Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 21, 2025

Recent Gallup polling indicates a rising percentage of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+ with 9.3% of those polled in 2024, which is up more than 1% from 2023.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Nearly one in 10 adults in the U.S. identifies as LGBTQ, according to a large analysis from Gallup released Thursday -- almost triple the share since Gallup began counting in 2012, and up by two-thirds since 2020. nyti.ms/42ZZGIN

[image or embed]

-- The New York Times (@nytimes.com) February 20, 2025 at 5:49 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... The percentage is nearly double the amount who identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, transgender or something other than heterosexual in 2020 and significantly higher than the 3.5% affirming such in 2012, Gallup announced Thursday. ...

Gallup polling shows LGBTQ+ identification among respective generations is:

- - - Generation Z (born 1997-2006) -- 23.1%

- - - Millennials (born 1981-1996) -- 14.2%

- - - Generation X (born 1965-1980) -- 5.1%

- - - Baby boomers (born 1946-1964) -- 3%

- - - Silent generation (born 1945 or earlier) -- 1.8%

The rate of Gen Z adults identifying as other-than-heterosexual rose from 18.8% from 2020 through 2022 to 22.7% during the past two years, according to Gallup. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-21 12:37 AM | Reply

Curious that the full-fledged assault of the GOP against LGBTQ+ people seems to only have increased those who were targeted by the GOP.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-21 12:39 AM | Reply

Curious if the GOP's assault on civil rights and 1st amendment freedoms will force more people into hiding who they are again.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 12:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All this shows is more people are admitting it to pollsters. The percentages were identified decades ago, 1940 to be more precise:

"According to Alfred Kinsey's research, approximately 10% of men were considered "more or less exclusively homosexual" for at least three years of their adult lives, which is often cited as the "Kinsey scale" percentage for homosexuality; this figure is based on his studies that showed around 37% of men had at least one homosexual experience to ------."

Women's range is 1%-3%.

Here's a link to a good dissection, multiple studies, databases, etc. on the subject:
It concludes:
"Identity aside, ten per cent of the population, it seems, could well be involved in same sex behaviour after all."

#4 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Q stands for QAnon.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 11:31 AM | Reply

The Q stands for QAnon.

The bug-eyed freak leading the FBI is a full blown Q-Tard.

#6 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-02-21 11:42 AM | Reply

But MAGAbullies love to persecute LGBTQ hecause they love to have victims. Stupid people love to hsve victims because their stupidity makes them need to demonize minorities because morons have a need tp feel superior to someone due to their inferiority complexes. So, someone who is different is a vulnerable target!

#7 | Posted by danni at 2025-02-21 11:50 AM | Reply

The problem with these numbers is the lumping of LGB with the TQ.

I'd be curious to see if the uptick is coming from the TQ numbers.

#8 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 12:45 PM | Reply

The problem with these numbers is the lumping of LGB with the TQ.

I'd be curious to see if the uptick is coming from the TQ numbers.

Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 12:45 PM | Reply

Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?? Are you trying to deny our existence too??

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 12:52 PM | Reply

I remember people used to complain if you conflated sexual identities with sexual orientations. Now they complain and accuse you of trying to deny their existence if you don't.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 02:00 PM | Reply

#9

If anything I was focusing on your existence.

There is a strong debate about social contagion in the TQ+ numbers. If the numbers were also increasing at such a rapid pace in the LGB numbers it would be a strong argument against social contagion, and bolster the "not afraid to come forward" position.

However if it's just TQ, then the social contagion possibility should continue to be investigated.

And to be clear before you assign me a position.

The T community definitely exist. However I feel that we are too liberal in affirmative care and treating kids with mental and emotional issues that in fact would not be in the T community otherwise. I feel it is a disservice to those kids, and it weakens the position of those like yourself that actually are transgendered.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 02:41 PM | Reply

All this shows is more people are admitting it to pollsters.

Your assumption is the rate is constant, and only people are admitting it now.
From a scientific perspective that is an invalid assumption, you can't draw any conclusions because the polls weren't meant to resolve this issue.

Only an increase in those counted, that is it, that is all you can assert with confidence without more data.


Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?? Are you trying to deny our existence too??
#9 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Not a problem in the larger picture, but if breaking down statistically it would be interesting to see the growth rates of each.

This is from 2021
news.gallup.com

Note how "BI" has grown to 15% for kids, could it be that the Bisexual growth rate accounts for a majority if not all of the growth?

#12 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:02 PM | Reply

"Your assumption is the rate is constant, and only people are admitting it now."

Your assumption is people were just as comfortable then as now in admitting it.

Of the two, I disbelieve the latter.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:04 PM | Reply

The break down from the article shows a huge increase in Bisexual behavior.

Are bisexuals really LBGTQA? Aren't their degrees? If someone has one experience are they now Bisexual?

idk the rules.

#14 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:09 PM | Reply

Are bisexuals really LBGTQA? Aren't their degrees? If someone has one experience are they now Bisexual?

idk the rules.

Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:09 PM | Repl

Clue phone here. The B in LGBTQIA is for Bisexuals. You're welcome

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:11 PM | Reply

Clue phone here. The B in LGBTQIA is for Bisexuals. You're welcome

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

OneNut knows that, Capt'n obvious... He was asking something along the lines of - if he only sucks one dick, does that make him Bi? Or does he have to partake more times to get his wallet-sized ID card?

#16 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:29 PM | Reply

#16 You mean if YOU only suck one dick! Askhole!

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

if he only sucks one dick, does that make him Bi?

You checking whether you're technically bi?

The term "curious" or "bi curious" is used for people who experiment one or two times with people of the same gender.

You're not bisexual unless you find yourself attracted sexually to both males and females. (More than just that one drunk night in college.)

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:39 PM | Reply

You mean if YOU only suck one dick! Askhole!
#17 | POSTED BY 1INCEL

Don't worry baby girl. No one was suggesting you've ever had sex.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Baby girl.... LMAO

#20 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:43 PM | Reply

Speaking of LGBTQIA people.

Riddle me this. A guy puts Bull nuts on his rig and then calls said rig she/her yet has a problem with Trans people. Make it all make sense please.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:44 PM | Reply

(More than just that one drunk night in college.)

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, JPW tried to play it like that after he let the cat out of the bag on the Nooner that weird night.

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:44 PM | Reply

Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 12:52 PM | Reply

I know straight, married swingers claim LGBTQIA now.

The A went from Asexual to Anybody.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 03:48 PM | Reply

"Anybody" is technically pansexual.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:53 PM | Reply

#23

This is exactly right, aren't we all LGBTQA+?

If the definition keeps changing to the point that everyone is included, then what's the point of the distinction?

#25 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:53 PM | Reply

aren't we all LGBTQA+

Funny how CisHets hate being left out.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:56 PM | Reply

"The A went from Asexual to Anybody."

When did it stop being Allies?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:57 PM | Reply

Funny how CisHets hate being left out.

Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:56 PM | Reply

Yeppers. Just take a gander at Straight pride events. The ridiculousness is staggering.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:59 PM | Reply

Self declared mental illness nearly 1 in 10.

#29 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-02-21 04:14 PM | Reply

From a scientific perspective that is an invalid assumption, you can't draw any conclusions because the polls weren't meant to resolve this issue.

I didn't draw that conclusion from nowhere. I cited where I got my information, why I said what I said, gave a link to a great piece on the subject, and was all based that and what was the gold standard in sexual expression in 80 years, which I also referenced but did not cite. Do you need a citation for something that is, perhaps, the seminal study on this subject? The work is incredibly interesting.

Otherwise just start with the simple:
kinseyinstitute.org

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 04:40 PM | Reply

When did it stop being Allies?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:57 PM | Reply

It never meant Allies. It always meant Asexual.

#31 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 04:41 PM | Reply

What you're looking for is LGBTQIA+ Allyship. It's the other A that's not included in the acronym.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 04:42 PM | Reply

"It never meant Allies."

Sure it did; look it up.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 04:46 PM | Reply

I did before I commented. UC Davis, Wikipedia, and ChatGPT.

Calling it Allies is considered a slur.

"Some people have mistakenly claimed the A stands for ally, but allies are not a marginalized group and mentions of A for ally have regularly sparked controversy as a form of LGBT erasure."

If you want to battle the wikipedia editors, have at it.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 05:37 PM | Reply

You don't get to be an initial unless you're marginalized.

Circling back to my original question, are white, hetero swinger Allies marginalized? Eh, no, they just like to fuck.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 05:39 PM | Reply

It started out as ALLIES.
I remember that from the 80's. I remember it well. I remember PFLAG.

