Assuming Heterosexuality

[lowtech redneck]

Specific and/or direct examples? I can't immediately think of any, but it seems likely that, because human society is largely a matter of institutionalizing and perpetuating the socialization between heterosexual males and females, avoiding this consideration in the creation of social norms out of a desire to make an inherently small minority feel less alienated will take away more utility from the majority than is gained from the minority, resulting in a net utilitarian decline. As an example, changing the American currency, which presently causes difficulties for the blind (and yes, I know its not the exact same category as the three examples I gave), is likely to be highly inconvenient for people who rely on automated transactions much of the time, such as at grocery stores or vending machines, as well as current manufacturers of such equipment, not to mention the inconvenience of holding differently sized bills. If, however, there is am inexpensive way to change the design of currency without making them incompatible with current machines or unwieldy to use, then that would be a reasonable accommodation that should be instituted for a disadvantaged minority.

I agree, however, that one should always be aware that such assumptions are just arguably necessary shortcuts, and could always be wrong.

Edit: this is a reply to Silvanus, I forgot to quote him.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

It could also depend on location. In an area like San Francisco or Key West, it would be a bit more difficult to make assumptions about a person's sexual preferences. A better question: is it wrong to guess that someone is gay based off of their mannerisms? I see it a lot and do it a lot (in private or silently to myself). I don't make any other assumptions about a person's personality when I guess their sexuality and I don't attach anything negative to it, but a lot of people would.

 

[Skatologist]

snip

I suppose I could agree to that general assessment. No religion may somewhat imply a lack of monotheistic belief, but it does not do so completely. I'm not entirely certain, but I would think forms of deism and theism along with other beliefs could fit in that 50.7% but I am still completely aware of much of Europe generally having larger numbers of non religiously minded individuals. I usually assume "no religion" numbers are approximately 1/2 atheist or close enough, considering I had seen maybe 1 or 2 polls breaking down the "nones" in a US poll where admittedly, a large chunk of atheists and agnostics were identified, but another large chunk identified as "spiritual, but not religious" which I am still not entirely what that 100 % means in terms of those demographics. Wiccans? Buddhists? Something entirely different?

As for the my 2nd question, the only poll I ever saw regarding the question I think was US based and I think it had approximately 20 % of people identifying as not believing in any form of an afterlife. I haven't seen any for other countries, so I am unsure if a place like Sweden would have a similar answer, but despite having these relatively high numbers, it is still often assumed that I believe in an afterlife along with a single God until I express my opinion otherwise. I suppose I could blame that on the 76 % percent of self identified Christians in the US though.

Now, regarding your poll[footnote] I am going to refer to as a poll instead of a survey because when looking up the differences between the two, it seems how you phrased it, it was only asking and desiring an answer for 1 question, which is how polls generally operate. [/footnote] with 1.1 % answering "Gay or Lesbian", I would ask if it included bisexual in that poll as well, considering the fact bisexuality is also technically not heterosexuality. If not, then maybe the % of no answers or other possibilities? I ask this because I know polls/surveys are incredibly tricky and may usually have limited answers or phrase questions in specific ways. I don't disregard polls very often, but I do like to have a general knowledge on the things that are usually most important to them, like all the numbers, how the question was phrased, group size, etc., considering the fact I know how people are able to manipulate polls into getting desired results and how polls don't take into account thinking of subjects very often when outrageous results occur.

 

[Andysweden]

A while ago I met someone at work. I never talked much with them but later found out that they were homosexual and it surprised me. I don't care about other people's sexuality but It got me to thinking: is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

It's not wrong at all to assume hererosexuality, Homosexuality is still sadly a taboo in many places and religions, so as a result we currently don't really know the true figures on "sexuality" and therefore assume the norm is hetero.

 

[The Lunatic]

I suppose I could agree to that general assessment. No religion may somewhat imply a lack of monotheistic belief, but it does not do so completely. I'm not entirely certain, but I would think forms of deism and theism along with other beliefs could fit in that 50.7% but I am still completely aware of much of Europe generally having larger numbers of non religiously minded individuals. I usually assume "no religion" numbers are approximately 1/2 atheist or close enough, considering I had seen maybe 1 or 2 studies breaking down the "nones" in a US poll where admittedly, a large chunk of atheists and agnostics were identified, but another large chunk identified as "spiritual, but not religious" which I am still not entirely what that 100 % means in terms of those demographics. Wiccans? Buddhists? Something entirely different?

Yeah, I guess it's hard to cut it. I guess it depends on what your personal idea of "Statistically insignificant" is, I suppose.

It's kinda hard to tell as often not many polls or surveys go into much detail about this stuff.

Also depends entirely on social groups and such. A person of my age is more likely to encounter non-religious types than somebody in their 60s.

It seems to vary from person to person. So, perhaps blanket numbers isn't the best way, but, it seems a decent guide, to me at least.

Now, regarding your poll with 1.1 % answering "Gay or Lesbian", I would ask if it included bisexual in that poll as well, considering the fact bisexuality is also technically not heterosexuality. If not, then maybe the % of no answers or other possibilities? I ask this because I know polls/surveys are incredibly tricky and may usually have limited answers or phrase questions in specific ways. I don't disregard polls very often, but I do like to have a general knowledge on the things that are usually most important to them, like all the numbers, how the question was phrased, group size, etc., considering the fact I know how people are able to manipulate polls into getting desired results and how polls don't take into account thinking of subjects very often when outrageous results occur.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_280451.pdf

That's the poll in question.

The sample size is 350,000.

You're welcome to look at it yourself and draw your own conclusion, it's really quite interesting, honestly.

 

[Apl_J]

Sexuality isn't something that is on my mind when I meet someone / interact with someone (unless we're interacting in bed, giggity). For example, when I notice someone writing with their left hand, I go 'oh hey, you're a lefty'. I wasn't thinking about their handedness at any point until it came up, its only noteworthy because its a statistic improbability.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Okay, I thought about this line of reasoning. Would the responses be any different if the OP had said "Assuming Monotheistic Belief" or "Assuming Afterlife belief"?

The responses would probably be different for various reasons, but they are very different categories; sexuality has a demonstrably stronger biological basis that is virtually impossible to change after it becomes apparent, and the frequency of non-heterosexuality is inherently low. Supernatural beliefs have much less (though arguably still significant) biological basis, and their frequency ranges from nearly ubiquitous to a sizable minority.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

No it's not wrong. Around 97% of humanity is heterosexual, so it is logical to assume that someone is straight until proven otherwise.

I actually heard it was closer to 89% - 91%, though I have no idea how true that actually is. Still, non-heterosexuals are the vast minority by a ridiculously colossal landslide and it's not a trait that can usually be identified at only a glance, so it's not inherently wrong to assume someone's straight until proven otherwise imho.

Now how someone reacts to learning that another person is gay / bi / whatever, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[Supdupadog]

Kinda. If it's to yourself.

But like any assumption, you can't just blindly act on it when interacting with a person.

 

[Genocidicles]

I actually heard it was closer to 89% - 91%, though I have no idea how true that actually is. Still, non-heterosexuals are the vast minority by a ridiculously colossal landslide and it's not a trait that can usually be identified at only a glance, so it's not inherently wrong to assume someone's straight until proven otherwise imho.

Now how someone reacts to learning that another person is gay / bi / whatever, that's an entirely different matter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

3.4 percent of U.S adults identify as LGBT, with another 4.4% saying they don't know, or refusing to answer.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

A while ago I met someone at work. I never talked much with them but later found out that they were homosexual and it surprised me. I don't care about other people's sexuality but It got me to thinking: is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

No, it's completely logical. When the vast majority of people share a certain trait, you presume people you meet have that trait until proven otherwise. It's partially how your brain manages to keep track of everything in the world (it's often called "compartmentalizing").

In other words, if I meet someone, even if I'm not really thinking about it, I'm going to assume they have 10 toes. Why? Because the vast, vast majority of people have 10 toes, just like the vast, vast majority of people are heterosexual.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Maybe because youre a minority and that aspect of you generally doesnt show?
We can assume that most people do not eat lactose-free food since most of us arent lactose intolerant and something like that doesnt show, does that mean its negative to assume the majority case?
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Nope

 

[Nimcha]

No, it's not wrong. Hardly anyone ever guesses it about me unless I'm being obvious. But I do really like it if someone guesses correctly.

 

[Akjosch]

As mentioned, statistically you are likely to be correct.

OTOH, why do you need to make that assumption anyway? Why can't you just stick them in the "unknown" box until it becomes relevant?

The assumption, in of itself, isn't a problem, but you are likely to say or do things differently having made it.

The way I read the OP, it was less a conscious assumption and more that he was simply surprised by finding out his coworker was gay. It's kinda like walking up toward someone who looks just like a friend from behind, so you think they are your friend, and when they turn around, you're surprised that they're not. Exact same logic here.

I'm on the other hand of similar mind to thaluikhain here: I don't assume any specific attribute of anyone until it becomes relevant, then I ask instead of assuming.

I'm happily not knowing if someone has any sexuality at all, much less which one, and still interact with them for years or longer. Same for their religion, nationality, race, sex or gender, hair colour, or even birth name - I'll generally call them whatever they tell me to call them and won't make any difference if it's their "real" or "fake" name.

This way, if they decided to tell me, I'm simply not surprised by anything. I just record it as a statement of fact, in almost all cases an irrelevant one, and move on.

 

[JimB]

As mentioned, statistically you are likely to be correct.

OTOH, why do you need to make that assumption anyway? Why can't you just stick them in the "unknown" box until it becomes relevant?

The assumption, in of itself, isn't a problem, but you are likely to say or do things differently having made it.

The more I see you comment the more I realize that we are completely different people.

Anyway, it isn't like there's a 50% chance that the person he met is gay or bisexual.

I think you're missing the point. The point is, why would you make such an assumption? What is the purpose of assuming? What is the benefit? Why would you do it at all? What's the dividend from assuming someone is straight that you don't get from just leaving the question unanswered?

And if they aren't, how does that affect anything? Are gay people different?

Yes. They can't marry, they can't serve openly in the army, they get accused of being the moral downfall of a nation, they get sent to camps to pray themselves straight, they get told that when they die a white-bearded wizard who lives in the clouds is going to beat them up and set them on fire. A gay person's experiences are going to be different from a straight person's even if the nature of homosexuality doesn't really change much about a person, and those experiences will shape the person he is.

 

[Matthew Abbott]

I generally don't make assumptions, but I tend to move in circles where the incidence of non-heterosexuality is higher than the national average. Usually I don't assume either way...unless it's pertinent to the conversation at hand, or I'm trying to sleep with them, it's generally not important. And if it is pertinent (or, you know, I'm trying to sleep with them), there are really simple ways to find out politely.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Gay people are kinda the minority. Like said earlier, it's like assuming that adults can drive or a Kid goes to school.

As long as you treat them the same, I don't see a problem.

 

[Saltyk]

As mentioned, statistically you are likely to be correct.

OTOH, why do you need to make that assumption anyway? Why can't you just stick them in the "unknown" box until it becomes relevant?

The assumption, in of itself, isn't a problem, but you are likely to say or do things differently having made it.

The more I see you comment the more I realize that we are completely different people.

Anyway, it isn't like there's a 50% chance that the person he met is gay or bisexual.

I think you're missing the point. The point is, why would you make such an assumption? What is the purpose of assuming? What is the benefit? Why would you do it at all? What's the dividend from assuming someone is straight that you don't get from just leaving the question unanswered?

