I admit my life was different but from the time I was five I knew I was attracted to males. Specifically both sexually and emotionally. One of the hell spawn female siblings even held me down to pound the point that I was “queer” into me. I did not understand why it was wrong, after all they were the ones telling me what to do and farming me out to their teen boyfriends. I craved being held by the boys and not so much the girls. But all the other gay and lesbian people I have talked to knew early also. Preteen time frame. 7 or 8 and up they knew they were gay and either knew they had to hide it or knew they couldn’t so had to live with being attacked for it. These people who think it is a choice, a fad, or a phase need to ask themselves the famous question. When did they know they were cis and straight and was it a choice they made. No they just felt it all their lives, they simply knew it. Same for the LGBTQ+. The only difference is straight cis kids see themselves everywhere from birth. Mommies and daddies, they see themselves in the older kids around them, in the news, movies, TV shows, and the books they read. It feels so natural to them they just don’t question it. They are lucky. Until recently like in the last decade LGBTQ+ kids did not see themselves reflected in society. No movies had kids like them, no books in the library had kids like them. Some kids did not even know the words for how they felt. It was changing in the last ten years. Schools made a push for inclusion and tolerance, movies showed LGBTQ+ kids, books had them as plots or characters. Kids could see themselves and be proud. That is what the haters, the anti-trans / anti-gay bigots want to remove. The ability of kids who are different from the majority to see themselves represented positively in society. It is why they write and pass don’t say gay bills, and why they ban books. It is why they try to ban drag shows and pride events. These people who demand a straight cis world with only them showing in public are terrified of a world where people can be different. To them those who are the other must be destroyed, ideas of acceptance and tolerance must be erradicated and removed. All because they don’t feel different from the majority so the difference must not be real. But it is and we need to realize the scars left on kids who grew up in the times when they never seen themselves represented in society. We must not go backward in time, regressing to a time of hate. Hugs
LGBTQ+ youth advocates gathered outside the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023, where a school policy that would impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth was being reviewed in Superior Court. | Amanda Oglesby / Asbury Park Press / USA TODAY NETWORK
A new poll from Pew Research Center sheds some light on just how early LGBTQ+ people are aware of their identities. The study of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. found that most respondents understood their identity before the age of 14, with a substantial portion knowing about their identities before the age of 10.
Among gay and lesbian adults, 36% said that they felt they were gay or lesbian before the age of 10 and 35 first felt they were gay or lesbian from ages 10 to 13. Only a minority – 29% – had their first feelings about their sexuality after the age of 14.
The numbers were similar for transgender people. Approximately 33% felt they might be transgender before age 10, and 25% felt the same way between ages 10 to 13. Only 19% had their first feelings about being transgender after the age of 18.
Bisexual people tended to know the latest, but even a majority of bisexual people said that they had their first thoughts about being queer before age 18. Half – 50% – had their first feelings of being bisexual before age 14.
The question often comes up in discussions of LGBTQ+ youth, with many on the right insisting that people can’t know their identities before adulthood. Often, these people claim that only LGBTQ+ people can’t know their identities before adulthood, but then support heterosexuality and cisgender identities in young people.
But these statements fly in the face of LGBTQ+ people’s lived experiences, which often include years of hiding their identities before they create a safer space for themselves to live authentically as adults.
While LGBTQ+ respondents generally first thought about their queer identities when they were very young, most waited until they were older to tell others. While 71% of gay and lesbian people said that they first knew about their sexuality before age 14, only 13% said that they told someone before that age. Approximately 58% of trans people first thought they might be trans before age 14, but only 15% told someone before that age.
This also contradicts the rightwing narrative that young people are saying that they are trans or gay to gain social acceptance and not because they actually identify as such. In reality, young people are saying that they’re straight or cisgender when they actually aren’t, likely to try and get social acceptance.
Pew broke down the results even more and showed that gay men generally felt that they were gay at a younger age than lesbian women, with 40% saying they were younger than 10 years old when they first thought they were gay, as opposed to 29% of lesbian women.
| Pew Research Center
Bisexual women, on the other hand, likely knew earlier than bisexual men. 53% of bi women said they felt they might be bi before they were 14 years old, while just 40% of bi men said the same.
| Pew Research Center
The poll was conducted in January of this year and involved a sample of 3,959 adult LGBTQ+ Americans. The survey asked about a wide variety of topics, including support from family and friends, ties to the larger LGBTQ+ community, and social acceptance.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
By: Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, president, American Academy of Pediatrics
“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is deeply alarmed by the report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today on medical care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals and the process that informed its development. For such an analysis to carry credibility, it must consider the totality of available data and the full spectrum of clinical outcomes rather than relying on select perspectives and a narrow set of data.
This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.