It was around 2015-2018 that it shifted.
Some militancy developed in the US.
There are *some* people that get their nose out of joint because "allies" aren't "them" so they can't be in "the group."
I've run into a couple of those types.

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 05:45 PM | Reply

"If you want to battle the wikipedia editors ... "

I'll just leave that right there.

Meanwhile, I'm collecting two pensions from a career in the arts. I've never heard A referred to as asexual, always ally.

Ask Siri, see what she tells you. The answer I got was either or both.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 05:47 PM | Reply

ChatGPT?
Jeezus.

Here's a great example of being wrong - and the historical and thoughtful rebuttal to it. Read the comments, and expand them (there's only one that matters and it's the longest. The rest are handclaps for it.

medium.com

It's a perfect presentation of how history is lost on the young and why that's detrimental to their own cause.

#38 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 05:57 PM | Reply

Who thinks the bulk of expanding lettered gender and sexual identities are organic and naturally created / developed vs created via media and mind manipulation of youth.

Me I don't care unless promotion is political where some identities are given benefits that others do not get.

#39 | Posted by robson at 2025-02-21 06:13 PM | Reply

Ask Siri, see what she tells you. The answer I got was either or both.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 05:47 PM | Reply

Eww, no. That's the worst AI. Apple is far behind.

Notice you skipped the UC Davis part.

Allyship is after the LGBTQA+ part regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When did it stop being Allies?*

I've seen it referred to as Asexual or Agender or Androgynous far more often than Allies. I'm pretty sure Alcoholics Anonymous were also embedded at one point.

#41 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 06:38 PM | Reply

Notice you skipped the UC Davis part.

Didn't seem the least bit relevant to me. Is there something significant about that? You provided no context, no link. I don't much care given I lived through it all.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 06:41 PM | Reply

Allyship is after the LGBTQA+ part regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong.

Yeah - No. Wrong.
Don't need you telling me that me being gay and all my friends have been 'using it wrong'.
I've heard that from too many women that tried to get me to switch teams.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 06:45 PM | Reply

"You don't get to be an initial unless you're marginalized."

Everyone is marginalized, to some extent. What's the threshold? Since we're mixing and matching orientations with gender identities then why not also include other marginalized groups, like Autistic and Neurodivergent people too?

"Circling back to my original question, are white, hetero swinger Allies marginalized?" Eh, no, they just like to fuck."

Actually, you just made the point in how they're marginalized in the same way bisexuals often were and are. For a time, I think they weren't even acknowledged by the Gay and Lesbian movements.

Historically, swingers were associated with the word "gay" regardless of their orientations. Before it became primarily associated with homosexuality, gay referred to anyone in the Freelove movement.

#44 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 07:50 PM | Reply

" regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong."

Don't be a jerk.

In my arts circles, we've always been Allies. Yav confirmed history I lived through, which you don't know. Why dig a deeper hole?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 08:32 PM | Reply

"Notice you skipped the UC Davis part."

I noticed you skipped the "We lived through it" part.

Did you bother reading the history, so admirably provided for you? It spells out your error rather clearly.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 01:21 AM | Reply

Lumping T in with LGB makes no sense IMO. T should be it's own separate category.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:43 AM | Reply

T should be it's own separate category.

There are only two categories now:

1) Straight white men, and
2) Everybody else.

#48 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 02:47 AM | Reply

#48.

Um, no. But solid trolling effort.

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:51 AM | Reply

Lumping T in with LGB makes no sense IMO. T should be it's own separate category.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:43 AM | Reply

You get no say because you're not part of the community.

#50 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 02:53 AM | Reply

BTW Trans people have been instrumental in the fight for LGBTQIA rights. Marsha P Johnson a Trans woman of color was credited with throwing the first brick at Stonewall. Again Jeff. You get no say. Just sayin

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:06 AM | Reply

Trans and gay are not the same. They are not intersectional.

#52 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:11 AM | Reply

Trans and gay are not the same. They are not intersectional.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:11 AM | Reply

You really have no clue how ridiculous that argument is. We are part of the community because we're all part of a group of people who have been marginalized by our own society. If you are not part of the community you really don't get to decide who is in it or not. That's just the facts of the matter.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:20 AM | Reply

Um, no. But solid trolling effort.

What is "DEI", other than not straight white men?

#54 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 03:22 AM | Reply

DEI is the embodiment of modern racism.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:23 AM | Reply

DEI is the embodiment of modern racism.

