Sexual identities aligned with non-natural sexual orientations are significantly more likely to change over time, according to a study published June 1 in Duke University Press. Using a survey that asked the same individuals questions six years apart (a “time series” study), the researchers found that people who identified as gay or lesbian were nearly five times as likely as those with natural sexual orientation (a category they called “heterosexual”) to change their sexual orientation over a six-year period. Meanwhile, of those who identified as bisexual, any other sexual orientation, or preferred not to say, outright majorities changed their sexual orientation over six years.
Yang Hu of Lancaster University and Nicole Denier of the University of Alberta analyzed data from the U.K. Household Longitudinal Study, featuring a sample of 22,673 individuals who answered questions regarding their sexual orientation in both Wave 3 (2011-2013) and Wave 9 (2017-2019) of the study. They compared the answers from Wave 3 with those from the same individuals in Wave 9 and analyzed the changes. The large, time-series sample meant their study “provides new, population-wide evidence of sexual identity mobility,” they said.
However, the British-Canadian research team later reported, “The rate of sexual identity mobility was low among those who self-identified as heterosexual … as only 3.3% changed their identity.” Of this 3.3%, 1.7% simply switched their answer to “prefer not to say,” while 0.8% said “bisexual,” 0.6% said “other,” and only 0.2% switched their identity to gay or lesbian.
The data showed that the mobility — or as they once put it, fluidity — of sexual orientation is more pronounced among those with unnatural sexual orientations. Among those who identified as gay or lesbian, 16.1% changed their identity during the intervening six years. More than half of these (8.6% of the whole) resumed a natural sexual orientation, while 2.1% identified as bisexual, 1.9% identified as other, and 3.6% preferred not to say.
The reversion rate was even higher among those who identified as bisexual. A whopping 56.8% of those who identified as bisexual in the first study had changed their answer by the second study. A plurality (44.0%) of those who identified as bisexual in Wave 3 identified as heterosexual in Wave 9 — higher even than those who still identified as bisexual (43.2%). Relatively small proportions, meanwhile, had switched their identity to gay or lesbian (5.4%), other (2.4%) or preferred not to say (5.1%).
Of those who identified as “other,” 85.4% had changed their sexual orientation identity response. Two-thirds (69.6%) reverted to a natural sexual orientation, and 10.3% preferred not to answer. Only 4.2% identified as gay or lesbian, and 1.4% identified as bisexual.
Of those who had preferred not to answer the first time, only 27.1% still preferred not to say the second time around, while 72.9% changed their response. Meanwhile, 62.2% of them identified with a natural sexual orientation, while 3.9% identified as gay or lesbian, 3.2% identified as bisexual, and 3.6% identified as “other.”
From these data, the researchers concluded that policies addressing sexual identity minorities “need to account for the fact that their target populations are very much in flux.” This conclusion is not based upon opposition to such policies; in the same sentence, they welcomed “policies addressing socioeconomic and health inequalities experienced by sexual minority individuals.” They are simply acknowledging what their research shows.
One implication of their conclusion is that anti-discrimination law should distinguish between the inherently fluid category of sexual orientation and immutable categories such as race, color, or sex. The theory behind these protections for immutable categories — that experiencing lifelong discrimination can significantly impact the educational or economic opportunities available to, say, an African American or a woman — does not apply to sexual orientation, because a person who identifies as bisexual today is just as likely to revert to a natural sexual orientation in six years.
Approaching the issue from another vantage point, codifying protections or even privileges for sexual minorities — such as grants and scholarships available only to people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual — create perverse incentives for individuals to apply these labels to themselves dishonestly. Not only would someone who didn’t experience these sexual orientations have a financial motivation to falsely claim that they did, but someone who tasted the benefits of government largesse while they did identify as one of these sexual orientations would stand to lose that money if their feelings ever changed — which these results show to be a common occurrence. Such a person would have to choose between either losing the benefits to which he or she had grown accustomed, or pretending to still have a minority sexual orientation, even though that was no longer true. In such a scenario, a government program designed around helping someone “live as their authentic self” (an awful, problematic phrase that the Left loves) would actually hinder their ability to “live as their authentic self.”
The utility of this study is not limited to the tame conclusions drawn by the progressively-minded researchers who conducted it. Another conclusion to draw from its findings is that a natural sexual orientation remains normal, despite the systematic attempt in media and academia to demote it to one potluck dish among many. The fact remains that those with a natural sexual orientation (what the authors call “heterosexual”) are far less likely to change than those who identify as any other sexual orientation. Could this be because sex as God intended it is far more satisfying than any perversion the mind of man can invent?
