Millennials (born 1981-1996, now aged 26-41), om 7.8 to 10.5% of the total. The trends other generatns, by ntrast, were relatively stable, wh a mere 4.2% of Gen X (now 42-57) and 2.6% of Boomers (now 58-76) intifyg as anythg other than heterosexual.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1440" height="940" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 1. Source: Jon 2022.</figptn></figure></div><p>The GSS tells a siar generatnal story. Gen Z’s LGBT share rose om 9.4% 2016 to 12.1% 2018 to 19.8% 2021. Millennials creased ls, om 6.9% 2012 to 10.8% 2018 to 13% 2021. Among Gen X the numbers were more most: 5.1% 2012, 4.4% 2018, and 8.8% 2021. For Boomers the figur showed the lowt rise, om 2.1% 2012 to 2.7% 2018 and 4% 2021. It is important to note that GSS ed an onle rather than face-to-face survey 2021, which may have boosted the LGBT share if a stigma is still attached to intifyg as LGBT. Even so, we see a pattern siar to Gallup: a substantial rise between 2017-18 and 2021. In absolute terms, this is most pronounced among Gen Z, but the GSS enpass virtually all generatns.</p><p>Sce generatnal analysis is nfound somewhat by age, a clearer picture appears when examg trends over time by discrete age groups. Figure 2 shows the rults by fixed age group for each year of the GSS. The age groups nta a siar number of people each year, and this perms to notice a marked change wh each age band over time. The share of LGBT dividuals among Amerins unr 30 jumped om 4.8% 2010 to 16.3% 2021 but also rose substantially among those aged 30 to 44 and, wh some noise, wh the 45 to 64 group. While the raw pot crease is greatt for those unr 30, almost all age groups experienced a siar percentage crease, between 100 and 200%.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="839" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 2. Source: General Social Survey (GSS), 2008-2021. Low sample size, so sgle years should be terpreted wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Youth LGBT Intifitn Other Large Datasets<div id="§youth-lgbt-intifitn--other-large-datasets" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>For further parison, the Foundatn for Individual Rights Edutn (FIRE)’s 2020 and 2021 surveys of a bed sample of 57,000 unrgraduate stunts at top US universi showed a statistilly signifint crease non-heterosexual intifitn om 18.6% 2020 to 25.7% 2021. Age ma no statistilly signifint difference, but stunts 2021 were nsirably more likely to intify as LGBT than those 2020. Though FIRE expand s verage om the leadg 50 lleg to 150 (maly ele) schools between the two years, this do not acunt for the difference. When I exame the change wh the origal 50 lleg surveyed 2020, there is a rise LGBT share om 18.6% 2020 to 24.5% 2021.</p><p>The Cooperative Congrsnal Electn Study (CCES), which polls over 60,000 dividuals each year, fds that the LGBT share the (weighted) data among those aged 18 to 25 rose om 21.3% 2016 to 27.9% 2020. While the figur the FIRE and CCES are somewhat higher than the Gallup or GSS, we see the same broad trend: a substantial crease non-heterosexual inty om the mid-2010s to the prent, wh over 20% of young people intifyg as LGBT.</p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">The Distctive, but Not Exclive, Rise of Bisexualy<div id="§the-distctive-but-not-exclive-rise-of-bisexualy" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>Figure 3 breaks out the ma ponents of LGBT intifitn across four surveys.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-10-59490300" href=" rel>10</a></div><span> The numbers broadly show that bisexualy is between 50 and 300% more prevalent among women than men. By ntrast, homosexualy is 50 to 200% more mon among men than women. The ‘other’ tegory vari a great al and is affected by qutn wordg, as FIRE has the richt set of optns among the survey stutns, cludg pansexual, queer, qutng, and other. Whether stunts are more likely to select one of the, or qutn wordg plays a key role, is difficult to ascerta.</span></p><p>Fally, the genr nonnformg figur show a great al of variabily, wh jt a lone dividual unr 30 intifyg as such the entire GSS 2021 to nearly 800 dividuals (2.4%) among young people surveyed by the CCES 2020. The CCES is the least reprentative terms of samplg ame, even as data are weighted on major mographic variabl. Th we should take the 6% figure for trans intifitn wh utn. The overall figure for non-heterosexuals among those unr 30 is 16% the GSS, 21% Gallup, 23% FIRE, and 25% the CCES. Factorg ernment and cens data ditg that surveys may exaggerate the relevant numbers, I am nfint that somewhere between 10-20% of young Amerins today intify as LGBT.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="941" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 3. Source: FIRE 2020, 2021 (N=57,029), CCES 2020 (N=13,699), GSS 2021 (N=233 to 401), Gallup 2021 (N=approximately 2,500). FIRE and CCES figur e data weights. Note that FIRE is a survey of stunts who are overwhelmgly aged 18 to 24, so is not exactly parable to the other datasets. Gallup figur are based on Gen Z, aged 18 to 25. CCES and GSS are based on rponnts aged 18-29.</figptn></figure></div><p>Which inti have grown the most? Deposg the change by subtegory the Gallup data Figure 4 shows that the most popular LGBT tegory is bisexualy, which stands at 15% among Gen Z, 6% for Millennials, and jt 1.7% for the middle-aged Gen X. By ntrast, gay and lbian numbers are much lower. Among Gen Z, the gay share is only 2.5% and the lbian share 2%, ls even than transgenr at 2.1%.</p><p>The share of bisexuals is 13 pots higher among Gen Z pared to Gen X, but the bed share of gays and lbians among Zoomers is only 2.6 pots higher. In proportnal terms, there is a generatnal difference across all LGBT tegori, but the absolute pot difference between newer and olr generatns is substantially higher for bisexualy than others. Once aga, Gen Z stands out, wh Millennials also appearg to embrace new sexuali, albe to a lser gree. Gen X and olr generatns ntue to manift low LGBT shar.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="764" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 4. Source: Jon 2022.</figptn></figure></div><p>Breakg down the over-time trends among people unr 30 by genr the GSS Figure 5, we see that the largt tegory 2021 is bisexual female at 12.1%, followed by bisexual male at 10.3%, gay mal at 7.6%, and lbians at 5%. Trend l have risen for all four tegori sce 2008, wh bisexualy showg the hight raw pot growth. The GSS, however, suffers om low sample siz for unr-30 sexual mori when they are subdivid by year and age. Th is val to smooth the volatily the l over time. Of the trends, the rise female bisexualy is the most statistilly signifint, peakg 2018.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="894" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 5. Source: GSS 2008-2021. N rang om 78 to 204 per age group per year, wh cell unts as low as 1 for some male data pots, so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><p>The CCES is ls natnally reprentative but has a much higher sample of young people than the GSS. It shows a bigger gap between male and female bisexualy among the unr-30s: 15.5% of women unr 30, but jt 7.2% of men 2020. This reprents an crease over 2016 for women, who were then 10.8% bisexual. Men are unchanged between the two perds. Gays and lbians bed form approximately 5% of the unr-30 sample both 2016 and 2020. Th CCES seems to dite growth takg place maly the female bisexual group wh the young populatn. This ports wh statistil analysis of the GSS, where female bisexual growth also stands out. In the FIRE stunt sampl, focg only on the schools sampled both years, 15.5% of women 2021 are bisexual, up om 12.6% 2020. The lbian share rose to 2.9% om 2.1%, and the gay share to 6.7% om 5.8%. The male bisexual share creased as well, to 6% om 4% 2020.</p><p><span>What of trans or non-bary intifitn? In the GSS, such dividuals make up only a ty actn of the sample, at jt 0.25% pared to 1.1% the 2021 FIRE stunt data and 2.1% the 2021 Gallup data among Gen Z. In the FIRE data, the non-bary share of stunts </span><em>cled</em><span> the years, om 1.5% 2020 to 0.9% 2021. This is a statistilly signifint drop that will be discsed a later sectn on trends genr nonnformy, where I exame evince that the phenomenon has peaked and is cle. The takeaway om the FIRE data is that bisexuals acunt for slightly unr half the LGBT share and have registered creas among both women and men. The gay and lbian ponent also creased durg 2020-2021 but appears to have risen more slowly than bisexualy percentage pot terms. Overall, the var surveys show that for young people there has been signifint growth across all LGBT tegori sce 2018. That said, the growth sce 2010 is greatt for female bisexualy and slower – percentage pot terms – for gays, lbians, and nonbary dividuals. Yet the </span><em>rate</em><span> of growth over 2012 is probably hight for the non-bary group, spe their small share, even as this rise appears to have peaked around 2020.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Sexual Behavr<div id="§sexual-behavr" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>As noted, prr studi show a gree of flexibily around sexual attractn, pecially among women, who have a ls sexually bimodal aroal pattern than men. There has been a large rise non-heterosexual intifitn sce 2017, pecially among younger Amerins. The qutn this rais is whether this dramatic change is primarily about psychologil affiliatn or whether volv a ncrete change sexual behavr. Fortunately, the GSS ntas a number of longstandg qutns about sexual behavr that have n sce the late 1980s. The n be pared to the LGBT inty qutns the GSS om 2008 onward to exame whether the change is primarily psychologil or behavral and how the two trends have teracted.