There are other protected classes that are mutable like religion and creed, but the argument that discrimination based on sexuality should be illegal like race is stronger if it’s not something that people choose.
Of course discrimination should be minimized regardless of innate or not, but the loud arguments I’ve heard are about how sexuality is something born with. The whole idea of sexual fluidity, to me, means that there’s a whole malleability and I assume there’s some conscious ability to impact it.
Undertone? The whole sentences are designed to be trollish & are _obviously_ slurs & attacks.
The GP account was created 22 hours ago and has already been downvoted to oblivion... It's a pure TROLL, let's not mince words.
Given that the research in the article seem to falsify this theory of sexuality, I think you should provide a better counterargument than just restate the apparently falsified categorization as a fact.
Sexual fluidity could be attributed to a larger portion of the population being bisexual. For example I would consider myself bisexual but my preferences over time can shift a fair amount.
I call it 19th century theory because this is when the theory originated. Before this "sexual orientation" was not really a concept and words like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" did not exist. Sexuality was something you did, not some inherent "orientation".
I do find it interesting people counter such sociological research with "in my opinion...". Sure the research may be flawed or incomplete. So point out the flaws or counter-data. An opinion is not a counterargument in itself.
My point-out-flaw is that sexual fluidity and bisexuality do explain the observed behaviour equally well if you consider bisexuality to be similar to having a favorite type of food.
The difference to heterosexuality would be that everyone is a little bit attracted to the same gender or other gender.