#56 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:23 AM | Reply

Gay and trans face completely different issues. They are not intersectional and it's offensive to both groups, IMO, to be lumped in together as one.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:24 AM | Reply

When it comes to DEI - take anything written, especially by Robin DeAngelo or Ibrahim X Kendi and swap black with trite and vice versa and it will read like it was written by a Klan member.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:26 AM | Reply

Gay and trans face completely different issues. They are not intersectional and it's offensive to both groups, IMO, to be lumped in together as one.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:24 AM | Reply

GFY Jeff. You know not what you speak about.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:27 AM | Reply

What is "DEI", other than not straight white men?

Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 03:22 AM | Reply

THIS!!!!!!!! DEI has become a perjorative and it's all about excluding all but cis het white males. That's the crux of the issue.

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:30 AM | Reply

www.jurist.org

The question then becomes whether American society, out of timidity, fear, or wrongheaded belief, wishes to return to those days of "white men only need apply."

Some might argue that the executive order and AG memo do no such thing " that they merely speak to assuring equal opportunity. And yet, they advocate for a return to practices that historically led to only white men being considered and hired.

The so-called "merit-based" period they romanticize was one where consideration and appointment rested more on relationships than actual merit. The fundamental criterion for consideration and hiring was who one knew rather than what one knew. And since, due to virulent discrimination, white men primarily knew other white men as peers, those relationships led to the lily-white outcome discussed above " the very system to which the President and the Attorney General (a woman, which is an irony not lost on anyone except possibly her) wish we return. If you believe I overstate the case, consider Attorney General Griffin Bell's own comments about judicial appointments, courtesy of a 2021 University of Toledo Law Review article by Katherine Simpson.

#61 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:46 AM | Reply

"They are not intersectional"

They certainly are in the mind of MAGA.

Haven't you been paying attention?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 03:47 AM | Reply

Danforth,

Are you going to be around for a few more minutes?

If yes, I'd like to share a drippingly sarcastic paragraph from a piece at NRO that you will undoubtedly enjoy.

#63 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:01 AM | Reply

I tried to create a user blog with it but NRO links are forbidden on this site, which is crazy given that those writers are very critical of Trump.

#64 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:02 AM | Reply

" They are not intersectional"

They certainly are in the mind of MAGA.

Haven't you been paying attention?

#62 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-02-22 03:47 AM | FLAG: "

Well, on this issue apparently I'm not MAGA. I don't see it that way at all. Gay and trans are not synonymous.

#65 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:07 AM | Reply

Lumping T in with LGB makes no sense IMO. T should be it's own separate category.

Your bigoted arrogance combined with your ignorance is stunning and a perfect summation of MAGA.

You don't get to decide for us.
This is OUR community.
You don't get to define who is an acceptable human.
You don't get to dictate our lived history.
You don't get to apply your beliefs on us.

Let me assume that you're doing this because you're ignorant and not ignorant and a bigot. Let me give you a little history lesson on why "T" is in the original LGBT(Q+): There was this thing that happened called The Stonewall Riots.

So stop telling US who WE should include and exclude and how to behave or anything else. You want to know why MAGA exists? It's because people like you never approved of us being treated fairly, having security from discrimination, to be able to live openly and authentically. You hate us for the progress we were able to make.

#66 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 07:56 AM | Reply

Google:
The+stonewall+riots+transgender

#67 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 07:59 AM | Reply

I may not be in the club Yav, but I do have family that is, and they're not the biggest fans of the TQ anymore. You may have been a founding member in the club, but current actions are wearing your welcome thinner it would appear. Who someone like to sleep with, and who someone thinks they are is bond that will cause friction.

#68 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-22 08:43 AM | Reply

That's a separate issue to deal with, KWR.
I was addressing Bellringer. What you posted is a different point.

The fact that the MAGA strategy of dividing us against each other is working with some in your family doesn't change anything I said.
What you say is happening is an illustration of how fascism takes hold. The history on this is crystal clear.

$215 (at least) million spent on demonizing transgender in this last election. A tiny part of our population. Demonized. Made to be the enemy. MAGA made it unsafe to even speak about it in any other terms than theirs.

I'll give you it was wildly successful.
Evil to its core. Filled with lies.
But successful.

Just look at your family.

#69 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 08:59 AM | Reply

The family I speak of isn't swayed by the media, they are turned off by the actions of their classmates on campus. It's not a political issue for them, but a daily experience of life on campus where it's always performative and he's done with it.