</p><p><span>The GSS asks rponnts, “Have your sex partners the last 12 months been: a) exclively male, b) both male and female, or c) exclively female.” The qutn was also asked for partners the prev five years, wh the answers very highly rrelated wh the 12-month rpons. In all analys this paper, I exclu those who report not havg any partner the relevant time ame, which do not change the rults much.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-11-59490300" href=" rel>11</a></div><span> Due to the small number of same-sex attracted people, there is nsirable noise the sample of young people over time, so I also pare wh the total sample, which clus all ag.</span></p><p>In 2021, 12.7% of men unr 30 reported same-sex (11.4%) or mixed-sex (1.3%) partners, while 2018, jt 4% of men unr 30 reported same-sex or mixed-sex partners. This appears to be a large crease, but the sample size of young men reportg same-sex partnerg is jt 99 2018 and 79 2021, so the fdgs are based on a small unt. For women, the proportn reportg same-sex or mixed-sex partners dropped the same perd om 10% 2018 to 7.1% 2021. However, this is aga based on a small sample. To screen out statistil noise, I prent data for the entire range of age groups to mimize error, followed by the smaller sample of unr-30s only, across four time perds.</p><p>The trend, summarized Figure 6, shows a signifint cle heterosexual behavr between 1972-92 and 1993-2003 among both men and women. The probabily of a woman beg heterosexual behavr dropped om 99% to 97%, while men fell om 97.5 to 96%. After a perd of stabily, there is a further shift between the 2004-16 and the 2017-21 perds of around 1 pot, wh women and men nvergg at around 95% heterosexual behavr.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1350" height="983" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 6. Source: GSS 2008-21. N=27,633. Based on a mol predictg oppose-sex behavr. Psdo-R2=.025. All genr-year teractn effects signifint at p<.01 level. Data is only for those who reported havg had at least one sexual partner.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>Movg to look at the unr-30s, and bearg md the noisier data due to small sampl for young people, Figure 7 reproduc Figure 6 for unr-30s only. It shows a siar pattern of change between 1972-92 and 1993-2003. In this perd, female heterosexual behavr fell om 98.5 to 96% while male sexual activy wh women only fell om 97.5 to about 95.5% of total sexual behavr. Between 2004-16 and 2017-21 women dropped om 94.5 to 91.5% oppose-sex -only partnerg while men cled om 96 to 92%. Overall, among young people, female heterosexual-only partnerg cled 7 pots between 1972-92 and 2017-21 while male heterosexual-only behavr cled 5.5 pots the same perd. The change sexual behavr is real, though I nnot disunt the possibily that eher beme more socially acceptable to report such behavr a survey over this perd or, bee the 2021 GSS was nducted onle rather than person due to vid, creased anonymy between 2018 and 2021 may have creased the cince of reportg same-sex enunters.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-12-59490300" href=" rel>12</a></div></p><p>Across all ag, when to sexual behavr women shift 4 pots away om heterosexualy and men 2.5 pots durg 2008-21. The figur show that there has been an crease homosexualy, but that the biggt change took place at the turn of the century. Even so, there was a genue crease reported same-sex behavr between the mid-2010s and early 2020s, albe of smaller magnu. Among those unr 30 there is more change than among olr people, but the share of young people reportg that all their partners were of the oppose sex remas around 92% the 2017-21 perd. For men 2017-21, only 1 pot of the 8-pot homosexual share nsists of men wh unnventnal sexual behavr – that is, those not exclively heterosexual – havg partners of both sex. For women wh unnventnal sexual behavr, those reportg sexual activy wh both sex is 2.7% pared to 5.8% wh women only. The female rat th ntas more evince of bisexual behavr than is te for non-heterosexual men, who are maly same-sex attracted.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1344" height="980" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 7. Source: GSS 2008-21. N=6,025. Based on a mol predictg oppose-sex behavr. Psdo-R2=.031. No genr-year teractn effects signifint. Data is only among those who reported havg had at least one sexual partner.</figptn></figure></div><p>LGBT intifitn is higher among women than men, regardls of sexual behavr. 98% of men unr 30 who reported havg only female sex partners the past year intified as heterosexual. Among women who only had male partners, jt 94% did so. Meanwhile, 85% of men and 80% of women reportg same-sex or mixed-sex partners intified as non-heterosexual.</p><p>The upshot of all this, as Figure 8 shows, is a growg divergence between sexual behavr and inty among Amerins unr 30. Whereas 2008 attus and behavr were siar, by 2021 LGBT intifitn was nng at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavr.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="981" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 8. Source: GSS 2008-21. Data on behavr is only among those who reported havg had at least one sexual partner. Low sample size so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><p>The trends are pecially noticeable among women. In 2008, 3.1% of women unr 30 intified as lbian and a further 4.2% as bisexual. This total of 7.3% roughly matched the 7.4% (4.6% same-sex, 2.8% both-sex) who reported havg a female sexual partner the past year. By 2021, a very different picture had emerged. Twelve percent of young women intified as bisexual and 5% as lbian, but terms of behavr, jt 7% had a same-sex experience. Nearly 6 10 women who intified as lbian or bisexual reported havg only male sex partners the past year.</p><p>Among men intifyg as gay or bisexual, the share reportg only oppose-sex partners was nsirably lower than for LGBT women, at 38%. Even among men, however, there appears to be a divergence between intifitn and behavr, wh the share of young gay- or bisexual-intifyg men reportg female-only sex partners risg om 20% the 2008-14 perd to 32% 2016-21. Though the sample only nsists of 7-17 dividuals per year, and th error bars are wi, Figure 9 illtrat the statistilly signifint fdg that the share of bisexual women who report havg only had male sexual partners over the past five years has risen sce 2012. A risg share of women wh heterosexual behavr is choosg to intify as bisexual. The data for men are nclive.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="912" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 9. Source: GSS 2008-21. N per year vari om 15 2008-10 to between 28 and 34 other year bands. Year is a statistilly signifint predictor of a female bisexual havg male-only sex partners.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>My analysis of GSS data tells that the trend toward LGBT inty, as distct om behavr, is stronger women even as enpass both sex. While the big change has been LGBT </span><em>intifitn</em><span>, is important to note that there has also been a most rise same-sex </span><em>behavr</em><span>. While I nnot le out the possibily that the rise same-sex behavr is due to ls stigma reportg, at least some of seems to reprent a genue change behavr. In both s, the trend appears more pronounced among women than men.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">The Role of Iology and Partisanship<div id="§the-role-of-iology-and-partisanship" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>Left-wg Amerins are signifintly more likely to be LGBT than those on the right. Among Amerins unr 30 the GSS, 25% of people who intify as liberal are LGBT pared to 9% of nservativ. In the CCES, the rrpondg figur are 36% LGBT among liberals and 21% for nservativ. Among unrgraduate stunts at top universi the FIRE data, 33% of liberals intify as LGBT pared to 6% of nservativ.</p><p>Yet what is apparent is that very liberal rponnts stand out om morate liberals havg high LGBT intifitn. Figure 10 illtrat how the sexual orientatn of rponnts three surveys vari along a 5-pot self-intified iology sle. In the FIRE data, 49% of ‘very liberal’ stunts on a 5-pot sle ll themselv LGBT pared to 5% of ‘very nservative’ stunts. The rrpondg LGBT numbers for iologil extrem among unr-30s the CCES 2020 are 43% and 13%, and the 2021 GSS they stand at 34% and 14%. This dit that young people wh nservative views are only around a third as likely to be LGBT as strong liberals, wh the gap pecially pronounced among ele llege stunts.</p><p>Another important pattern emerg om the data. Generally speakg, movg left to right, there is a sharp difference LGBT intifitn between strong liberals and weak liberals. In the GSS and FIRE data, the gap between the far left and center left is several tim larger than the difference between the center left and morat. Morat unr age 30 are more like nservativ than liberals, while there is no nsistent difference between slight and strong nservativ.</p><p>Strong liberals are the most distctive iologil group. Lookg at those unr 30, the CCES, 42% of strong liberals intify as LGBT pared to 19% of morat and 13% of nservativ. In the FIRE data, 18% of morate stunts are LGBT pared to the numbers mentned above of 5% for the most nservative and 49% of very liberal stunts. In the 2021 GSS, 34% of strong liberals are LGBT pared to 10% of morat and 9% of nservativ. Far-left views rrpond strongly to higher LGBT intifitn while far-right views differ much ls om the center.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="835" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 10. CCES N=13,771; FIRE N=56,860; GSS N=231. Bee the GSS numbers are based on a low sample size, e utn terpretg them.