It's just a turn-of-phrase. It's just something I hadn't heard of or considered before. I mean, I know some gay men like to get off their tits on a bit of whizz and dance all night but I had no idea that mental health was a big issue among gay people and this leads to substance abuse.
I only know one gay person and he lives in a maisonette.
What's a person's sexuality got to do with living in a maisonette? I grew up living in one and I'm straight!
In the US more people are also 'coming out' as atheists, and I believe that phrase is actually used. There was a thread on Reddit (I think someone here linked to it) which mentioned the real danger of young people being disowned or chucked out by their parents simply for not believing in God.
Yeah, I saw an article about that, sometimes I'm glad they are so far away..
For whatever reason (increasing liberalism, general progress, whatever) perhaps people are becoming more confident in stating who they are and what they do/don't believe in but their parents or parent figures don't all accept it.
Hadn't thought of this - so kids are feeling more empowered to speak up about who they really are and when they do they get rejected.
Must say, I don't think that it means a great deal, by itself, and it'd certainly be remiss to assume it means a heap of US parents are "disposing of their faulty kids".
It'd certainly be interesting to find out the reasons why all these people were homeless though.
Yeah, I saw an article about that, sometimes I'm glad they are so far away..
Hadn't thought of this - so kids are feeling more empowered to speak up about who they really are and when they do they get rejected.
nice.
I honestly don't know and don't want to imply that I do. It just seems like a possibility to me. When you get progress being made on the one hand, you often get the digging in of heels by those who don't like it.
Neither am i sure exactly why you appear to be more concerned about 'equal marriage' and 'educating people' about LGBT of which, in the USA, 40% are homeless whilst the figure of 75% homeless irrespective of sexuality being drug abusers appears to have passed you by.
I suppose much depends on where your priorities lie.
I think part of the thrust was that there is a disconnect in the LGBT community that champions equal marriage etc but doesn't pay so much attention to that fact that 40% of teenage homeless are LGBT. Case of priorities vis the LGBT lobby community
I honestly don't know and don't want to imply that I do. It just seems like a possibility to me. When you get progress being made on the one hand, you often get the digging in of heels by those who don't like it.
Sounds horribly feasible - I doubt that it accounts for the whole anomaly but I imagine it could be a factor..
I lived in one from when I was approx 2 or 3 years old, until I was 13. Was a council maisonette and I cried my eyes out the day we moved - I loved living there.
Neither am i sure exactly why you appear to be more concerned about 'equal marriage' and 'educating people' about LGBT of which, in the USA, 40% are homeless whilst the figure of 75% homeless irrespective of sexuality being drug abusers appears to have passed you by.
I suppose much depends on where your priorities lie.
Drug abuse = an effect of homelessness
LGBT = a cause of homelessness.
So "educating people about LGBT" could help to reduce homelessness.
I think part of the thrust was that there is a disconnect in the LGBT community that champions equal marriage etc but doesn't pay so much attention to that fact that 40% of teenage homeless are LGBT. Case of priorities vis the LGBT lobby community
Yes, that's certainly an inference I got from the article.
40% is a staggeringly high incidence of homosexuality, given the 2-3% in the general population (no idea what it is for transexualism but I suspect it is statistically insignificant). Also, if you click through to the study, most of those interviewed said that being gay is (as opposed to say, drug use) was the factor that directly caused their homelessness.
I think the inference that the money spent on promoting gay marriage might have been better spent elsewhere is wrong. Firstly, it's not an 'either-or' situation.
Secondly, lobbying for gay marriage is comparatively easy; you can mobilise public opinion fairly cheaply, the people whose minds you have to change (legislators) are visible and eager to court public opinion. Plus, results are unequivocal - you've either got gay marriage in place or you haven't.
However, if you are trying to reduce the incidence of homelessness due to parents rejecting their gay children, where the heck do you start? You're essentially trying to change the minds of potentially thousands of people who you can't easily identify and who have no incentive to change their minds anyway.
I think the Guardian's indulging in a bit of middle class self-loathing in that article. Very unusual, I know.
Gay rights is almost exclusively dominated by white, middle class, university educated people who mostly focus on relatively minor issues that affect them personally.