As we have seen with immunizations, bypassing medical expertise and scientific evidence has real consequences for the health of America’s children. AAP was not consulted in the development of this report, yet our policy and intentions behind our recommendations were cited throughout in inaccurate and misleading ways. The report prioritizes opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.
Patients, their families, and their physicians—not politicians or government officials —should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them based on evidence-based, age-appropriate care.
We urge government officials and policymakers to approach these conversations with care, humility, and a commitment to considering the full breadth of peer-reviewed research. The AAP remains focused on supporting pediatricians in delivering the best possible care to every child, informed by science and the lived experiences of patients and families. We will continue to support the well-being of all children and access to high-quality care that meets their needs.”
I’ve masked consistently since the beginning of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, first with a cloth mask, before I knew better, and then for the last few years with KN95s or N95s. And I have, to my knowledge, continued to avoid catching the virus. In fact, I haven’t been sick for at least 4.5 years, and I attribute that in large part to masking. I also opt for patios if I go out to eat, if at all possible, so that’s also part of why I haven’t been sick. But it’s also definitely the masking. Needless to say, I’m already a huge believer in the science of masking. In simple terms: masks work.
However, it’s hard to convince folks who have swallowed the fake news that masking is harmful or that masks don’t work. I won’t link to those (flawed) “studies” because I definitely don’t want to share more misinformation, but suffice it to say, folks who believe masks don’t work are either not reading actual science, or aren’t actually masking, or aren’t using high quality masks, or if they are wearing masks, aren’t wearing them properly (yeah, you’re right, masks around your chin don’t actually work!).
In case you still have the patience to try to convince a mask skeptic—or even a rabid anti-masker—that masks *do* actually work, here’s a great, brand-new, peer-reviewed study to share with them. The paper, which is based on a narrative review and meta-analysis research project, was written by an international team of 13 researchers from universities including University of Oxford (UK), University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), University of Toronto (Canada), University of Otago (Wellington, New Zealand), and University of Calgary (Alberta, Canada).
The paper synthesizes evidence from over 400 studies in total, including 100 published reviews, as well as primary studies from disciplines such as epidemiology, public health, engineering, and social studies—all of which focused on the exploring the efficacy of masking. The authors explain that they even re-analyzed “contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials”—including the infamously controversial Cochrane review. In fact, the authors state specifically that their review “was commissioned partly because of controversy around a Cochrane review which was interpreted by some people as providing definitive evidence that masks don’t work.” However, that’s never what the Cochrane review actually stated, as explained by the authors of this current review:
The need for a new review on masks was highlighted by a widely publicized polarization in scientific opinion. The masks section of a 2023 Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions (9) was—controversially—limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It was interpreted by the press and by some but not all of its own authors to mean that “masks don’t work” and “mask mandates did nothing” (10). Cochrane’s editor-in-chief felt the need to state publicly that in Cochrane’s view, the review’s findings did not support such a conclusion (11). Some scholars were quick to question the review’s methodology, especially key flaws in the meta-analysis and omission of a vast body of non-RCT evidence (12–16).
I, for one, am thrilled that this study explicitly addresses—and debunks—the Cochrane review, because that single study probably did more damage than almost anything else to widespread attempts to get people to mask to keep themselves and others safe from COVID-19.
The authors of this new review found evidence that led them to seven main findings:
First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens.
Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect.
Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks.
Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens.
Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation.
Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked.
Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators.
The authors also provide some recommendations for future research:
We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.
University of Calgary News recently published an overview of the study which included some discussion of the study by lead author Professor Trisha Greenhalgh from the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, who stated, “Our review confirms that masks work, with a clear dose-response effect. . . The more consistently and correctly you wear a mask, the better protected you are. Respirators, when worn continuously, provide even greater protection than ordinary masks.”
Co-author Dr. Joe Vipond, MD and Associate Professor at University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine also commented on the study, stating that it is the “definitive answer on masks”:
“In a world of misinformation, questioning the effectiveness of everything from masking to vaccines, it’s important to have solid science to support any assertion . . . This is the definitive answer on masks, looking beyond the narrow view of randomized controlled trials to the entirety of the evidence. And behold, the current science upholds the standards and protocols that for decades have protected health care workers, and more recently the public, from biohazards.”
I know it would be naive to think that this robust study on the efficacy of masking will change die-hard anti-maskers’ minds. But perhaps it will persuade some people who are still open to learning from actual data. Here’s hoping, anyway! Mask up, folks! And if you’re looking for me, I’m the one in the hot pink mask!
Click here to read the full study and here to read the rest of the summary and interviews with several of the authors from University of Calgary News
Alex Bollinger (He/Him)May 29, 2025, 3:30 pm EDTLGBTQ+ youth advocates gathered outside the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023, where a school policy that would impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth was being reviewed in Superior Court. | Amanda Oglesby / Asbury Park Press / USA TODAY NETWORK
