Li Shiu Tong
June 1, 2022 8:38 AM Subscribe
"Historians are rediscovering one of the most important LGBTQ activists of the early 20th Century – an Asian Canadian named Li Shiu Tong."
Fascinating essay - thank you!
As someone who is LGBTQ, I've been keeping track of various estimates of how many people are gay, how many bi+, etc. I don't know what Li's methodologies were that resulted in such very high numbers. I do know that it's very hard to get accurate numbers, because some people won't disclose due to stigma - and the reduction in stigma is definitely a factor in more young people identifying as LGBTQ+. But while I admire Li's efforts, I think that it will shake out that being gay/bi+ is the minority, though likely not a tiny one. (Contrary to my belief as a teenager that everyone was bi+ like me). One study that tried to get around the stigma issue was based on googling for gay porn (I believe just for gay male porn), and that came out with an estimate of about 5% for a same-sex attracted male population (though I don't know how they accounted for straight and bisexual women who might also enjoy it).
Things also get complicated by the different definitions of what it means to be gay, straight or bisexual. Is it based on behaviour? I don't know the details of Kinsey's research, but I know that part of what he counted was same-sex sexual behaviour - which would have included a lot of people who were primarily heterosexual but who may have engaged in situational sexual behaviour, but that's different from having an innate orientation or attraction.
But I'm really glad that Li's research was saved!
posted by jb at 9:43 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
As someone who is LGBTQ, I've been keeping track of various estimates of how many people are gay, how many bi+, etc. I don't know what Li's methodologies were that resulted in such very high numbers. I do know that it's very hard to get accurate numbers, because some people won't disclose due to stigma - and the reduction in stigma is definitely a factor in more young people identifying as LGBTQ+. But while I admire Li's efforts, I think that it will shake out that being gay/bi+ is the minority, though likely not a tiny one. (Contrary to my belief as a teenager that everyone was bi+ like me). One study that tried to get around the stigma issue was based on googling for gay porn (I believe just for gay male porn), and that came out with an estimate of about 5% for a same-sex attracted male population (though I don't know how they accounted for straight and bisexual women who might also enjoy it).
Things also get complicated by the different definitions of what it means to be gay, straight or bisexual. Is it based on behaviour? I don't know the details of Kinsey's research, but I know that part of what he counted was same-sex sexual behaviour - which would have included a lot of people who were primarily heterosexual but who may have engaged in situational sexual behaviour, but that's different from having an innate orientation or attraction.
But I'm really glad that Li's research was saved!
posted by jb at 9:43 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think people are inherently 'X' is just not a good model for human behavior, and for most things, any given individual isn't really inherently anything strong enough to outweigh the cultural norms they are shaped by, even with something so instinctual as sex.
And the thing is "Straight" in the most conservative sense means "So sexually revolted by people with the same genitals as you that you would never have sex with them." which may not actually be a lot of people absent cultural conditioning for it.
And certainly, it may be more reasonable way to define "straight" if you are actually caring deeply about people's inherent preferences, whatever that might mean, but you can be sure that a whole lot of people are going to equivocate that to say "Oh look, so many people are straight! Homosexual behavior is abnormal and unnatural."
Honestly, if you're doing research, it's probably better to come up with your own labels with precise definitions rather than adopt existing ones laden with cultural baggage and their own meaning. Which I am sure a lot of researchers do.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:49 AM on June 1, 2022
And the thing is "Straight" in the most conservative sense means "So sexually revolted by people with the same genitals as you that you would never have sex with them." which may not actually be a lot of people absent cultural conditioning for it.
And certainly, it may be more reasonable way to define "straight" if you are actually caring deeply about people's inherent preferences, whatever that might mean, but you can be sure that a whole lot of people are going to equivocate that to say "Oh look, so many people are straight! Homosexual behavior is abnormal and unnatural."
Honestly, if you're doing research, it's probably better to come up with your own labels with precise definitions rather than adopt existing ones laden with cultural baggage and their own meaning. Which I am sure a lot of researchers do.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:49 AM on June 1, 2022
Since we're talking about heuristics for self-identifying sexual orientation and Kinsey came up, I thought I'd post Kinsey's actual definitions, just in case someone hasn't read them. I honestly hadn't until a few years ago, and I've been a person who identifies, at the very least, as not-straight for most of my decades. I personally found them (perhaps overly) simple but enlightening and they helped me figure out positions on the scale I orbit around at this point in my life.
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X No socio-sexual contacts or reactions
I'm guessing that if we categorized everyone in 1-X as some shade of LGBTQIA+, the percentage would be a lot higher than we typically imagine.
posted by treepour at 6:19 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X No socio-sexual contacts or reactions
I'm guessing that if we categorized everyone in 1-X as some shade of LGBTQIA+, the percentage would be a lot higher than we typically imagine.
posted by treepour at 6:19 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older upholds the permanently ricketty elaborate... | Admiral Linda Fagan (USCG) becomes America's first... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Marhoefer's book looks really interesting!
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:24 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]