#70 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-22 09:42 AM | Reply

A gay man is still a man and has no confusion about it.

Gay people and trans people face completely different issues. They are not intersectional.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 09:53 AM | Reply

Gay people and trans people face completely different issues. They are not intersectional.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 09:53 AM | Reply

Again you get no say. Deal with it Jeff.

#72 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 09:55 AM | Reply

"in the original LGBT(Q+)"

Didn't the original ordering start with G?

#73 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-22 09:55 AM | Reply

M going to put it out there - how did "Gays against Groomers" ever become a thing?

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 09:56 AM | Reply

Didn't the original ordering start with G?

#73 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2025-02-22 09:55 AM | FLAG:

Yes. L is G. No need to create a sub-category.

#75 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:06 AM | Reply

Found this on a Medium article:

"Since the 1990s, different versions of the initialism have proliferated as increasingly nuanced ways to understand and define people's lived experience of gender and sexuality are articulated. One expanded version of the initialism in use is LGBTQQIP2SAA, which stands for: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two spirit, asexual, and ally."

#76 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-22 10:07 AM | Reply

Yep. Arrogant, bigoted, and ignorant. Congrats on your tenacity to hold on to it.

#77 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 10:07 AM | Reply

#76 - That sounds British.

#78 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 10:08 AM | Reply

Yes. L is G. No need to create a sub-category.

LMAO!

Yep. Arrogant, bigoted, and ignorant. Keep proving it!

#79 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 10:09 AM | Reply

"Yes. L is G. No need to create a sub-category."

I disagree. I think there's a huge difference, especially when watching, er, movies. YMMV.

#80 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-22 10:09 AM | Reply

Gay is encompassing - dudes attracted to dudes and chicks attracted to chicks.

Done.

L is chicks attracted to chicks. Already addressed with G.

This is self indulgent narcissism.

#81 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:22 AM | Reply

You're an ignorant, reductionist, moron.
Done.

#82 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 10:33 AM | Reply

I find it abhorrent that cis het individuals think they can dictate who can and can not be in the LGBTQIA community. Takes a lot of chutzpah to do so. Just sayin

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 10:36 AM | Reply

cis het individuals

Some of those. Those shhtheaps called "MAGA" (I'm going to define them as MAGAA for their "allies) want us all to have the same freedumb they have - in fact they demand it. The freedumb to marry a person of the opposite and clearly defined at birth sex. Period. The freedumb to use terms they define for us. The freedumb to read the books they approve. The freedumb to have medical care they approve of. The freedumb to be all we can be as long as it's what they say is OK.

Let me repeat for Bellringer, specifically: So stop telling US who WE should include and exclude and how to behave or anything else. You want to know why MAGA exists? It's because people like you never approved of us being treated fairly, having security from discrimination, to be able to live openly and authentically. You hate us for the progress we were able to make.

#84 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 10:41 AM | Reply

"I find it abhorrent that cis het individuals think they can dictate who can and can not be in the LGBTQIA community. Takes a lot of chutzpah to do so. Just sayin"

Not really. Just their right to say it.

YOU OTOH put people you don't know who might disagree with you in a "community" of Nazis. Without any justification for it other than your feelings are hurt.

You do it every day here. You and Yav and clown, etc.

Every day.

Look at you all crying like little bitches when you see the ugly dope staring back at you in the mirror.

If you can call me a Nazi then I can call you a washing machine.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2025-02-22 10:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trans people are trans. Fine. Very little Kamala Harris Venn Diagram overlap with gay people. These two groups face different issues.

#86 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:56 AM | Reply

" I find it abhorrent that cis het individuals think they can dictate who can and can not be in the LGBTQIA community. Takes a lot of chutzpah to do so. Just sayin

#83 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2025-02-22 10:36 AM | FLAG: "

As a heterosexual man can I be part of that community? Or is it exclusionary?

#87 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:58 AM | Reply

As a heterosexual man can I be part of that community? Or is it exclusionary?

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:58 AM | Reply

No because you've never had to fight to exist nor have you had to fight for your rights. Therein lies the rub.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 11:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"As a heterosexual man can I be part of that community?"

You can identify as Questioning. Especially if you like to ask a lot of questions.

Anyone can identify as "Queer" too, in the classical sense of the word.

In fact, if you're happy or care-free, then you're technically gay.

