I kimd of am, why are so many relationships in media strsight? We need more lgbt representation
This is dumb and I’m probably getting offended for no reason but here’s a small experience I dealt with recently
So like 30 minutes ago my grandmother wanted me to smile so she told me to think of a pretty girl and while I didn’t react at all my first thought was literally “why not pretty boys” Its silly I know.
I’m not out but I literally couldn’t be leaving anymore hints that I’m bi. Its funny how nobody noticed yet
Removed by mod
Why bring this up here? What is the point of your reply?
It’s also absolutely incorrect and pretty well documented - 9% of adults on average globally, trending much higher for youth according to some of the most recent data from Ipsos.
But you’re absolutely right - bringing up population rates is unnecessary and kind of odd - and how many of us there are doesn’t negate how poorly we’re treated in many parts of the world, and the deficits we still face in western society.
i would assume they brought it up since being heterosexual is the norm because the majority of the population is heterosexual
Specifically in the context of media representation, I’d say it’s relevant. There is an actual objective target that we can talk about there.
Heternormativity in general, and especially in the context of interpersonal interactions, is only tangentially related to that though, and there’s obviously no reason in the modern day to be oblivious to the possibility that people aren’t straight.
i would assume they brought it up since being heterosexual is the norm because the majority of the population is heterosexual
9% in 30 countries, that’s far from globally. And I would guess those countries lean liberal. I used population percentage in my original statement to refute underrepresentation. Even if I use your skewed number of 9%, I think that they are appropriately represented in media
This shows a distinct lack of understanding of statistics and common issues in underreporting of marginalized status. The often cited example showing this is the following graph. As marginalization and stigmatization decreased, even for something which isn’t a literal death sentence in many countries, the rate of left handed individuals increased. Researchers in equity, population health, and statistics all hypothesize that a similar phenomenon is happening with queer identification.
That graph… what happened in the 1900s?
We stopped punishing left-handedness. As an example: children used to be taught only how to write with their right hand, and using the left hand would result in punishment – such as the hand being hit with yardsticks or the child being verbally abused – until the child forced themselves to write with their right hand.
But why the dip from the pre-1900s? Was it something like “increased literacy, increased punishment, stopped punishing”?
The discussion is on underrepresentation. Why would bringing up the percentage of population that’s queer be off-topic? The numbers (and sense that we’re overrepresented) may be wrong, but bringing it up absolutely makes sense. How does one seriously talk about being underrepresented or not without bringing what percentage of the population we might make up? How would one even gauge representation levels without such a framework?
I’m trying to gauge the intent of this person’s reply. It could be bad faith so I’m asking them to clarify. The fact that they only mention the percentage and it’s clearly wrong have me wondering why they left this comment.
I’m not being disingenuous, it’s a statistic I looked up not too long ago when I was digging into something else. I couldn’t care less what someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity is. I am just making an observation based on my knowledge that the marginalized group being referred to is appropriately, and probably overrepresented in public.
Maybe I’m in a bubble living in one of the most liberal places in the country, but I see representation on TV, while shopping, in print media, on lemmy (formerly reddit), etc.
The OP is making a claim that there needs to be more representation based on the opinion of a old timer that is clearly conservative. No amount of representation is going to change that person’s mind.
And this is a queer space, it’s not exactly nice to barge in and offer your opinion, especially when it runs counter to what experts have to say about it. You also didn’t provide any analysis of whether overrepresentation is a bad thing. Furthermore, your comment was reported by multiple people - which is why I stopped by to ask you a question about your intent. I would suggest quietly participating if you’re unsure how to act in minority spaces.
So is the instance just meant to be an echo chamber? I didn’t say anything derogatory or insensitive. I just offered a dissenting opinion on something that came up in my feed on All. I didn’t seek this thread out and barge in, I just made a comment on something I saw. Here’s the most recent poll I found stating 7%, which isn’t really that far off from 5%.
It’s not that this instance is meant to be an echo chamber, it’s that it’s meant to be welcoming, inclusive, and queer friendly. Saying that we’re over-represented, ackshually, isn’t really contributing to the discussion other than to tell us that our lived experiences of being under-represented are wrong. It implies that a statistical/percentage-based over-representation of a minority group is a somehow a bad thing. Less charitably, it sounds awfully similar to being told to sit down, shut up, and be happy with what we’ve got.
Nope, but there’s a right way to do things and a wrong way. I’m offering you suggestions on how to interact the right way in the future. You didn’t see an issue with your comment and I’m trying to help you understand why others did. If you’re not willing to put in the time and effort to show that you’re knowledgeable on the subject (in this case population statistics, which you proved you were not), then you need to at least put in the effort to use your emotional intelligence to understand how you’re not being particularly helpful and in fact pushing away minorities by offering a “dissenting opinion”, one which most marginalized individuals around here have likely heard ad nauseam in their lives from all sorts of folks, bigoted and not.
literally nobody has ever asked this question in good faith on this instance, so to say the least it really does not endear me to your continued participation here. this is almost always a dogwhistle from people who think censorship is when they’re not allowed to dominate conversations with bad or unnecessary takes—and in this context, you’re not really breaking from that pattern.
This is still sus, however, since that same source points out 10.5% of Millennials and 20.8% of Gen Z identify as LGBTQ. So, if anything, the 5% number thrown around is vastly underestimating the proportion of people in the US who are, strictly speaking, not cishet. So, if we’re creating media for the dominant consumer demographic in the US, we should see at least 1 in 10 characters in media with queer identities, if not 1 in 5.
This is still a sus, however, since that same source points out 10.5% of Millennials and 20.8% of Gen Z identify as LGBTQ. So, if anything, the 5% number thrown around is vastly underestimating the proportion of people in the US who are, strictly speaking, not cishet. So, if we’re creating media for the dominant consumer demographic in the US, we should see at least 1 in 10 characters in media with queer identities, if not 1 in 5.
Fair enough. Can’t be too careful on the internet.
The discussion is on underrepresentation. Why would bringing up the percentage of population that’s queer be off-topic? The numbers (and sense that we’re overrepresented) may be wrong, but bringing it up absolutely makes sense. How does one seriously talk about being underrepresented or not without bringing what percentage of the population we might make up? How would one even gauge representation levels without such a framework?
To be honest I suspect any estimates of queer demographics are going to be dramatically lower than the actuality in part because things like gender and sexuality are fluid and heavily influenced by culture and upbringing. There may be several orders of magnitude more people who might otherwise identify as bi or some kind of genderqueer but not enough to justify investing in the self reflection, identity crisis, and social capital it would cost.