No, I think you're missing the point. Let's say you have a hypothetical friend who is friends with another person named Chris. Now, you occasionally hear that they hang out, but haven't actually met them. Eventually, you all meet together for some event (movie, theme park, etc). Of course, it turns out that Chris is short for Christine. Maybe that wouldn't surprise you, but I expect many people would have assumed that Chris is male. That doesn't make them sexist. It doesn't even mean that they care. It just means they were expecting one thing and got another.

Now, I've heard estimates saying that 10% of the population is gay in the past, but others have posted it's closer to 5%. Yes, in a population of 300 million, like in the US, 5% still amounts to about 15 million people, but it's still a very small percentage. You can go out and meet 20 people today and there would be good odds that none of them would be gay. There's also a chance that all of them are gay.

Hell, I don't even care about the sexuality of random people. But if I were to randomly guess the sexuality of the next person to walk in a door, I would guess straight simply due to the odds. This is not a judgement of the value of their sexuality. I hate to say this as it sounds so cliche, but I know plenty of people who are gay, bi, and of course straight. I've met my friend's boyfriends and got along with them great. I've seen them make out at a party and my reaction was to be a bit jealous as I wanted to make out with someone. A person's sexuality is not important.

For the record, I swear gay bars are more fun than regular bars. You just gotta look past all the pictures of half naked men on the walls.

And if they aren't, how does that affect anything? Are gay people different?

Yes. They can't marry, they can't serve openly in the army, they get accused of being the moral downfall of a nation, they get sent to camps to pray themselves straight, they get told that when they die a white-bearded wizard who lives in the clouds is going to beat them up and set them on fire. A gay person's experiences are going to be different from a straight person's even if the nature of homosexuality doesn't really change much about a person, and those experiences will shape the person he is.

Okay? And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. Or defending that. Hell, I'm one of the few conservative people on this site, and I would support gay marriage. Some people are stupid or bigoted (often not mutually exclusive). A lot aren't, though. Some try to sit on a moral high ground and pass judgement upon others.

My experience shaped me. My parents have a dog that is skittish around men, but has grown more comfortable around them over the years (largely due to my father and I treating him well) and his experiences shaped him. That isn't special or unique to gay people. You wanna discuss the politics of people being gay, I think you'll want to find a thread in the R&P forum.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's not about right or wrong, it's simply a natural reflex to assume the majority; If most of the people you encounter are straight, your assumption will be that people in general are. Our brains automatically categorize information so that we don't have to analyze every little individual bit that enters it.

 

[JimB]

I think you're missing the point. The point is, why would you make such an assumption? What is the purpose of assuming? What is the benefit? Why would you do it at all? What's the dividend from assuming someone is straight that you don't get from just leaving the question unanswered?

No, I think you're missing the point. Let's say you have a hypothetical friend who is friends with another person named Chris. Now, you occasionally hear that they hang out, but haven't actually met them. Eventually, you all meet together for some event (movie, theme park, etc). Of course, it turns out that Chris is short for Christine. Maybe that wouldn't surprise you, but I expect many people would have assumed that Chris is male. That doesn't make them sexist. It doesn't even mean that they care. It just means they were expecting one thing and got another.

Now, I've heard estimates saying that 10% of the population is gay in the past, but others have posted it's closer to 5%. Yes, in a population of 300 million, like in the US, 5% still amounts to about 15 million people, but it's still a very small percentage. You can go out and meet 20 people today and there would be good odds that none of them would be gay. There's also a chance that all of them are gay.

Hell, I don't even care about the sexuality of random people. But if I were to randomly guess the sexuality of the next person to walk in a door, I would guess straight simply due to the odds.

Then that kind of leads us back to my many times repeated but still unanswered question: for what purpose are you making that guess?

Okay? And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?

Commonalities of experience among one group can be used to establish a general pattern of how that group differs from another group that has not had those common experiences. You asked if gay people are different from straight people, so I answered of course they are. I offer nothing on how big or small those differences are, since that's pretty self-defeating when speaking in generalities, but the differences are real.