The Washington Examiner reports that 40% of Brown students now identify as LGTBQ+. The Brown Daily Herald’s 2023 Spring survey revealed that 38% of students, more than five times the national rate, no longer consider themselves “cis.” The gay and lesbian population has increased by 26% and the percentage of students identifying as bisexual has increased by…wait for it!… 232%. Just eleven years ago, in 2010, only 4% of Brown University students said they were not conventionally heterosexual. Now it’s 38%.
Commenting on this phenomenon at the Victory Girls blog, Lisa Carr writes in part,
The new “cool kids” now are changing their names every other day, along with changing their identities to anything contrary to their biological sex. Joe becomes Joelene who is dating Mary who wants to be known as “Mike”. Mary is nominated for Homecoming King while Joe is the Homecoming Queen; both in their gender-fluid and ambiguous outfits. And yes, they are probably still wearing those filthy, ugly masks because society told them to stay scared. (But alas, don’t be scared to cut off your genitalia.) This is the new cult. This is the trend we are seeing in colleges but I would argue that this seed is being planted as early as elementary school….This is no longer about loving and accepting all. This is about subtle conversion by suggestion.
Apparently a Brown professor, Dr. Lisa Littman, argued that campus culture and peer groups were pressuring students into such epiphanies regarding their true sexual identities, and got herself fired for it.To be fair, college as always been perilous place for weak-willed, easily intimidated, and insecure young men and women who did not arrive on campus with solid values and the character to resist indoctrination. Different social contagions were spread by professors and peer groups in the Sixties with lasting harm to American society. That era’s students took harmful drugs aimed at changing consciousness rather than secondary sex characteristics, and there were lasting casualties. One of my best friends in high school and one of the smartest people I’ve ever known returned from his college experience permanently disabled from taking too many “mind-altering drugs” that altered his forever.
Colleges are entrusted with the socialization, education, welfare and mental health of our young, and are paid exorbitant amounts on the assumption that they perform their function competently and responsibly. As with so many other crucial American institutions, it seems clear that such trust has been a tragic mistake.
Ethics Alarms 
Everyone wants to belong. I myself took up cigarettes at 14 to “fit in” with a group that accepted me. Stupid me did not know I was accepted without the need to smoke. When the glue huffers and drugged showed up I did draw a line on that behavior.
Activists and faculty exploit this human condition. If being non-binary is the thing that helps you belong young people will willingly discard a prior sense of self to adapt to the group identity.
If an an adult wants to surgically change their appearance so be it. Just don’t have me indirectly pay for the procedures via taxes or higher health premiums. I do take issue with the sexualization of children. In the eyes of the law, one cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes until they are 21. Why is the rationale for denying children to choose to smoke or drink any different than allowing them to choose some gender because not doing so would make them sad. I was sad as a kid when I did not get my way when I wanted to do stupid stuff.
The same rationale for not targeting children in tobacco ads should be used to prohibit the reinforcement of gender dysphoria in the young by activists and medical professionals. We criticize private firms for profit seeking at the expense of the people yet we seem unwilling to call out the doctors and activists who are profiting off the exploitation of children.
I have become convinced that if parents have not established a foundation of sound moral (and ethical) principles in their children by the onset of puberty, they will almost surely fall victim to the evils of cultural Marxism that now stalk the earth. In my opinion this requires a personal relationship with Christ and the continuing support of a based and loving family and committed church community, holding firmly to the truth and remaining always vigilant to the lies of a secular culture that seeks to replace God with self on the way to establishing a totalitarian state. I am fortunate to be a part of such a supportive network within my family and community.
We as patriots who love this country and our freedoms must take a stand, individually and collectively, against this evil in all its forms, and speak out against all of its proclaimers and proponents, and not be bullied into silence by those with no truth or sound arguments but plenty of vitriol and rage.
The Christian church especially has an obligation to speak out clearly and loudly on these issues. We must know how and when to prayerfully reach out to those who can be educated or persuaded, and conversely, we must know when to refrain from “casting our pearls before swine” as Christ cautioned. We must put our beliefs into action. Personally, I can’t imagine why any Christian (or any patriot) would give another dollar to businesses like Disney, Target or Anheuser-Busch (just the tip of a long list of woke corporations) that are acting to destroy our liberties and corrupt our children. We must follow through on what we know to be right and good with the courage of our convictions. God will hold us accountable if we do not. I cannot believe otherwise. We must, like Martin Luther, say, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
First, off, the Washington Examiner didn’t “report” anything; they editorialized on reporting in the Brown Daily Herald, the student newspaper at that university.
The Herald conducted its own poll, about which we know nothing in terms of the methodology involved. It’s more than plausible, therefore, that we’re looking at non-scientific poll results, since undergraduate journalists are unlikely to have the skills of professional pollsters (and we know how often even they get things wrong). A self-selecting group of respondents, for example, would likely skew the results towards a higher percentage of LGBTQ+.