The researchers also analyzed the number of responses who reported having no partner, a “different-sex” (they mean “opposite-sex,” but they are trapped in the absurd language of gender ideology) partner, or a same-sex partner at both time intervals. They found that those with a “different-sex” partner were substantially more likely to still have a “different-sex” partner (90.4%) than those with a same-sex partner were to have a same-sex partner (69.7%). But perhaps the most jaw-dropping statistic in the study is disparity between those who switched from a “different-sex” partner to a same-sex partner (0.1%), versus those who switched from a same-sex partner to a “different-sex” partner (5.7%). Someone with a same-sex partner at the first time interval was 57 times more likely to have a “different-sex” partner six years later than someone who started out with a “different-sex” partner to have a same-sex partner six years later.
Another noteworthy line of evidence that proves this point is the numbers of respondents in each category. In Wave 3 (Wave 9 results were similar), 94.2% of respondents identified with a natural sexual orientation, 1.3% identified as gay or lesbian, 1.1% identified as bisexual, 0.8% identified as other, and 2.6% preferred not to say. In other words, 36 times as many people reported a natural sexual orientation as the second largest category — which was the category for those who refused to answer. This refusal category (a fairly standard rate of refusal) is, in turn, at least twice as large as any of the other categories. The whole brouhaha over sexual orientation has been stirred up over minorities so small that, in a nationwide survey, they are dwarfed by the “refused” category.
The selected categories also poorly conceal that the simplicity of the issue and the dominance of normal sexual orientation is larger than reported. To uncover this reality, it is only necessary to define the categories. “Heterosexual” means normal: men attracted to women and women attracted to men. “Gay” or “lesbian” means the opposite: men attracted to men and women attracted to women (see Romans 1:26-27).
“Bisexual” (or “bi”) is a category intended to mean “both”: men attracted to both women and men, and women attracted to both men and women. In practice, however, someone identifying as “bi” is often sexually attracted to a single partner who is either a man or a woman, making them functionally homosexual or heterosexual while the relationship lasts. Indeed, the researchers reported that “sexual identity mobility was closely associated with partnership changes.” Such a “bisexual” identity simply means a person could hypothetically see themselves becoming attracted to someone of either sex. An inexperienced (and therefore ignorant) young person might believe that open-mindedness requires them to reach a similar conclusion; the researchers reported that people aged 16-24 were two to six times more likely than older demographics to “move into” a bisexual identity. Thus, it’s likely that a substantial portion of respondents who identified as bisexual functionally have a natural sexual orientation, combined with some philosophical confusion.
The theme of confusion persists through the “other” category, too. As far I can tell, the category would include “asexual,” “pansexual,” and possibly other categories (but not transgender or queer, as those are gender identities, not sexual orientations. “Asexual” simply means a person is not sexually attracted to anyone, or what we used to call “celibate.” “Pansexual” means a person could theoretically be attracted to anyone — it’s essentially a variation of “bisexual” that incorporates the myth that there are more than two possible genders. Any other identity category would simply involve a person expressing an attraction toward one or more mythical genders, and such a person would functionally belong to one of the other categories. Those categories cover all the logical categories. The data show that this category is a highly unstable identity wilderness, with 17 out of 20 people in the category adopting a different identity within six years, and seven in 10 returning to identify according to a natural sexual orientation.
Finally, the “prefer not to say” category is also rife with confusion. We should be careful here, as there are many possible reasons someone might respond in this way. The individual could prefer not to say because he or she doesn’t know (confusion). The individual could prefer not to say because he or she believes that is highly personal information that makes him or her feel vulnerable to divulge to a stranger (perhaps confusion, or merely lack of confidence). The individual could prefer not to say out of a sense of irony or libertarianism. There could be other reasons. Regardless, a substantial majority of people who answered “prefer not to say” felt comfortable marking down a natural sexual orientation six years later.
In other words, the Left’s alphabet soup of sexual orientations really boils down to two or possibly three. There is natural (“heterosexual”), unnatural (gay or lesbian), and arguably a combination of the two (bisexual). All the other possibilities presume the existence of non-existent genders or are simply celibate. If the respondents who put down other responses were properly assigned to these three categories, the proportion of those with a natural sexual orientation would seem even larger than it already does.
While academia and the media have tried their hardest to confuse people (of all ages, but especially the youth) into adopting deviant sexual orientations, God’s design for human sexuality persistently reasserts itself, and sometimes the Left’s own studies show it.
Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.