</figptn></figure></div><p>The pattern over time among the unr-30s shows that the largt change sexual intifitn has taken place among those intifyg as very liberal. While other iologil segments have also experienced some crease LGBT intifitn, Figure 11 shows that the most liberal rponnts have moved om 85-90% heterosexual intifitn 2016 to jt 66% heterosexual inty 2021. Very liberal people experience a much larger ‘multiplier effect’ om the new transgrsive mornist culture than other segments of the populatn.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="896" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 11. Source: GSS 2008-21. Low sample size, so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>What explas the pattern? It uld be that LGBT intifiers gravate to strong liberal self-intifitn. Or perhaps those wh strong liberal views or self-nceptns are more cled to intify as non-heterosexual. While is not possible to fively discern om the data sourc whether sexual inty shap polil beliefs or vice-versa – or both are related to some other variable – there is evince that somethg beyond polil issu or partisanship, such as psychologil orientatns that unrlie iology, is shapg sexual inty.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-13-59490300" href=" rel>13</a></div></p><p><span>First, is not readily apparent why beg non-heterosexual would have such a powerful impact movg someone om the center left to the far left, but so ltle effect shiftg them om the right to the center or center to the morate left. Comparg answers to the sexual inty qutn wh views on homosexualy and gay marriage shows an important difference. For LGBT </span><em>issu </em><span>like attus towards gay marriage, strong liberals and nservativ are equally distant om the center. However, when to predictg sexual inty, strong liberals stand out om the rt. When ntrollg for views on gay marriage and the acceptabily of homosexualy, the same pattern – of strong liberals but not nservativ standg apart om the center – obtas. Tolerance of homosexualy is th unlikely to expla the iology-LGBT nnectn. Controllg for the basic liberal-nservative divi, a very liberal self-scriptn is signifintly associated wh LGBT inty but not wh </span><em>views</em><span> on LGBT inty.</span></p><p><span>Send, ntrollg for LGBT intifitn, LGBT sexual behavr over the past five years is </span><em>not</em><span> signifintly associated wh a person’s iology. If same-sex sexual activy was the prcipal driver of LGBT intifitn, which turn an crease liberalism, we would expect LGBT intifiers engagg same-sex behavr to be more liberal than LGBT intifiers who have only had heterosexual partners. Instead, we fd no signifint differenc iology between LGBT intifiers engagg LGBT sexual behavr and those who have only had nventnal sex partners. When pared to all heterosexuals, those engagg same-sex behavr, pecially men, are of urse more likely to intify as LGBT. Yet same-sex behavr self has only an direct lk to beg more liberal, via s effect on creasg the likelihood of intifyg as LGBT. Somethg the psychology of </span><em>intifyg</em><span> wh, rather than behavg as, LGBT is lked to the psychology of intifyg as very liberal.</span></p><p>This said, the precise mechanism whereby iology and sexual inty fluence each other needs to be specified. Figure 12 is based on a statistil mol that tri to predict whether someone intifi as heterosexual or not. Here liberal rponnts unr age 30 who have had a same-sex experience the past 12 months almost all intify as LGBT. Morat and nservativ who report same-sex experienc are signifintly ls likely to do so, wh morat who had a same-sex experience havg a 30% chance of intifyg as heterosexual and nservativ a 40 to 50% chance of dog so. For men and women across all age groups we fd a siar pattern, wh morat and nservativ differg by jt 10 percentage pots. Eher nservatism tends to lead many same-sex attracted people to intify as heterosexual, or an unrlyg psychologil orientatn among some same-sex attracted people cl them to intify as both nservative and heterosexual. This suggts that the rise LGBT intifitn is part bee of a lower reticence among same-sex attracted people to intify as LGBT. This is the first of Douthat’s hypoth, endorsed by progrsiv.</p><p><span>But a cle reticence among those wh same-sex experience do not acunt for the majory of the LGBT shift. The leftmost part of the top le Figure 12 shows that among the most liberal rponnts who say they have had no same-sex experienc the past five years, there is a signifintly lower level of heterosexual intifitn than among heterosexual-behavg slight liberals and morat. Th 2021, 13% of very liberal (on a 5-pot sle) young women reportg only heterosexual behavr the past five years intified as LGBT. This drops to 5% among morate and nservative women unr 30 wh the same sexual history. Among men, the equivalent figur for those who only had nventnal sex partners are 9% for strong liberals and 5% for those the middle or on the right. What this suggts is that very liberal iology is associated wh intifyg as LGBT among dividuals engagg exclively heterosexual behavr – pecially women. It seems that an unrlyg psychologil disposn is clg people wh heterosexual behavr to intify both as LGBT and as very liberal. This likely reflects those that Bailey and Moore termed cintally-attracted rather than people wh strong and staed same-sex attractn.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-14-59490300" href=" rel>14</a></div></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1344" height="980" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 12. Source: GSS 2008-21. N=1,787. Based on a statistil mol that tri to predict whether someone intifi as heterosexual or not on the basis of same-sex behavr and iology. Psdo-R2=.463. Controls for genr and age as both affect heterosexual intifitn. Liberal and years om 2012 to 2021 are all signifint at p<.05. No teractns signifint.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>A third reason potg to psychologil aspects of iology affectg sexual inty is that issue posns themselv are not clearly nnected to LGBT intifitn. For stance, blacks have a different terpretatn of iology om wh.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-15-59490300" href=" rel>15</a></div><span> Figure 13, based on a statistil mol which tri to predict whether someone intifi as LGBT, shows that views on whether the police make a person feel safe are only rrelated wh sexual inty among wh, but not among blacks. A siar, if ls dramatic, racial difference rrelatn holds for abortn and a seri of other issu. Hispanics and Asians are somewhat termediate that while their issue posns are rrelated wh the chance of beg LGBT, the relatnship is weaker than for wh. That is, polil issu appear more rrelated wh sexual inty among wh than blacks, suggtg that LGBT inty is more polil among very liberal wh than among very liberal mori, pecially blacks.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1359" height="990" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 13. Source: CCES 2020. N=9,501. Based on a statistil mol which tri to predict whether someone intifi as LGBT. Psdo-R2=.063. Controls for genr and age as both affect LGBT intifitn. Interactns for ‘somewhat unsafe’ and ‘mostly unsafe’ signifint at p<.001.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>Given the ls nstraed pattern of issue attus unrlyg their iology, is perhaps surprisg that among blacks unr 30, those intifyg as ‘very liberal’ are substantially more likely to ll themselv LGBT than black weak liberals or centrists. Somethg unrlyg the choice to intify as ‘very liberal,’ beyond issue posns, seems to be associated wh a higher likelihood of intifyg as LGBT. This speaks to the possibily that the relatnship between liberalism and LGBT inty n be explaed by psychologil openns to experience, nscientns, or another unrlyg disposn like pronens towards nformg to media msagg, rather than issue posns and terts.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-16-59490300" href=" rel>16</a></div></p><p>A fourth piece of evince is that party inty, which is arguably more visible and closer to current events than iology, is more weakly rrelated wh sexual orientatn than the more abstract notn of iology. Though iology and party intifitn are rrelated, Figure 14 shows a different sexualy profile for party intifitn than for iology. Focg on the larger-sample CCES and FIRE surveys, we fd ltle substantial difference the equency of LGBT intifitn between strong Democrats, weak Democrats, and morat. Many LGBT people are Inpennts rather than Strong Democrats. Unlike wh iology, the far left do not stand out.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="840" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 14. Note: low sample siz for GSS (231 across all tegori), so e utn terpretg the.</figptn></figure></div><p>The factors all suggt that the associatn between very liberal iology and beg LGBT is not simply about homosexual people gravatg to iologi and parti that will fend their terts. Rather, the psychologil factors behd very liberal iology likely predispose an dividual wh some same-sex feelgs to intify as LGBT.</p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Left-Wg Polics Matters for Eduted Wh<div id="§left-wg-polics-matters-for-ted-wh" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>While there is a broar mornist cultural atmosphere favorg the exprsn of difference, there is also evince that egalarian polics matters – at least for whe llege stunts. To w, left-wg attus toward the protectn of mori predict higher LGBT intifitn. Consir Figure 15. Whe female stunts leadg US universi who intify as very liberal and support shoutg down speakers to prevent them om utterg harmful speech have a nearly 7 10 chance of intifyg as LGBT. For very liberal mory female stunts wh the same speech attus, the probabily of intifyg as LGBT drops to around .55. At the most pro-ee speech end of the sle, very liberal whe female stunts who say shoutdowns are never acceptable are only around half as likely to intify as LGBT as their unterparts who strongly oppose ee speech.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1353" height="986" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 15. Source: FIRE 2020-2021. N=7,527. Based on a statistil mol which tri to predict whether a stunt intifi as LGBT based on their race and attu to shoutdowns. Psdo-R2=.053. Also ntrols for relign, regn, and Ivy League stat.</figptn></figure></div><p>It is worth notg that a person’s views on shoutdowns are nearly as important as their iology predictg LGBT intifitn. While is likely that non-heterosexual intifiers are more sensive to speech they nsir harmful to their own terts, is noteworthy that mory and female stunts, who might be siarly sensive to discrimatn, are much ls supportive of shoutdowns than LGBT stunts. The relatively large and visible bisexual group oppos shoutdowns as much as gay men, who would be expected to be more likely to experience discrimatn. In addn, addg a ntrol for speech attus rc the size of the iologil effect on LGBT intifitn by a most amount, suggtg that to some extent, speech attus rm iology or sprg om the same unrlyg clatn.</p><p>Two other ditors of the impact of left-wg polics ncern the subject matter which stunts are enrolled. Stunts social scienc and humani (SSH) fields are about 10 pots more LGBT than those the ls policized science, technology, engeerg, and math (STEM) fields. This holds for mal and femal, wh, and mori. Meanwhile, 52% of stunts takg highly polil majors such as race or genr studi intify as LGBT, cludg 64% of the 109 stunts the FIRE survey majorg genr studi and 47% of 285 stunts majorg ethnic and racial studi. This par to 25% LGBT intifitn among stunts overall. Choice of major signifintly predicts LGBT intifitn even when ntrollg for iology, genr, race, and relign.</p><p>More generally, Figure 16 illtrat how LGBT intifitn ris as I adjt the profile of stunts based on key predictors of LGBT inty the 57,000-strong FIRE dataset of unrgraduat at 150 leadg US universi.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="825" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 16. Source: FIRE 2020 and 2021 surveys. Note: Number of s parenth, SSH refers to social scienc and humani.</figptn></figure></div><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Sexual Liberalism and the Wir Culture<div id="§sexual-liberalism-and-the-wir-culture" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>Iology is clearly important LGBT intifitn, and very liberal rponnts have creasgly intified as LGBT. But the share of very liberal rponnts the GSS has not signifintly risen sce 2008 among Amerins unr 30. The fact that age and year matter for LGBT intifitn while race and universy tn do not suggts that ias once nsired the prerve of the cultural left have fluenced the wir culture wh which ls policized dividuals live. Acceptance of homosexualy and gay marriage has risen pecially quickly sce 2004, when siar numbers of people thought homosexualy should be accepted and disuraged. By 2017, the numbers stood at 70% for acceptance and 24% for disuragement.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-17-59490300" href=" rel>17</a></div><span> This, I would argue, has permted those same-sex partnerships to intify as LGBT more openly. Yet those engagg LGBT sexual behavr are a small group.</span></p><p><span>Arguably more important is the way the new liberal culture has enuraged dividuals wh nventnal heterosexual behavr to intify as LGBT. This has ma the biggt impact on young, female, and very liberal people. This uld be bee their sexual feelgs are more fluid and open than those of others due to unrlyg psychologil factors, or bee they are more fluenced by the tn system and media. Nohels, the rise of LGBT is not a phenomenon limed by race or class. It enpass both policized groups like llege-ted wh and ls policized groups such as black mal and Hispanic immigrants whout a gree. Post-Tmp polarizatn and the Great Awokeng among ted whe liberals seem to have had an impact on sexual inty among ele wh, but likely nnot expla why mori and those whout gre have experienced a siar trajectory.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-18-59490300" href=" rel>18</a></div></p><p><span>Polarizatn along issue and party l tends to be more tense among whe and universy-ted Amerins, who are more likely to sort issu to (often nsistent) iologil packag and then to party platforms. Mori vote at lower rat (as wh Hispanics or Asians) or tend not to attach iology to party as much (as wh blacks).</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-19-59490300" href=" rel>19</a></div><span> Yet the LGBT ponent, while more polarized by iology, is not higher among whe or llege-ted Amerins than among mori or those wh low tn. LGBT inty is relatively high among all young people, whether whe or nonwhe, llege-ted or non-llege ted.</span></p><p><span>In the CCES, there is no signifint difference LGBT share between whe and mory Amerins unr 30, wh around 25% of both groups intifyg this way. In FIRE, the difference between wh and mori is jt 1 percentage pot, and the GSS only 1.5 pots. Mory fahs the CCES and FIRE – pecially Jews, Hd, and Buddhists – register higher LGBT shar than Christians. Moreover, the CCES, jt 81% of black men and 67% of black women unr 30 </span><em>whout</em><span> a llege gree intify as heterosexual.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-20-59490300" href=" rel>20</a></div><span> The genr difference LGBT between black men and women unr 30 is noteworthy: young black women are siar to young women of other rac, but young black men have a lower LGBT share than other men.</span></p><p><span>For universy tn, which is monly associated wh aligng issu of iology to partisanship, the CCES shows that 19% of llege graduat unr 30 are LGBT pared to 26% of those whout a llege gree.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-21-59490300" href=" rel>21</a></div><span> In the GSS there is no signifint difference between the two groups. The more policized mp experience and exposure to polil ias at universy do not lead to a wir difference LGBT intifitn between very liberal and very nservative dividuals. Young people wh and whout llege gre are intil this rpect. The LGBT rise may be fluenced by inty polics, but is much broar than a woke phenomenon.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">What Led to Change?<div id="§what-led-to-change" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>As noted, we should not overstate the impact of creased toleratn of homosexual behavr acuntg for the substantial rise LGBT intifitn among the young recent years. Even if everyone unr 30 who had a same-sex experience intified as LGBT 2021, this would acunt for no more than 4 pots of the 11-pot rise LGBT inty the GSS among unr-30s between 2008 and 2021. Rell that 2021, 6 10 young female LGBT intifiers and nearly 4 10 male LGBT young people only had partners of the oppose sex the prev 12 months. Wh over 92% of survey rponnts reportg only heterosexual behavr, such dividuals are drivg the bulk of the trend.</p><p>Overall, three phenomena have fluenced the risg LGBT trend:</p><ol><li><p>Risg same-sex behavr.</p></li><li><p>An erosn of the hibn to intify as LGBT among same-sex attracted people.</p></li><li><p>The rise of ‘iologil’ LGBT intifitn among those wh nventnal sexual behavr.</p></li></ol><p>In terms of a), the share reportg same-sex behavr creased 4 pots among young people over 2008-21. For b), the proportn of young people engagg same-sex behavr who self-intify as LGBT has approximately doubled, translatg to a 2-pot crease LGBT intifitn. Given that the same-sex partnered share has creased by 4 pots, we n assume that, at most, half of this effect on LGBT intifitn might have been supprsed 2008. This would renr a) and b) siarly important.</p><p>Regardls of the mix of a) and b), the two forc together only acunt for 4 pots of the 11-pot rise LGBT inty between 2008 and 2021. The 4 pots should be viewed as a maximum, bee exclus young people who reported no sexual partners the past year and assum that greater tolerance of homosexualy between 2008 and 2021, and the swch to an onle survey 2021, played no part people reportg more same-sex behavr. Th c), higher LGBT intifitn among those exhibg heterosexual behavr impacts on a much larger group of people (the 92% engagg heterosexual partnerg) and therefore acunts for no ls than two-thirds – 7 of the 11 pots – of the post-2008 rise.</p><p><span>What might have ed the rise the share of heterosexual-behavg people optg for LGBT intifitn? The cle of relign among Millennials and Zoomers is a well-documented trend. Close to 40% the generatns are relig ‘non.’</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-22-59490300" href=" rel>22</a></div><span> In the GSS, the share of unr-30s reportg no relign rose om 11% 1990 to 28% 2008 to 46% 2021. Religsy is nnected to sexual inty, as Figure 17 shows. In statistil mols, dividuals wh no relign or who never attend church are over twice as likely to intify as LGBT as those who are Christian or attend regularly.