As that article points out, the bulk of those homeless teens are black and Latino, and I'd assume probably come from poor or underclass families. They're a world away from the people who are pusing the rights agenda forward.
There's actually an interesting parallel with feminism, which is currently undergoing cricticism in the US for essentially the same thing (focusing on trivia while poor and non-white women face far worse issues). It's really just the nature of protest in a class ridden society.
Agree with this. Marriage equality is a significant thing but having a roof over your head is way more important. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of the mainstream gay movement simply want to live a nice, boring middle class dream and that's the sole ambition of their campaigning.
I lived in one from when I was approx 2 or 3 years old, until I was 13. Was a council maisonette and I cried my eyes out the day we moved - I loved living there.
Yes, that's certainly an inference I got from the article.
40% is a staggeringly high incidence of homosexuality, given the 2-3% in the general population (no idea what it is for transexualism but I suspect it is statistically insignificant). Also, if you click through to the study, most of those interviewed said that being gay is (as opposed to say, drug use) was the factor that directly caused their homelessness.
I think the inference that the money spent on promoting gay marriage might have been better spent elsewhere is wrong. Firstly, it's not an 'either-or' situation.
Secondly, lobbying for gay marriage is comparatively easy; you can mobilise public opinion fairly cheaply, the people whose minds you have to change (legislators) are visible and eager to court public opinion. Plus, results are unequivocal - you've either got gay marriage in place or you haven't.
However, if you are trying to reduce the incidence of homelessness due to parents rejecting their gay children, where the heck do you start? You're essentially trying to change the minds of potentially thousands of people who you can't easily identify and who have no incentive to change their minds anyway.
I think the Guardian's indulging in a bit of middle class self-loathing in that article. Very unusual, I know.
Great post (sorry would snipped but on an iPhone at the mo)
Must say, I don't think that it means a great deal, by itself, and it'd certainly be remiss to assume it means a heap of US parents are "disposing of their faulty kids".
It'd certainly be interesting to find out the reasons why all these people were homeless though.
What isn't a big deal, the OP's statistic? I think it's hugely significant. To see such a disparity between the amount of LGBT people and the proportion who are homeless. That's a pretty serious indicator that all is not as well as it may seem on the surface when we look and what progress has been made. Especially when we get sold the ridiculous Pink Pound myth time and time again.
I honestly don't know and don't want to imply that I do. It just seems like a possibility to me. When you get progress being made on the one hand, you often get the digging in of heels by those who don't like it.
I think this seems like a pretty good explanation. In the past these people would have hidden or suppressed their sexuality in a way that they may feel more confident about not having to do because of progress made. But as you say, this sort of social change is always met with a reaction.
Well I started the thread based on the piece on the Guardian's website, which was about the large number of LGBT identifying teens that are homeless.......................
Wasn't it about the percentage of homeless teens who identify as LGBT? That's a completely different matter.
Reading page 16 of your link, "About the Survey" I get the impression that the people interviewed were put forward by organisations across the US with a vested interest in finding a high number of such cases.
If the figure is accurate, then it's definitely disturbing, but I do wonder how representative the sample was.
Neither does that. The only primary source they quote is one that does not support their thesis.
Once again, someone find me a PRIMARY source - not a moaning newspaper article criticising 'feminists' (or gay rights groups come to that) that only deal with issues relating to white, middle class people, or 'trivialities' as we must now call them.
Since the second launch of Spare Rib only achieved a sales total of about 3 before folding, I am not sure what would be seen as the primary media outlet for UK feminists, but Stonewall is surely the LGBT one, and it is not focused on 'trivialities' at all. Its campaigns are extremely wide-ranging, from persecution in Uganda and Nigeria to elderly care to the relationship between ethnicity and homophobia in the UK.
Huffington Posts Women section is perhaps the most high-profile feminist media product in the UK (I don't mean it is produced in the UK, obviously) and again it covers an extremely wide range of topics: medical articles , detailed discussions of the implications of benefits changes, articles about all aspects of the workplace, articles on sexual violence, drugs, race, homelessness etc.
