The article cites a Gallup poll without linking it. Straight from the galluping horse's mouth: <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-ris...</a> "The recent increase is largely due to more adults in their late teens, 20s and 30s -- particularly young women -- saying they are bisexual."<p>The only place the The Hill article mentions bisexuals is in the macro expansion of LGBTQ. If it has a correct explanation, then surely only by accident, not as the result of careful analysis.
That's actually low by my anecdotal experience of Gen Z. Various things skew my sample.<p>I suspect most of them will end up in heterosexual relationships, and identifying as mostly their assigned gender. But they're getting a chance to make these as choices, rather than enforced heterosexuality.<p>They'll probably still identify as "at least a little bi" and "less than 100% male/female", but it's going to look conventional from the outside. They may well be in "ethically non-monogamous" relationships where they get to express parts of themselves that they don't usually do.<p>They resent having an identity forced on them. As we all did; we just didn't realize how pervasive that force is. I am manifestly certain that I'd have decided that I was a straight cis-man, but when I grew up it would never have occurred to me to ask.<p>I wouldn't say that my set of Gen Z friends is doing great. The world is pretty stressful for them. But they're responding to it with a pretty healthy understanding of gender and sexuality, so they've got that going for them.
This article appears to be making the case that it's definitely just lost children trying to replace religion. Infantilising boomer logic strikes again.