#89 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-22 11:11 AM | Reply

"No because you've never had to fight to exist nor have you had to fight for your rights"

Odd.

I was always welcomed into the community, probably in part because (as a Union leader) I was fighting for their (and other's) rights.

I was an Ally before the "A" was added.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:14 AM | Reply

As a heterosexual man can I be part of that community? Or is it exclusionary?

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:58 AM | Reply

No because you've never had to fight to exist nor have you had to fight for your rights. Therein lies the rub.

#88 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2025-02-22 11:01 AM | FLAG:

Very good response.

#91 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 11:15 AM | Reply

Odd.

I was always welcomed into the community, probably in part because (as a Union leader) I was fighting for their (and other's) rights.

I was an Ally before the "A" was added.

Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:14 AM | Reply

I was always taught that the A meant Asexual not an ally. Yes Allies are vitally important for our rights just that they aren't listed in the LGBTQIA alphabet is all.

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 11:19 AM | Reply

"I was always taught that the A meant Asexual not an ally."

Obviously, we ran in different circles. And a different generation: I'm probably your dad's age.

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:20 AM | Reply

Obviously, we ran in different circles. And a different generation: I'm probably your dad's age.

Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:20 AM | Reply

He would have been 86 this year.

#94 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 11:22 AM | Reply

" just that they aren't listed in the LGBTQIA alphabet is all."

I was an A when they added the A. And it wasn't for asexual...back then. As Yav proved with his link to the history in post #38. Please read it.

Regardless...things change. But I lived through what I lived through.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:23 AM | Reply

"He would have been 86 this year."

Okay...somewhere in the middle.

I have to start taking Social Security this year.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:24 AM | Reply

" I have to start taking Social Security this year.

#96 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-02-22 11:24 AM | FLAG: "

Take it. You paid into it your entire life. Your contributions have already been spent. So, you are drawing on the gun-point "contributions" of those who are currently working. But that isn't your fault. You coercively paid-in. It's time to collect.

#97 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 11:31 AM | Reply

No because you've never had to fight to exist nor have you had to fight for your rights. Therein lies the rub.

Define fight? When is the war over? Have there ever been mass casualties committed by whomever they're fighting with?

For instance, I know plenty of gay and lesbians where I work, I don't see them fighting anything, get paid the same get all the same benefits. They have a month to "celebrate" themselves, TV shows, actors, clubs, et al.

I find this stat interesting: 43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.

Is the fight among themselves?

Also when is the war over? Do we have a definition of victory? When do you think the war will be won?

#98 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-22 11:42 AM | Reply

This is self indulgent narcissism.

#81 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag MEH

Actually Tinklebell... the L's were trying to maintain a safe distance to the promiscuous nature of male homosexuals and the rampant social issues that occur as a result. Yes both are technically "homosexual" however the cultures are very very different. In fact... homosexual men had little use for lesbians... until the AIDS epidemic and because so many Lesbians worked in the medical profession... they were finally deemed useful to the "cause" as eyewitness advocates. True story... you can do your research.

I often wonder if it is something about having a prostate... it's the only organ they can't remove while affirming... or ahem... correcting Gawds mistake... I know the jokes about guys thinking with their neewees being inspired by the nuggets... but even after extraction... the thought processes remain the same... and that is the remaining gem... the seat of the male soul... women don't have them... but I digress...

Ya know until I was a teenager females... women... girls... were not allowed to enter any "official" or "formal" settings like Schools, Courtrooms, Churches... etc wearing pants. It was mandatory to wear a dress. In the mid 70's, that and the social "dress codes" changed. Guys could grow their hair... Still in the 90's the press threw a fit when Hillary Clinton wore a pantsuit during a televised interview.

Basically... transwhutevahs are people culturally allowed to dress however they wish. Body mods are all the rage... piercing... tatts... genital hacks of all sorts. Most people don't give a fiddle deedee about any of it... unless it fits poorly... makes a scene..

Only a portion of the trans population insists that we deny nature... or make a big deal out of their path...

sigh...
I mean to tell you that there are some people that flat out should not "cross dress"... or perhaps start a fashion design with fem styles catering to the male form much the same as what occurred when women began wearing pants. Designers made better-fitting pants for women. Instead of insisting on the population embrace their "fairytale existence"

#99 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2025-02-22 11:54 AM | Reply

"Take it."