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="845" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 17</figptn></figure></div><p><span>This relatnship appears to hold over time as well, as Figure 18. In years wh a higher proportn of young non-relig rponnts (typilly more recent years), there is a higher share of young LGBT people. However, this is based on jt seven aggregated annual data pots. While the f is better than wh other variabl such as proportn very liberal, I n’t be sure that relig cle is the key factor. It is also the se that religsy has been clg among young people sce the 1980s and fairly steadily sce 2004. LGBT intifitn has also creased longstandg low-relign societi such as Bra.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-23-59490300" href=" rel>23</a></div><span> While there is a spurt of non-religsy the 2021 data that rrponds to the surge LGBT intifitn, there is also a rise the proportn of very liberal and anx/prsed people between the 2018 and 2021 surveys and a change survey methodology. It is therefore unclear how much of the time trend of LGBT growth is associated wh relig cle as pared to, for example, a more general crease of transgrsive mornism the culture.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="896" height="652" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 18. Source: GSS 2008-21. Shows aggregated figur for each year.</figptn></figure></div><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">The Mental Health-Sexualy-Liberalism Nex<div id="§the-mental-health-sexualy-liberalism-nex" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>In a recent say </span><em>The</em><span> </span><em>Atlantic</em><span>, Derek Thompson remarked on the recent surge mental health problems among Amerin teens.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-24-59490300" href=" rel>24</a></div><span> The centerpiece of the article was Figure 19 below, which Center for Disease Control (CDC) data to show a marked rise emotnal problems among youth sce 2015. The hight levels are among LGBT rponnts, wh 76% of them reportg feelg persistently sad or hopels 2021. Women also experienced a larger jump emotnal distrs than men durg the panmic.</span></p><p><span>The staggerg rate of mental health problems among LGBT intifiers the chart was not addrsed by Thompson, who foced on trends affectg all groups over time. But there is evince that non-heterosexuals have been h harst by the post-2010 crisis of youth mental health. While the CDC only breaks out the figur om 2015, a major study of nearly 40,000 teens Wisns shows that LGBT mental health terrated signifintly faster than heterosexual mental health between 2012 and 2018. Between the years, the share of heterosexual young people reportg anxiety the prev month rose om 32% 2012 to 35% 2015 to 41% 2018. However, among young gay and bisexual teens soared om about 55% 2012 to 65% 2015 to 72% 2018.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-25-59490300" href=" rel>25</a></div><span> All this durg a time of risg toleratn of LGBT liftyl.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="922" height="928" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 19. Source: Thompson 2022.</figptn></figure></div><p>The GSS has asked whether people s survey are happy sce 2010. Rponnts n answer ‘very happy,’ ‘pretty happy,’ or ‘not too happy.’ Figure 20 plots the trends the GSS sce 2010. The broadly nfirm those om Thompson for the post-2015 perd. Though the sample size is small, there is some ditn that the sexualy gap youth happs wined om 2010 to 2018, even while the panmic h both groups hard 2021. This is also visible data aggregatg across all age groups. LGBT inty seems to be actg as a multiplier for the forc boostg mental illns.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="901" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 20. Source: GSS 2010-21. LGBT N is 15 2010, risg to 38 2021. Heterosexual N is 194-331 so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><p>Very liberal and LGBT people are more anx and prsed than others across multiple surveys. The GSS troduced a qutn 2018 askg how often a person had felt anx, prsed, or irrable the prev seven days. I have also prevly nducted two Qualtrics surveys durg 2020, evenly balanced between whe and black for a bed sample of 1,770 dividuals. Here I asked, “How often would you say you are sad or anx?” Those who answered ‘Most of the time’ or ‘Always’ were classified as anx or prsed. The Qualtrics data only ntas data for those aged 25-29, wh no figur for the unr 25s.</p><p>Figure 21 par prsn and anxiety levels across the two different datasets, wh their alternative qutn wordg and differg sampl. Dpe the differenc, the broad pattern is siar. Very liberal and non-heterosexual rponnts are nsirably more likely to be anx or prsed. In both the GSS and Qualtrics, very liberal young people are 12 pots more likely than somewhat liberal young people to have mental health problems. LGBT rponnts are 32 pots more likely than heterosexuals to have emotnal problems the GSS and 20 pots more likely Qualtrics.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="904" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 21. Source: Qualtrics 2020, GSS 2018, 2021. Unr 30 rponnts only. Qualtrics: LGBT N is 40, heterosexual is 221. GSS: LGBT N is 66, heterosexual is 422.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>Is there a nnectn between iology and sexualy here, le wh other fdgs this report? CSPI Fellow Zach Goldberg, g 2020 Pew data, showed that very liberal wh were far more likely than others to say they had been diagnosed wh a mental health ndn. Very liberal wh had a 46% chance of answerg that qutn the affirmative pared to 33% of somewhat liberal wh, 29% of morat, and around 20% of nservative wh.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-26-59490300" href=" rel>26</a></div><span> We also know that very liberal Amerins are substantially more likely to intify as LGBT than slight liberals, morat, or nservativ. And the datasets here, iology predicts mental health problems even when ntrollg for sexual orientatn, race, genr, and other mographic characteristics.</span></p><p>Examg relatnships between qutns on sexual orientatn, iology, and anxiety/prsn shows a powerful set of rrelatns. In the GSS, factor analysis reveals that one unrlyg factor acunts for almost half (49%) the variatn answers to the three qutns among young people. In Qualtrics, this mon factor explas 43% of the variatn the three variabl. The ‘very liberal’ portn of the iologil spectm stands out as beg both nsirably more LGBT and unually prone to mental health problems. However, jt as liberalism has not risen among youth at anywhere near the rate of LGBT crease, so too I fd that the aggregate level of anxiety and prsn rose more slowly than LGBT share prr to the panmic. Between 2010 and 2014, 11-13% of all young people had mental health problems. In 2016 and 2018 this stood at 16%. Only durg the panmic 2021 was there a surge to 30% of all youth.</p><p>It therefore appears that the rise LGBT young people did not e a rise mental health issu but, as wh liberalism, the LGBT share disproportnately expand wh a subset of the young populatn – this se those wh anxiety and prsn. Here we see another example of the multiplier effect mentned earlier, which wir forc disproportnately affect subgroups wh particular psychologil predisposns. Th 2010 and 2012, only 7% of unhappy young people were LGBT while 4% of very happy people were LGBT. However, by 2018-21, 21% of all unhappy young people and 27% of those wh anxiety or prsn intified as LGBT. By ntrast, jt 9% of very happy young people and 7% of those who rarely feel anx or prsed were LGBT durg 2018-21. In the ntext of limed creas total youth unhapps prr to the panmic, this dit that the LGBT rise has been disproportnately ncentrated wh the overlappg ‘very liberal’ and anx/prsed part of the young populatn.</p><p>It is possible that the groups which report worse mental health – such as young LGBT and very liberal people – have disproportnately shaped, and been shaped by, a new left-mornist culture. This zegeist valu transgrsg social boundari while valorizg vulnerabily and victimhood. Figure 22 shows that the years 2010 and 2012 (bed for reasons of sample size), when to the number of days the past month a person said their “mental health was not good…which clus strs, prsn, and problems wh emotns,” there were few differenc between very liberal young people and those who were slightly liberal, morate, or nservative. LGBT and heterosexuals also reported siar levels of poor mental health. For the pre-panmic years 2014, 2016, and 2018 (bed), the picture chang dramatilly, wh very liberal and LGBT young people now reportg worse mental health while others reported siar levels as 2010-12. Given that prejudice agast LGBT dividuals was creasg durg that time perd, somethg else was gog on through the 2010s to crease the associatn between spair and intifyg as somethg other than heterosexual. </p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="900" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 22. Source: GSS 2010-2018. N=16 LGBT for 2010-12, 50 for 2014-18. N=91 very liberal for 2010-12, 121 for 2014-18. Very liberal is signifint at p<.05. No signifint effect for LGBT by year.</figptn></figure></div><p>The data for a somewhat different qutn on whether someone is ‘not too happy,’ as opposed to ‘pretty’ or ‘very’ happy, show a somewhat siar pattern which very liberal and LGBT young people have experienced a faster cle happs than others sce 2014. This is a perd which a social media-fueled culture of agily arguably expand, a phenomenon which parallels the Great Awokeng among liberal whe Amerins – evint media and mp activism – yet extends beyond .</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="921" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 23. Source: GSS 2008-2021.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>In the GSS data, social media e signifintly predicts strong liberalism and LGBT intifitn, as well as unhapps, anxiety, and prsn. Yet social media nsumptn only explas a most portn of the iology-sexualy-mental health nex.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-27-59490300" href=" rel>27</a></div><span> The unrlyg mon driver likely volv psychologil tras such as high openns to experience, which creas receptivy to a new culture of boundary-transgrsg mornism.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Do School Play a Role?<div id="§do-school-play-a-role" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>The polics of schools has bee more proment of late, wh parents creasgly ncerned that far-left ias about race, genr, and sexualy are beg tght to their children. Some schools openly challenge nventnal unrstandgs of the topics, such as the Nova School Seattle, which has 80% LGBT stunts and scrib s pedagogil approach as “centerg whens, patriarchy, [and] hetero- and cis-normativy.”</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-28-59490300" href=" rel>28</a></div><span> On March 28, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights Edutn Bill, which prohibs discsn of genr inty and sexualy K-3 classrooms.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-29-59490300" href=" rel>29</a></div><span> The discsn surroundg this bill and siar ntroversi rais the qutn: do schools play a role the rise of LGBT intifitn and behavr? If they do, do the type of high school or universy someone attends affect their propensy to intify as LGBT?</span></p><p>The answer to the send qutn, as Figure 24 illtrat, is that whether a llege stunt attend a public, private, or parochial school, or is homchooled, appears to make ltle difference to their propensy to intify as LGBT. It may be that top lleg disproportnately attract LGBT stunts om parochial or homchooled stunts, but this would assume that non-LGBT stunts select away om top lleg large numbers. It is also worth remarkg that the LGBT share is no higher among llege stunts than non-stunts the CCES. Of equal note is that the LGBT share is siar among var tegori of llege, om the more ele Ivy League to the ls prtig R2 lleg. The major exceptn is Liberal Arts Colleg, where 38% of stunts intify as LGBT, a signifintly higher share than among the rt, a fdg that holds even wh ntrols for genr, race, and iology.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="889" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 24. Source: FIRE 2020, 2021. High School Ns (asked only on subsample): Public=7,933, Private=1,932, Parochial=106, Homchool=131. For College: Ivy=4,515, Liberal Arts=4,078, R1=27,652, R2=4,140.</figptn></figure></div><p>Attendg a llege wh a high LGBT share, ntrollg for other predictors, do mean is more likely a stunt will be LGBT. The effect is as strong as genr, suggtg that LGBT-rich ntexts may be playg a small role creasg the likelihood of intifyg as non-heterosexual. However, this uld also be the rult of personal characteristics not ptured the FIRE surveys that duce LGBT people to clter toward certa lleg, rather than bee of the impact of social ntext on inty choice. It is also worth mentng that the FIRE data show only limed clterg of LGBT stunts particular lleg, wh nsirably lower segregatn than for race or relign. More broadly, GSS and CCES data show no difference between ral areas and ci the chance of a young person intifyg as LGBT once mographics and iology are held nstant. This suggts that lol social ntext may have only a limed effect on a person’s sexual inty.</p><p><span>It would be rrect to terpret the data as suggtg that the tn system has played </span><em>no</em><span> role the rise of LGBT. Though there is ltle difference between var kds of schools the extent to which their stunt bodi intify as LGBT, uld still be the se that there is a mon pro-LGBT fluence across all tnal stutns, wh the homchooled sample skewed by LGBT-intifyg homchooled rponnts who disproportnately select to top universi. The same uld be happeng wh parochial schools. If this is the se, would not appear this data. Moreover, as n be seen Figure 24, the sampl for dividuals who as high schoolers who were homchooled or parochial schools are que small. The rults for those tegori should therefore be terpreted wh utn.</span></p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Has Genr Nonnformy Peaked?<div id="§has-genr-nonnformy-peaked" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p><span>Most of this discsn has foced on the rise bisexualy and, to a lser extent, homosexualy. But what about genr nonnformy? Coverage of trans issu has surged sce 2014, focg particularly on young girls’ e of puberty blockers and surgery to transn to bee boys, and on olr men who intify as female, raisg qutns such as who should have accs to women’s spac and sports petns. Between 2010 and 2020, the US rerd a 1,000% jump the share of teenagers intifyg as trans.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-30-59490300" href=" rel>30</a></div><span> In 2020, the CCES asked, “Have you ever unrgone any part of a procs (cludg any thought or actn) to change your genr / perceived genr om the one you were assigned at birth? This may clu steps such as changg the type of cloth you wear, name you are known by, or unrgog surgery.” 2.4% of over 60,000 rponnts said they were transgenr, wh a further 2.8% replyg ‘prefer not to say.’ Among the unr-30s, 5.8% intified as transgenr.</span></p><p><span>CCES is not a natnally reprentative sample, even wh data weights applied. The figure of 5.8% is far higher than the 2.1% transgenr rerd by Gallup for those aged 18 to 25.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-31-59490300" href=" rel>31</a></div><span> It is also nsirably larger than the 0.85% trans and nonbary share rerd for the 20-24 populatn (0.3% overall) by the 2021 Canadian cens, which provis perhaps the bt approximatn to the actual US number.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-32-59490300" href=" rel>32</a></div><span> In terms of sex, 61% of trans intifiers unr age 30 the CCES rpond that they were male and 39% female. For the 18-24s, the rat is 64-36. This chang to 54-46 for the 25-29 group. This dovetails wh the Canadian cens data showg a preponrance of trans men over trans women the 15 to 24 age group, reachg pary the 25-29 group.</span></p><p>The FIRE figur are tertg bee they ver two years, wh a sample of nearly 20,000 stunts 2020 and over 13,000 stunts om the same schools 2021, as well as a further 24,000 stunts om other schools that year. When askg rponnts their genr, FIRE has the choic of male, female, and non-bary. It has no transgenr optn. Given the overlap between trans and non-bary inty, we may take the non-bary number the FIRE data as ditive of genr nonnformy. The FIRE survey reports that 1.5% of Amerin unrgraduat om the leadg 50 universi intified as non-bary 2020. This cled to 0.85% 2021. The wir sample of 150 schools 2021 shows a slightly higher non-bary share of 0.95%, but this is still well below the 1.5% rerd 2020. Figure 25 below charts this cle. Moreover, 2021, hman and sophomore stunts were ls likely to report beg non-bary than olr stunts. Younger age and the more recent survey year of 2021 are both signifintly associated wh lower genr nonnformy. This suggts that non-bary inty, and perhaps transgenrism, have peaked and are clg.</p><p><span>This ncln triangulat wh two ternatnal datasets. First, there is the Canadian cens, which shows that the share of trans and non-bary people is lowt among the elrly, ris to a peak of 0.85% among the 20 to 24 populatn, but then cl to 0.73% for those aged 15 to 19. Another data source is referrals for transgenr surgery at Bra’s leadg Tavistock Clic. The show that referrals rose om 136 2010-11 to a peak of around 2,745 both 2018-19 and 2019-20, subsequently droppg to 2,383 2020-21.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-33-59490300" href=" rel>33</a></div><span> The FIRE rults are nsistent wh this pattern of a 2020 peak followed by a substantial cle, wh younger people ls likely to intify as genr nonnformg.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="886" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 25. Source: FIRE 2020-2021. N=19,969 for 2020; 13,186 for 2021.</figptn></figure></div><p><span>The cle of non-bary intifitn among stunts is all the more tertg bee took place at the same time as a substantial rise gay, lbian, bisexual, and other non-tradnal sexual intifitns, which creased om 18.6% 2020 to 24.5% 2021 the same dataset. Same-sex attractn and genr inty are ostensibly distct, yet there is an important relatnship. The data suggt that a nsirable number of people who dite that they are non-bary also intify as gay, lbian, bisexual, pansexual, or queer (LGBQ). What seems to have occurred is a shift of many om non-bary-pl-LGBQ intifitn to LGBQ-only intifitn between 2020 and 2021. FIRE data Figure 26 shows that nearly 4 10 non-bary stunts intified as eher gay, lbian, or bisexual. Only 11% ticked the ‘other’ sexualy box and jt 14% intified as heterosexual.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-34-59490300" href=" rel>34</a></div><span> Between 2020 and 2021, the number of non-bary dividuals cled wh both the heterosexual and LGBQ groups, wh two-thirds of the loss occurrg wh the latter.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="885" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 26. Source: FIRE 2020 and 2021. N=634 non-bary dividuals out of 56,774.</figptn></figure></div><p>Genr nonnformy is associated wh intifyg as non-heterosexual, beg younger, and not beg relig. The three parameters are of approximately equal predictive power. In the CCES, beg liberal – pecially very liberal – predicts trans intifitn even after ntrollg for sexual orientatn. In the FIRE data, very liberal iology strongly predicts non-bary intifitn, but this effect disappears when acuntg for sexual orientatn. The FIRE sample shows that 18-19-year-olds are signifintly ls likely to be non-bary than 21-22-year-olds. Dpe some differenc, the rrelat of genr nonnformy – iology, relign, age – are broadly siar to those that predict bisexualy and homosexualy.