*"Americans are turning against gay people."

[DenverDad]

5 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

The measures are quantitative changes by percent in continuous variable scores of Implicit Association Test, not percent population proportion changes on an arbitrary categorical binary. If an average score drops from, say, 100 to 25 and rebounds to 27.5 then the previous net change is nullified by merely 3%… no?. And that is constant from any randomly chosen baseline.

These data are amenable to inferential parametric statistics … I don’t know if they did that … and grade of clinical significance predicated on what proportion of standard deviation is represented by score changes … did that? IDK. No hints in the abstract.

Well, you know what Mark Twain said about lies 😜

[+ SirBillybob]

6 hours ago, DenverDad said:

Well, you know what Mark Twain said about lies 😜

And worrying, since most of us have vastly cleared that debt, owe no mo’ on the topic at hand.

Edited 15 hours ago by SirBillybob

[dutchal]

You have to consider this along with what's sometimes called the toothpaste effect.  Decades ago, there was a survey of how often Americans brushed their teeth.  Everybody was happy to find out it was something like 2 1/2 times a day..  Then somebody calculated that, if that were real, we'd be using about twice as much toothpaste as is actually sold.  Another survey focused on church attendance in an area of, I think it was, Ohio.  One Sunday they actually counted the people in church.  Guess what?  It was significantly lower than the survey indicated it would be.

There is a chunk of the population that answers polls according to a perception of what they "should" say.  My guess is that the older polls showing gay acceptance were examples of this, and that the Trump era has given people license to be more honest about intolerance.

[BSR]

33 minutes ago, dutchal said:

You have to consider this along with what's sometimes called the toothpaste effect.  Decades ago, there was a survey of how often Americans brushed their teeth.  Everybody was happy to find out it was something like 2 1/2 times a day..  Then somebody calculated that, if that were real, we'd be using about twice as much toothpaste as is actually sold.  Another survey focused on church attendance in an area of, I think it was, Ohio.  One Sunday they actually counted the people in church.  Guess what?  It was significantly lower than the survey indicated it would be.

There is a chunk of the population that answers polls according to a perception of what they "should" say.  My guess is that the older polls showing gay acceptance were examples of this, and that the Trump era has given people license to be more honest about intolerance.

I like your theory.  Another example is polls of whether or not people vote.  Respondents almost all say they vote in every election, but the vote tallies reveal a lot of people lied to the pollsters.  What people claim to do and what people actually do can be a helluva gap.  But with the backlash against political correctness and woke-ism, it makes sense that more respondents think to themselves, “f*ck it,” and say what they really feel.

More in the realm of cold hard numbers, I wonder how much anti-LGBT violence is anti-LGB and how much is anti-trans.  With trans issues and controversies more in the spotlight, I would expect anti-trans violence to rise.

[+ SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, dutchal said:

You have to consider this along with what's sometimes called the toothpaste effect.  Decades ago, there was a survey of how often Americans brushed their teeth.  Everybody was happy to find out it was something like 2 1/2 times a day..  Then somebody calculated that, if that were real, we'd be using about twice as much toothpaste as is actually sold.  Another survey focused on church attendance in an area of, I think it was, Ohio.  One Sunday they actually counted the people in church.  Guess what?  It was significantly lower than the survey indicated it would be.

There is a chunk of the population that answers polls according to a perception of what they "should" say.  My guess is that the older polls showing gay acceptance were examples of this, and that the Trump era has given people license to be more honest about intolerance.

That’s insightful.

However the problematic dips in negative bias attenuation we don’t like, apparent reversal of attitude gains, were very moderate for sexuality (10% range; negligible gain nullification) yet soared to the 100% deterioration range for other disenfranchised population categories. The point made by the researchers is that the small regressive dip over 3 years for sexuality deviated from theoretically prospective additional improvement that had been expected to extend, extrapolate, from the previous (2007 -> -> 2021-ish) enormous gains theretofore measured. That measurement is stacked against what would have been additional desirable improvement as it had been hoped that the trajectory would proceed to the notion that orientation is moot in terms of societal attitudinal bias. It’s a progressivism stall, albeit worth following. 

I’d have recommended that they rewrite and rename the op Ed as: American Ceiling Effects on Sexuality Attitudes, but then may have been relegated to the  back page of the Palookaville Tribune. 

Edited 9 hours ago by SirBillybob

[d.anders]

I have little-to-no faith in articles like this anymore. American media is a for-profit business that relies on eyes and subscriptions. I probably regret the post, except it is something to talk about in our community.

Even though life offers plenty of pain to endure, the gay men in my circle seem to be very happy, or at least content. We know there are people in the world who hate us, who are afraid of us, but we've always known this. And yet we still have managed in our lifetime to make enormous strides. I can only imagine how the haters feel about our collective strength. Fear.

This notion that you can somehow convert some straight human to be gay has always seemed laughable to me. A porn fantasy run amok among porn watchers. Sure, there are predators among us. I'm sure there are some younger folk, going through bad times, who could be vulnerable. The world can be a harsh and cruel place. 

There seem to be more and more children who are being raised by gay parents, and not just in NYC. These kids are doing quite fine, if not fantastic. They are showing the world that there is more than one way to love another human being, and create a fabulous family.

As long as racism exists, I guess we can expect homophobia to exist, too. Life is an ebb and flow, and we just have to keep moving forward with our heads held high.

[+ SidewaysDM]

29 minutes ago, BSR said:

I like your theory.  Another example is polls of whether or not people vote.  Respondents almost all say they vote in every election, but the vote tallies reveal a lot of people lied to the pollsters.  What people claim to do and what people actually do can be a helluva gap.  But with the backlash against political correctness and woke-ism, it makes sense that more respondents think to themselves, “f*ck it,” and say what they really feel.

More in the realm of cold hard numbers, I wonder how much anti-LGBT violence is anti-LGB and how much is anti-trans.  With trans issues and controversies more in the spotlight, I would expect anti-trans violence to rise.

I am in agreement on that theory as well. In Philly,  trans black females are targeted by violence at a much greater rate than the rest of the LGTBQ+ community. In the suburbs of our city, the trans bathroom issues in schools have caused some heated debates at local school board meetings.  My personal opinion is the trans backlash plays a major role in the negatively expressed towards the gay community. 

[+ sync]

My perspective is that society in general is influenced by role models.  Unfortunately, at the present time, many of our role models in high profile leadership positions are spewing acrimonious, divisive and fearmongering rhetoric relative to race, gender, transgender, homophobia and xenophobia, which is being further pollinated throughout social media.

“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

[marylander1940]

2 hours ago, BSR said:

I like your theory.  Another example is polls of whether or not people vote.  Respondents almost all say they vote in every election, but the vote tallies reveal a lot of people lied to the pollsters.  What people claim to do and what people actually do can be a helluva gap.  But with the backlash against political correctness and woke-ism, it makes sense that more respondents think to themselves, “f*ck it,” and say what they really feel.

More in the realm of cold hard numbers, I wonder how much anti-LGBT violence is anti-LGB and how much is anti-trans.  With trans issues and controversies more in the spotlight, I would expect anti-trans violence to rise.

Taking this slightly off subject... political correctness when it comes to obesity acceptance and body positivity has already backfired and many influencers who promoted it if given an injection of pill will happily take a way out of lifestyle.

Let's rejoice while still have the right to marry who we love!

[dutchal]

5 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

 

Let's rejoice while still have the right to marry who we love!

That would be "whom we love".  🙂

 

[marylander1940]

2 minutes ago, dutchal said:

That would be "whom we love".  🙂

 

use "whom we love" when the person is the object receiving the action (e.g., "the people whom we love"), but use "who we love" when the person is the subject performing the action

[dutchal]

35 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

use "whom we love" when the person is the object receiving the action (e.g., "the people whom we love"), but use "who we love" when the person is the subject performing the action

In either of your examples, "we" is the subject, so it has to be "whom".

[+ SirBillybob]

[marylander1940]

On 1/19/2026 at 12:04 PM, Lucky said:

 

From the article posted by @Lucky for all of us to read:

 

"Perhaps most surprising is that these trends were distinctly robust among the youngest American adults — those under 25. This group increased its animus against marginalized groups in general and gay people in particular at a faster rate than older Americans did. Also surprising is that although anti-gay bias has risen faster among conservatives, it has also risen among liberals."

 

 

 

Considering folks under 25 know they'll have to face lower wages, a highly competitive labor market and the rise of AI, I'm not surprised they turn on others to feel good about themselves. To some it's a knee jerk reaction!

On 1/19/2026 at 12:04 PM, Lucky said:

Article continues:

 

"The second hypothesis is that the anti-gay backlash reflects the rise in moral panic language about sexual grooming, the notion that gay adults are recruiting or influencing children to become gay. But the research shows no evidence of spikes in grooming discourse (measured through Google searches) that are meaningfully correlated with subsequent spikes in anti-gay bias.

If asked to speculate on the cause of the rise of anti-gay prejudice, we would point to two related factors. The first is social instability. Starting around 2020, the United States experienced a sustained disruption consisting of the Covid pandemic, economic strain and intensifying political conflict — each of which has been linked to heightened intergroup hostility and scapegoating. This would explain the overall rise in bias against marginalized groups."

 

 

 

Even in this forum of all possible places the word groomer has been use by those trying to out moral, out American, and out family value others!

Edited 5 minutes ago by marylander1940
confusion

[+ Lucky]

@marylander1940  You are quoting the Times article, not me!

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, Lucky said:

@marylander1940  You are quoting the Times article, not me!

Yes, I thought it was obvious that I was quoting the article you politely posted for all of us to read. 

I'm sorry for the confusion!

I will edit it now to make it more clear. Thank you!

Edited 9 minutes ago by marylander1940

[ShortCutie7]

One similar thing I’ve noticed specifically in the last month or so is people “laugh” reacting on Facebook to posts that are extremely serious in nature- I won’t go into detail as to not break the rule on politics/religion, but I saw a post today that I found incredibly upsetting, and about a THIRD of the reactions were “laughs”.  Regardless of one’s opinions on the subject matter, that reaction is incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate.