[JohnBooty]

Yes. Additionally....

There are a lot of older people who are intelligent and uneducated but have a really tough time distinguishing "fake news" from "real news."

My sister is in her 50s, is intelligent and kind-hearted, and winds up linking to fake news sites alllllll the time.

A lot of those sites are absolutely insidious. They look like reputable news sites: your same basic layout as any mainstream news site. Frequently updated with multiple news articles per day. Many even sprinkle in a lot of innocuous syndicated stories from the Associated Press or some other press service.

But... look a little closer and all of their original content pushes some particular agenda.

For example, my sister linked to one that looked pretty legit. Had a bunch of soft news stories. But, look a little closer.... and there were thousands of disturbing articles about how it was harmful to have abortions or be LGBT.

If a publisher has an agenda, okay. That's fine. We all have viewpoints and agendas. But masquerading as a neutral mainstream news site, so that you grasp for some unearned credibility from folks who aren't tech-savvy enough to know the difference? Yiiiiiikes.

Some folks will point out that this criticism could be applied to Fox News or MSNBC as well. I wouldn't totally disagree, but what I'm saying is that there are fake news sites out that that are waaaaay more extreme and insidious.

[RandoHolmes]

I think it's clear that it is harmful to be LGBT (especially T). This is obvious in the clearly higher rates of suicide of these demographics.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be inclusive, but lets also make sure we're not pretending that there aren't problems there. You can't try to fix a problem you won't acknowledge.

Now, perhaps you meant something else when you said harmful, I just interpreted it that way because I would have expected you to say 'bad' if it was the case that the articles were judging the people themselves (much like a religious person might).

[JohnBooty]

I suspect you're trolling, but here goes. I'll stick strictly to facts and abstain from all moral judgement.

In most of the world, LGBT folk face a number of additional stressors compared to non-LGBT folk. These stressors include some or all of the following:

- Inability to marry partners of their choosing

- Inability to openly date partners of their choosing

- Imprisonment or death

- Dismissal from their jobs

- Abandonment by family

- Loss of children

- and so on

Whether or not you feel those stressors are just or not, certainly they contribute to poorer mental health outcomes, to put it mildly.

[srtjstjsj]

You are confusing "harmful" with "at-risk"

[RandoHolmes]

Then please explain it to me.

[aw1621107]

In short, you appear to be mixing cause and effect; i.e., correlation is not causation.

A higher suicide rate among the LGBT population can mean two things:

1. Being LGBT causes a higher suicide rate

2. Being LGBT is correlated with a higher suicide rate

The first conclusion postulates that the mere state of being LGBT, independent of environmental, social, circumstantial, or other factors, increases suicide risk; in other words, no matter how accepted or ostracized LGBT people are, no matter their upbringing, no matter any other factor, they will always have a higher suicide rate.

The second conclusion, on the other hand, allows for the possibility that some external factor can come into the picture to produce the observed result, and that being LGBT does not innately mean a higher risk for suicide. For example, perhaps LGBT people are relegated to a second-class place in society, with reduced opportunity to find love and having to constantly act in an “unnatural” way in order to be treated fairly. These additional stresses can add up to an increased suicide risk, without which an LGBT person would have a “normal” suicide risk.

By saying “ I think it's clear that it is harmful to be LGBT”, then bringing up suicide rates without mentioning possible confounding factors, it seems you’re drawing conclusion number 1 from above, which, strictly speaking, is too strong of a conclusion to draw given the stated data.