</p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Polil Implitns<div id="§polil-implitns" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>What are the polil implitns of the rise LGBT intifitn? Figure 27 displays Higher Edutn Rearch Instute (HERI) Frhman surveys of a reprentative sample of some 100,000 stunts per year across all typ of lleg. It shows a substantial rise the proportn of female stunts intifyg as liberal or far-left (dark blue bars), om 27% 2003 to 42% by 2016 (I don’t have accs to genr breakdowns for more recent data). Men (light blue bars), by ntrast, have remaed relatively siar their gree of liberalism.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="871" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 27. Source: HERI Rearch Brief, May 2017. For 2016, N=137,456 first-time, full-time hmen attendg 184 lleg, weighted to be reprentative. Across the entire 1970-2016 seri, sample size is over 15 ln dividuals surveyed.</figptn></figure></div><p>What acunts for risg liberalism among young women sce 2012? GSS data would dite that relig cle is more closely associated wh liberalism than sexual inty is. At an dividual level, havg no relign, along wh a person’s level of relig attendance, expla about 2 to 3 tim more of the variatn iology than sexual orientatn do, and this holds for both men and women. However, at the dividual level, LGBT inty remas a signifint predictor of beg liberal, even when ntrollg for religsy.</p><p><span>If the rise LGBT share were only takg place among liberals, there would be no impact on aggregate liberalism among young people. Figure 28 summariz the data for femal for the perd where we have parable ditors. The religsy-liberalism relatnship at the aggregate level is tighter than that between LGBT share and liberal share. This dit that the rise LGBT intifitn over time is relatively pennt of liberalism and has largely taken place </span><em>wh</em><span> the liberal populatn, rather than the rise bisexualy and homosexualy producg more liberals.</span></p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="1065" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 28. Source: GSS 2008-21. Low sample size so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><p>Party intifitn is heavily associated wh iology. Th, the rise liberalism among young people should have translated to an crease support for the Democrats and a cle support for the Republins. However, an alternative possibily is that more left-leang morat are now llg themselv liberal and more right-leang morat are intifyg as nservative due to polarizatn. Ined, Figure 29 shows that partisanship among young Amerins the GSS has been relatively stable, wh young voters gravatg to the Democrats durg the Obama years, then somewhat away om them the Clton perd, then back toward the Democrats after 2018. The Amerin Natnal Electn Study shows a siar trend the perd up to 2019. All this durg an era which both homosexual intifitn and secularism were on the rise.</p><p><span>The surge towards the Democrats the GSS data between 2018 and 2021 may look signifint but should be taken wh utn as is one data pot based on a small sample and straddl a change methodology om -person to onle between 2018 and 2021. Other surveys, such as the Harvard Youth Poll, show a more most Democrat to Republin advantage among unr-30s: 38-23 2021, narrowg to 38-25 2022.</span><div class="footnote-hoverrd-target"><a class="footnote-anchor" data-ponent-name="FootnoteAnchorToDOM" id="footnote-anchor-35-59490300" href=" rel>35</a></div><span> In short, there is ltle evince that the rise LGBT intifitn among young people sce 2010 has had much effect on the partisan balance. This suggts that while LGBT intifiers are much more liberal and more Democratic than average, most of the growth LGBT inty has occurred among young people who were already liberal and has not translated to signifint swchg toward the Democrats.</span></p><p>In addn, this provis further evince for the proposn that a mon psychologil substrate fluenc iology and sexual inty, rather than LGBT inty servg as an pennt force that cl people toward liberalism.</p><div class="ptned-image-ntaer"><figure><a class="image-lk is-viewable-img image2" target="_blank" href=" data-ponent-name="Image2ToDOM" rel><div class="image2-set"><picture><source type="image/webp" srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" /><img src=" width="1456" height="831" data-attrs="{"src":"" class="sizg-normal" alt tle srcset=" 424w, 848w, 1272w, 1456w" siz="100vw" loadg="lazy" /></picture><div class="image-lk-expand"><svg xmlns=" width="16" height="16" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="#FFFFFF" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="luci luci-maximize2"><polyle pots="15 3 21 3 21 9"></polyle><polyle pots="9 21 3 21 3 15"></polyle><le x1="21" x2="14" y1="3" y2="10"></le><le x1="3" x2="10" y1="21" y2="14"></le></svg></div></div></a><figptn class="image-ptn">Figure 29. Source: GSS 2008-21. Low sample size so terpret sgle years wh utn.</figptn></figure></div><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Concln<div id="§ncln" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><p>This report nsirs the remarkable phenomenon of the triplg of LGBT intifitn among young Amerins between 2012 and 2021. I hypothize that a more sexually liberal and mornist culture, one which valu difference, bt acunts for the new trend. This culture has s greatt impact on the most sexually fluid and perhaps easily fluenced groups: the young, the very liberal, and women. Bisexualy, pecially among women, acunts for nearly half the LGBT total among young people. While ernment data om the UK and Canada dite that the rise LGBT inty might be signifintly exaggerated other surveys, the unrlyg trend is certaly real.</p><p>Much of the rise LGBT intifitn has occurred among those the most liberal fifth of the polil spectm. While there appears to be some rise LGBT sexual behavr, at least two-thirds of the crease LGBT inty is among those whose sexual behavr is heterosexual. The one tegory that displays a different dynamic is genr nonnformy. Like gays, lbians, and bisexuals, trans and non-bary dividuals are more likely to be young and very liberal. However, while other LGBT tegori ntue their rise among younger age groups and have arguably yet to reach their zenh, genr nonnformy shows a peak 2020 followed by a cle 2021. It is hight among those aged 20 to 24 and ls popular among those 19 and unr.</p><p>Strong polil beliefs, such as hostily to the police and offensive speakers, are an important predictor of LGBT inty among whe llege-ted Amerins but are ls likely to expla the relatively high LGBT share among mori and those wh only a high school tn. The Great Awokeng probably nnot acunt for the most rise LGBT intifitn among olr age groups and nservativ. It is a broar phenomenon. While LGBT intifiers lean heavily liberal and relatively Democratic, the sharp crease their share among those unr 30 has not translated to higher Democratic party intifitn. When nsired alongsi other evince this report, this dit that the rise non-heterosexual inty largely unfold wh the liberal Democratic bloc, bluntg s impact on the wir partisan balance.</p><h3 class="hear-wh-anchor-widget">Referenc<div id="§referenc" class="hear-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="hear-anchor-widget-button-ntaer"><div href=" class="hear-anchor-widget-button"><svg xmlns=" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-lep="round" stroke-lejo="round" class="hear-anchor-widget-in"><path d="M10 13a5 5 0 0 0 7.54.54l3-3a5 5 0 0 0-7.07-7.07l-1.72 1.71"></path><path d="M14 11a5 5 0 0 0-7.54-.54l-3 3a5 5 0 0 0 7.07 7.07l1.71-1.71"></path></svg></div></div></div></h3><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-1-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>1</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Douthat, Ross. 2022. “How to Make Sense of the New L.G.B.T.Q. Culture War.” </span><em>The New York Tim</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-2-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>2</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>“Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights Edutn.” 2022. </span><em></em><span>. Available at tn/.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-3-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>3</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Shrier, Abigail. 2020. “Irreversible Damage: The Transgenr Craze Scg our Dghters.” Simon and Schter.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-4-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>4</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Bridg, Tristan and Mignon R. Moore. 2019. “23% of Young Black Women Now Intify as Bisexual.” </span><em>The Conversatn.</em><span> Available at 116116.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-5-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>5</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Zietsch, Brendan. 2019. “‘Gay Gene’ Search Reveals Not One but Many – and No Way to Predict Sexualy.” </span><em>The Conversatn.</em><span> Available at predict-sexualy-122459.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-6-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>6</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Bailey, J. Michael., Pl L. Vasey, Lisa M. Diamond, S. Marc Breedlove, Eric Vila and Marc Epprecht. 2016. "Sexual Orientatn, Controversy, and Science." </span><em>Psychologil Science the Public Intert</em><span> 17(2): 45-101.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-7-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>7</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Turner, Jonathan H. and Jan E. Stets. 2005. “The Soclogy of Emotns.” Cambridge Universy Prs.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-8-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>8</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Source: “YouGov Profil May 15, 2022.” 2022. </span><em>YouGov</em><span>. Available for purchase at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-9-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>9</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>“Sexual Orientatn, UK: 2019.” 2021. </span><em>Office for Natnal Statistics</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-10-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>10</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>I don’t have accs to Gallup raw data, so I nnot subdivi the bisexual numbers by male and female.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-11-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>11</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>By 2021, around 20% of young people had no sexual partners the prev 12 months. This group is a few pots ls LGBT than other young people.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-12-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>12</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>2018 was also the first year which the GSS distguished between sex assigned at birth and self-intified genr. This gture towards “clivens” uld potentially have ma LGBT rponnts feel more fortable disclosg non-heterosexual behavr, although this is speculative.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-13-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>13</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Jost, John T. 2006. “The End of the End of Iology.” </span><em>Amerin Psychologist</em><span> 61(7): 651; Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. “The Righteo Md: Why Good People are Divid by Polics and Relign.” Vtage; Feri, Christopher and Ariel Malka. 2021. “Iology: The Psychologil and Social Foundatns of Belief Systems.” Psyarxiv preprt. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-14-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>14</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Bridg and Moore 2019.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-15-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>15</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Philpot, Tasha. S. 2017. “Conservative but Not Republin.” Cambridge Universy Prs.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-16-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>16</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>See McGreal, Stt A. 2021. “Personaly Tras, Mental Illns, and Iology.” </span><em>Psychology Today.</em><span> Available at iology.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-17-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>17</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>“5. Homosexualy, Genr and Relign.” 2017. </span><em>Pew Rearch Center</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-18-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>18</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Yglias, Matthew. 2019. “Great Awokeng.” </span><em>Vox</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-19-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>19</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Philpot 2017.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-20-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>20</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>9% of black women and 7% of black men replied ‘prefer not to say’ to the sexualy qutn. Based on weighted data.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-21-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>21</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Box-Steffensmeier, Ja M. and Suzanna De Boef. 2001. “Macropartisanship and Macroiology the Sophistited Electorate.” </span><em>The Journal of Polics</em><span> 63(1): 232-248.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-22-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>22</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Shimron, Yonat. 2020. “Is the Rise of the Non Slowg? Scholars Say Maybe.” </span><em>Relign News Service</em><span>. Available at maybe/.</span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-23-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>23</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>See “Sexual Orientatn, UK: 2019.” 2021.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-24-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>24</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Thompson, Derek. 2022. “Why Amerin Teens Are So Sad.” </span><em>The Atlantic</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-25-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>25</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Parodi, Kathare B., Melissa K. Holt, Jennifer Greif Green, Michelle V. Porche, Brian Koenig and Zimg Xuan. 2022. “Time Trends and Dispari Anxiety Among Adolcents, 2012–2018.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epimlogy 57(1): 127-137.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-26-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>26</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Styl, Andrew. 2021. “SCIENCE: Whe Libs More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems.” </span><em>Washgton Free Bean.</em><span> Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-27-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>27</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Social media e predicts 7% of the variatn a factor prised of the three GSS variabl. While the most important predictor, this is still a small part of the variatn.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-28-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>28</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Rufo, Christopher [@realchrisfo]. 2022. Nova High School Seattle scrib [Tweet]. Twter. Available at For the origal source of the 80% LGBT figure, see “Planng and Visng School-Based Health at Nova High School.” 2019. </span><em>Cara</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-29-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>29</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>“Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights Edutn.” 2022.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-30-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>30</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>Shrier 2020; Stock, Kathleen. 2021. “Material Girls: Why Realy Matters for Femism.” Hachette UK.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-31-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>31</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Jon, Jefey M. 2022. “LGBT Intifitn U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%.” </span><em>Gallup</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-32-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>32</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>Hayton, Debbie. 2022. “Canada Cens Reveals How Many People are Trans.” </span><em>UnHerd</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-33-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>33</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>“Referrals to GIDS, Fancial Years 2010-11 to 2020-21.” 2021. </span><em>Genr Inty Development Service</em><span>. Available at </span></p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-34-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>34</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p>It is worth notg that the CCES, the gay, lbian, and bisexual share among trans intifiers is siar, but nearly half of those who said they were trans intified as heterosexual.</p></div></div><div class="footnote" data-ponent-name="FootnoteToDOM"><a id="footnote-35-59490300" href=" class="footnote-number" ntentedable="false" rel>35</a><div class="footnote-ntent"><p><span>“Harvard Youth Poll: 42nd Edn | Fall 2021. Top Trends and Takeaways.” 2021. </span><em>Harvard Kennedy School of Polics.</em><span> Available at ; “Harvard Youth Poll: 43rd Edn | Sprg 2022. Top Trends and Takeaways.” 2021. </span><em>Harvard Kennedy School of Polics</em><span>. Available at </span></p><p></p></div></div></div></div><div class="visibily-check"></div><div class="post-footer"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexGrow--mx4xz ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-jtify-space-between--NvIcg ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-align-center--rSd6h ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-16--TpblU ontend-pencraft-Box-module__paddg-y-16--ohCEm ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-top-tail-themed--e17yZ ontend-pencraft-Box-module__borr-bottom-tail-themed--eVwFY post-ufi"><div class="pencraft ontend-pencraft-Box-module__ret--VfQY8 ontend-pencraft-Box-module__display-flex--ZqeZt ontend-pencraft-Box-module__flex-gap-8--HFpIK"><div class="like-button-ntaer post-ufi-button style-button"><a role="button" class="post-ufi-button style-button has-label wh-borr"><svg role="img" style="height: 20px; width: 20px;" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="#000000" stroke-width="2" stroke="#000" xmlns=" class="in"><g><tle>.