Oh, I will. More than happy to. The only downside is, we'll get out of a sweet, sweet tax pocket we've been in for years. Ever since the bride retired, our bracket dropped, and we had to start withdrawing from our retirement accounts, since my annual profits from the tax biz aren't enough to pay out annual bills (admittedly outsized now...she's got time for design, and loves any and all travel). We've taken out well over six figures, all from taxable IRAs. And ALL at a lower rate than I'll start paying next year.

Up to this point, each December, I look at where we are, and when we'll go into a higher federal tax bracket (a BIG no-no!). For the last 4-5 years, I've taken out MORE from the taxable IRA in December than we needed, to get to the cusp of the higher bracket...paid income taxes at the lower level...

...and turned around and maxed out our Roth IRA accounts for the year! And since Roths have no RMDs, and we've been raiding our Taxable IRAs while in the low bracket, we'll have less to HAVE to take out once RMDs start in 3-4 years.

But, and here's the rub, social security makes pensions more taxable, and vice-versa. There's a pocket in the tax code where an additional $10,000 adds $18500 to your taxable income, But at 70, you really have to start taking Social Security; otherwise you'll get ALL your backlogged money in the first month's deposit, and all that income will be taxable in the year received.

So I'll be thrilled when it starts. But I'll miss the sweet, sweet option of paying taxes WHERE I want, WHEN I want, and AT THE RATE I want.

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 11:59 AM | Reply

"I know plenty of gay and lesbians where I work, I don't see them fighting anything, get paid the same get all the same benefits."

They used to be denied the 1,400 advantages I got the moment my wife and I said "I do".

If their marriages are declared null, so are their advantages.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 12:04 PM | Reply


@#100 ... If their marriages are declared null, so are their advantages. ...

... and SCOTUS Justice Thomas has indicated he can't wait for such a case to appear before the Court.

#102 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-22 12:36 PM | Reply

Define fight? When is the war over? Have there ever been mass casualties committed by whomever they're fighting with?

Your "lots of gays and lesbians" can thank us for that. We fought tooth and nail to be able to live without hiding. To be protected from being fired if someone found out we were gay or lesbian. We marched, we protested, we fought police brutality and abuse. The war was feeling like it was over when we finally got marriage rights, but now? Now that's over. The war is back on.

Start with the easiest, the most perceived negatively. The first salvo was against the transgender. A tried and true tactic of fascists and authoritarians. Attack and demonize a target. Expand the list of targets. Divide the population against itself.

Today Florida announced it is suing Target for allowing PRIDE clothing in their store during PRIDE week. They are suing for "indoctrination of children" and for "causing a loss to the retirement fund portfolio" (yep, they invested and owned Target stock and it lost money because the GOP targeted Target over this, so they're suing Target).

#103 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 01:31 PM | Reply

BTW - it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for men to wear makeup or do dress in women's clothing - well into the '80s.
It was ILLEGAL for two men to rent a one bedroom apartment.
There was the "Johns Committee" in Florida which was state funded terrorism against homosexuals. You were denied legal counsel if you were caught up in that mess. Not to mention forced into mental institutions. There was the "purple pamphlet" and then that spawn of satan - Anita Byrant. That woman was evil.

It wasn't until 2003 that it finally was legal to be gay in Florida. That was forced on the State by the Supreme Court's ruling.

But lest we forget - and speaking of war - there was a very real gay holocaust, too. Pink triangles to identify the homosexuals in concentration and death camps, where thousands of us perished.

This is why the gay community and the Jewish community have had a warm relationship with each other.

History repeats if you're not paying attention. We have to pay attention.

#104 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 01:50 PM | Reply

History repeats if you're not paying attention. We have to pay attention.

#104 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Were you paying attention when you voted for Joe Biden? He fought gay marriage more than anyone on right did.

#105 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-22 02:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This isn't about gay rights it's about men declaring themselves women.

#106 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2025-02-22 02:33 PM | Reply

Men don't declare themselves to be women.

#107 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-22 02:54 PM | Reply

Were you paying attention when you voted for Joe Biden? He fought gay marriage more than anyone on right did.

I paid a great deal of attention, tiny human.

#108 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 03:11 PM | Reply

tiny human.

#108 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-22 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag

Yav, we cross? If I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

#109 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-22 03:42 PM | Reply

Yav, we cross? If I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

#109 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-22 03:42 PM | Reply

You're nobodies huckleberry.

#110 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-02-22 03:45 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort