[DaBackpack]

I read most of it, and while I can't argue against evidence, I can argue about the judgments to be made about sexuality and gender identity.

I can totally believe that mental health disorders are strongly present in LGBT subpopulations. I've had heard this in person from mental health professionals I really trust. I'd even be open to agreeing (given evidence) that there is a connection between mental health problems and LGBT subpopulations. Same thing with non-cis gender identity.

But what people often do with this information is to discredit the legitimacy of LGBT and non-cis gender identity.

To be short, my question to the supposition that LGBT is 'abnormal' is "so what?" So what if LGBT members are more prone to mental health disorders? Hell, so what if LGBT identity is caused by mental disorders? What does that matter? Do their problems suddenly not matter the same if they're not neurotypical?

"Ha ha gender dysphoria isn't caused by biology haha" -- even if that was true, so fucking what? Are you gonna say that their dysphoria suddenly isn't a problem because it isn't biological?

I actually appreciate the tone used by the author at points. Empirically speaking, it's near undeniable the correlation between mental health and LGBT subpopulations. I hate to say it, but it's true. But instead of refuting the "legitimacy" of their feelings, he proffers that these people should be able to receive help and are at particular risk.

EDIT: To bring this closer to home, there is a lot of research (maybe not so much anymore, but over the last decade) over whether or not homosexuality occurs in animals. My question is the same: why does that matter? People want to say that "if it isn't 'natural' then it's not real" or something like that.

Like even if something ridiculous like "LGBT is caused by mental health disorders" was proven (p.s. it never will be) that just serves as a motivation to supply more attention to these populations, not sneer at them and tell them their problems somehow aren't real.