I can't think of ANY feminist media outlets that only discuss white, middle class issues; there may be some university journals perhaps; but when has the Mail ever tried to discuss that kind of thing?
Neither am i sure exactly why you appear to be more concerned about 'equal marriage' and 'educating people' about LGBT of which, in the USA, 40% are homeless whilst the figure of 75% homeless irrespective of sexuality being drug abusers appears to have passed you by.
I suppose much depends on where your priorities lie.
It isn't that it passed me by, it's that you're attempting to derail the thread. I posted on the basis of reading the article on Guardian's website, and was aiming to discuss the reasons behind it.
You talked about the 75% figure like it was surprising, unfortunately, and sadly, it is not.
Additionally, the reason I am veering away from the 75% stat is that it's a little too close to home
I don't mind getting over myself - I am sure it will do me good - but that does not address my challenge by a million miles.
Neither does that. The only primary source they quote is one that does not support their thesis.
Once again, someone find me a PRIMARY source - not a moaning newspaper article criticising 'feminists' (or gay rights groups come to that) that only deal with issues relating to white, middle class people, or 'trivialities' as we must now call them.
Since the second launch of Spare Rib only achieved a sales total of about 3 before folding, I am not sure what would be seen as the primary media outlet for UK feminists, but Stonewall is surely the LGBT one, and it is not focused on 'trivialities' at all. Its campaigns are extremely wide-ranging, from persecution in Uganda and Nigeria to elderly care to the relationship between ethnicity and homophobia in the UK.
Huffington Posts Women section is perhaps the most high-profile feminist media product in the UK (I don't mean it is produced in the UK, obviously) and again it covers an extremely wide range of topics: medical articles , detailed discussions of the implications of benefits changes, articles about all aspects of the workplace, articles on sexual violence, drugs, race, homelessness etc.
I can't think of ANY feminist media outlets that only discuss white, middle class issues; there may be some university journals perhaps; but when has the Mail ever tried to discuss that kind of thing?
I think Aneechik was trying to illustrate that the issues that get the most mainstream coverage tend to be as a result of what he posted about, I don't think he was arguing that it was exclusively the case..
I can't think of ANY feminist media outlets that only discuss white, middle class issues; there may be some university journals perhaps; but when has the Mail ever tried to discuss that kind of thing?
Ah, come on now. Surely Radio 4's Woman's Hour* must be close to that definition?
No, not really. Obviously I know that some people end up on the streets because of drug abuse, but drug abuse is more likely to be an effect of homelessness than a cause, and LGBT is never an effect.
Anyway, this is interesting:
Nearly seven in ten (68%) respondents indicated that family rejection was a major factor contributing to LGBT youth homelessness, making it the most cited factor.
Comments
What's a person's sexuality got to do with living in a maisonette? I grew up living in one and I'm straight!
Me too!
Yeah, I saw an article about that, sometimes I'm glad they are so far away..
Hadn't thought of this - so kids are feeling more empowered to speak up about who they really are and when they do they get rejected.
nice.
It'd certainly be interesting to find out the reasons why all these people were homeless though.
I honestly don't know and don't want to imply that I do. It just seems like a possibility to me. When you get progress being made on the one hand, you often get the digging in of heels by those who don't like it.
I think part of the thrust was that there is a disconnect in the LGBT community that champions equal marriage etc but doesn't pay so much attention to that fact that 40% of teenage homeless are LGBT. Case of priorities vis the LGBT lobby community
Sounds horribly feasible - I doubt that it accounts for the whole anomaly but I imagine it could be a factor..
I lived in one from when I was approx 2 or 3 years old, until I was 13. Was a council maisonette and I cried my eyes out the day we moved - I loved living there.
Drug abuse = an effect of homelessness
LGBT = a cause of homelessness.
So "educating people about LGBT" could help to reduce homelessness.
That's a bit of a leap.
Yes, that's certainly an inference I got from the article.
40% is a staggeringly high incidence of homosexuality, given the 2-3% in the general population (no idea what it is for transexualism but I suspect it is statistically insignificant). Also, if you click through to the study, most of those interviewed said that being gay is (as opposed to say, drug use) was the factor that directly caused their homelessness.