But even if we accept the data as accurate, what does it prove? Under 9% (22.9% of 38%) of those responding identify as gay or lesbian. That’s not far from national averages for that age group. The big jump is in self-identifying as bi-sexual. OK, what does that mean? The Examiner piece trumpets the idea that “identity is rising much faster than behavior.” That is, we’re really discussing definitions. What do people who are predominantly heterosexual but occasionally have homosexual feelings call themselves?
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t some students who pretend to be LGBTQ+ because it’s “fashionable.” But surely there were generations of queer kids who pretended to be straight not merely because it was more socially acceptable, but as a matter of literal self-preservation.
I recently wrote on my own blog about a variation on that theme. I do one-handed things (writing, throwing) left-handed and two-handed things (using a baseball bat or an axe) right-handed; I’m pretty much ambidextrous in lacrosse, fwiw. If I’m given a disjunctive choice, I’m a southpaw, but if I’m given a choice of “other,” I might be tempted to choose it.
Many college students haven’t really “found themselves” sexually. (Please excuse the ’60s expression.) I have no empirical evidence, but I do have four decades of being surrounded by post-adolescents. I can think of several students off the top of my head who arrived on campus in homosexual relationships and are now in apparently happy heterosexual marriages that have already lasted for several years. Of course, I’ve seen that pattern reversed, as well, although (perhaps curiously?) less frequently.
College, on other words, is a time of experimentation for many students. There’s a gay male student on our campus who proclaimed a year or so ago that bisexuality doesn’t really exist. (Needless to say, he caught a lot of flak for that.) But who knows? In my experience, the majority (not all) of post-adolescent self-identified bisexuals seem ultimately to end up moving into one or the other of those disjunctive paradigms by their mid-20s.
Finally, I think it’s presumptive to suggest that Brown’s environment encourages students to claim to be other than heterosexual, although it’s certainly possible in some cases. But it’s at least as likely that Brown allows a self-identification that had hitherto been forbidden to students who don’t fit the parameters of being absolutely, unequivocally, heterosexual. Some will “grow out of it”; others won’t. Such is the way of the world.
In other words, I find it difficult to be much concerned about this reportage.
I think this is a fair assessment. I do believe that much of the sexual confusion is exacerbated by the promise of joining the marginalized group to belong to something they believe needs allyship. The young are idealists with a desire to right what they see are past wrongs. Joining the fight for the little guy seems to them a noble act. The problems occur when the activists who seek power abuse and exploit their lack of life experience.
But the sexual orientation is a political declaration, and may have nothing to do with sex at all. I hold the university’s culture responsible for that.
I can see regarding self-initiated and public declarations of sexual orientation as political, but how is responding, presumably anonymously, to a poll about sexual orientation about anything but sexual orientation? Or are you suggesting that conducting the poll is a political act?
Most polls are political acts, either in intent or in their use after the results, don’t you think?
Well, there are certainly plenty that fall inro the former category, but I’d argue that the fact that those that attempt objectivity can be politicized (i.e., misused) doesn’t mean they are themselves political.
“First, off, the Washington Examiner didn’t “report” anything; they editorialized on reporting in the Brown Daily Herald, the student newspaper at that university.”
Now THAT”s nitpicking. The Examiner “reported” on the student newspaper’s poll, by relaying the message of its article to a larger audience.
Otherwise, all good points, and all worth making.
“ I’m not suggesting that there aren’t some students who pretend to be LGBTQ+ because it’s “fashionable.” But surely there were generations of queer kids who pretended to be straight not merely because it was more socially acceptable, but as a matter of literal self-preservation.”
YES
“ I think it’s presumptive to suggest that Brown’s environment encourages students to claim to be other than heterosexual, although it’s certainly possible in some cases. But it’s at least as likely that Brown allows a self-identification that had hitherto been forbidden to students who don’t fit the parameters of being absolutely, unequivocally, heterosexual. Some will “grow out of it”; others won’t. Such is the way of the world.”
DOUBLE YES
Curmie,
I like your comments. They are (as usual) insightful and interesting. I do agree with the other commenters, though, that the current LGBT++++++++++++ is a cultural trend more than an actual cultural shift.
Recently, our friend’s niece passed away (she was only 23 years old and had many, many health issues). We attended her funeral Mass. I found it odd that the of the young woman’s family (consisting of the mom, the dad, quadruplet girls, and son) had 3 out of 5 children who identified as “non-binary” or gay. That’s what, over 60%? How is it possible that one family could have such a high percentage of children with non-traditional sexual orientations/identities? Maybe Woody Allen was right that bisexuality increases your chances of a date on Friday night by 50%.
jvb
This seems like great news! What’s the issue here?
Maybe these adults feel more freedom to be who they really are now. And maybe it’s society at large that is indoctrinating them.
Society does have a legitimate interest in continuing the species…..
That’s debatable.