I think the inference that the money spent on promoting gay marriage might have been better spent elsewhere is wrong. Firstly, it's not an 'either-or' situation.
Secondly, lobbying for gay marriage is comparatively easy; you can mobilise public opinion fairly cheaply, the people whose minds you have to change (legislators) are visible and eager to court public opinion. Plus, results are unequivocal - you've either got gay marriage in place or you haven't.
However, if you are trying to reduce the incidence of homelessness due to parents rejecting their gay children, where the heck do you start? You're essentially trying to change the minds of potentially thousands of people who you can't easily identify and who have no incentive to change their minds anyway.
I think the Guardian's indulging in a bit of middle class self-loathing in that article. Very unusual, I know.
Agree with this. Marriage equality is a significant thing but having a roof over your head is way more important. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of the mainstream gay movement simply want to live a nice, boring middle class dream and that's the sole ambition of their campaigning.
Did a gay person move in after you?:D
Great post (sorry would snipped but on an iPhone at the mo)
What isn't a big deal, the OP's statistic? I think it's hugely significant. To see such a disparity between the amount of LGBT people and the proportion who are homeless. That's a pretty serious indicator that all is not as well as it may seem on the surface when we look and what progress has been made. Especially when we get sold the ridiculous Pink Pound myth time and time again.
I think this seems like a pretty good explanation. In the past these people would have hidden or suppressed their sexuality in a way that they may feel more confident about not having to do because of progress made. But as you say, this sort of social change is always met with a reaction.
Wasn't it about the percentage of homeless teens who identify as LGBT? That's a completely different matter.
Reading page 16 of your link, "About the Survey" I get the impression that the people interviewed were put forward by organisations across the US with a vested interest in finding a high number of such cases.
If the figure is accurate, then it's definitely disturbing, but I do wonder how representative the sample was.
It's usually thought to be between 1-5% of people but there is the obvious issue of people lying about their sexuality to pollsters.
I don't mind getting over myself - I am sure it will do me good - but that does not address my challenge by a million miles.
Neither does that. The only primary source they quote is one that does not support their thesis.
Once again, someone find me a PRIMARY source - not a moaning newspaper article criticising 'feminists' (or gay rights groups come to that) that only deal with issues relating to white, middle class people, or 'trivialities' as we must now call them.
Since the second launch of Spare Rib only achieved a sales total of about 3 before folding, I am not sure what would be seen as the primary media outlet for UK feminists, but Stonewall is surely the LGBT one, and it is not focused on 'trivialities' at all. Its campaigns are extremely wide-ranging, from persecution in Uganda and Nigeria to elderly care to the relationship between ethnicity and homophobia in the UK.
Huffington Posts Women section is perhaps the most high-profile feminist media product in the UK (I don't mean it is produced in the UK, obviously) and again it covers an extremely wide range of topics: medical articles , detailed discussions of the implications of benefits changes, articles about all aspects of the workplace, articles on sexual violence, drugs, race, homelessness etc.
I can't think of ANY feminist media outlets that only discuss white, middle class issues; there may be some university journals perhaps; but when has the Mail ever tried to discuss that kind of thing?
It isn't that it passed me by, it's that you're attempting to derail the thread. I posted on the basis of reading the article on Guardian's website, and was aiming to discuss the reasons behind it.
You talked about the 75% figure like it was surprising, unfortunately, and sadly, it is not.
Additionally, the reason I am veering away from the 75% stat is that it's a little too close to home
I think Aneechik was trying to illustrate that the issues that get the most mainstream coverage tend to be as a result of what he posted about, I don't think he was arguing that it was exclusively the case..
Ah, come on now. Surely Radio 4's Woman's Hour* must be close to that definition?
*Fabulous programme BTW - I'm a regular listener.
An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
An estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.
An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.
Nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
No, not really. Obviously I know that some people end up on the streets because of drug abuse, but drug abuse is more likely to be an effect of homelessness than a cause, and LGBT is never an effect.
Anyway, this is interesting:
Nearly seven in ten (68%) respondents indicated that family rejection was a major factor contributing to LGBT youth homelessness, making it the most cited factor.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/94-of-homeless-youth-service-providers-report-serving-lgbt-youth/