Forum: Author Hangout

I posted elsewhere on this. Gallup reported 3.5% (1.8+1.7) in 2021. It's 5.6% now, and three times that high among Gen-Z people (who would be the target audience for 'Young Superman').

Kinsey felt that 10% of the population was essentially homosexual. 10% looks to be a lot closer to the truth than 1%, based on a huge number of studies since that time.

I also doubt that only 1% are 'purely heterosexual' unless you apply a strange definition there. The distribution would certainly be nowhere near bell-shaped.

Also, blaming 'woke media' is silly. This is a comic about a character around 17-20 years old aimed primarily at people around 17-20 years old or so. For people in that age group, it's implausible for there NOT to be LGBTQ people in any reasonable-sized group. Sure, it could be someone other than the title character, but if it's no one, you'll lose that demographic.

Pretty much I'll just say that I strongly respectfully disagree. The Gen-Z people that I know have direction and are strong individuals. Many are already living good productive lives. That includes those who identify as something other than heterosexual.

Sorry, just don't see it, and I don't see significant differences between the kids from the most 'liberal' and most 'conservative' families (and I know a broad range there). Overall, I'd say they're, if anything, more grounded and have more direction than many of the highly-indulged kids I went to college with.

I've been hearing "the west is lost" for nearly all of my life, including before I was an adult. My parents tell me that they've been hearing it since they were kids. "The west was lost" in the 50s (rock-and-roll), the 60s (hippies and turn on-tune in-drop out culture), the 70s (me generation), the 80s, the 90s...

Some things never change.

I'd have to see what question they actually asked to know what to think about that (I highly doubt the actual question was "Do you have the right to suppress the opinions of those you disagree with? Yes or no?") It doesn't match with the Gen-Z people that I know (but, of course, that's anecdotal).

The term 'snowflake' is hugely overused. At this point, either everyone is a snowflake or nearly no one is. This entire thread starts with a posting that could easily be described as a snowflake post and it's by someone very much not in Gen-Z.

But, then, the predominant group calling Gen-Z 'snowflakes' are Boomers, and Boomers (at least in the US) are arguably the biggest group of snowflakes around, so... there's that.

Kinsey's work was definitely flawed, but he was pretty clear that 10% were nearly or exclusively homosexual. The 'some degree' figure for men was 37%. The number certainly looks to be more on the 10% end than the 1-2% end.

Again, I disagree. You see 'woke media', I see 'reflecting reality'. For someone Gen-Z, they're as likely to bump into an LGBTQ person as a black person. Would having a black character on a show be 'woke media'? They're far more likely to bump into an LGBTQ person than someone of Asian descent. Are Asian characters 'woke media'? And so on.

Consider the broad spectrum of things that are applicable to less than 6% of the population that are seen on TV. If you're not complaining about overrepresentation there, complaining about 'woke media' is silly. Law enforcement is 1% of the US population; you should see about six times as many LGBTQ people as police (and perhaps sixteen times as many on Gen-Z-focused media). I'm pretty sure I don't see six times as many gay-focused shows as I see law enforcement focused shows.

A lot of the shots taken at 'woke media' seem to be criticizing it for merely reflecting society. The US media is almost entirely beholden to one thing - money. They're attempting to cater to the largest possible audience.

In my past three jobs I've worked on teams of 10-15 people (within much larger organizations). Every one of them had at least one person who was non-straight. None of them are Gen-Z's (and most aren't Y's). In both of my major volunteer pursuits I run into gay people on a regular basis.

I haven't read the storylines either, but I'd tend to strongly doubt that the 'bisexual' angle is put ahead of the plot. Could be wrong; if it is, I'd agree that it's bad writing.

I'm not sure how my saying "Kinsey work was definitely flawed" can be read as choosing to believe Kinsey. I don't. However, there are dozens of other, much more well-crafted, studies that put the number in the 5-10% range. That's my point: Kinsey's methodology isn't good, but that doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong. He just got there the wrong way.

He is very likely wrong about the percentage of bisexuals, however.

I'm not sure why you would consider other representational questions 'irrelevant arguments'. That makes little sense. Why is one 'woke' and the other so obviously not 'woke' to be 'irrelevant'? Why is it 'normal' to have someone on-screen from a group that's a few percent of the population but 'woke' to have someone on-screen from a group that's a much higher percentage?

No, I don't work in academia. I'm a software engineer.

Can you deny that if you were to take the general group of characters represented in all the shows, that the number of non-heterosexual characters shown in the last twenty years is way over their normal representation in the general population?

While I haven't made an exhaustive study, I would strongly disagree that non-heterosexual characters are 'way over their normal representation'. I'm having trouble thinking of a show where more than 5-10% of the characters are gay; I can easily think of shows where none are.

I agree with you - in general - about 'woke remakes'. They're a handful of movies overall - I daresay there are probably more MCU movies in the last decade than 'woke remakes', and that's one single series of 'genre films' - and they don't need to be blockbusters to do well. If anything is 'irrelevant', that's a pretty good example of something that is. I didn't say every single movie needed to cater to a mass audience - that would be insane - but rather that most do.

Why does rottentomatoes.com feel the need to frequently turn off audience voting on woke stuff?

Because there's an 'anti-woke' activist crowd who love to review-bomb things based on some perceived 'wokeness', often without having seen the work in question. Indeed, it's often a badge of honor within that community to give the lowest possible mark to something they proudly proclaim they didn't watch. How are 'user reviews' valid when the majority of reviews are from people who haven't seen the work in question?

This is a huge problem across the entire entertainment industry, not just movies. TV, video games, etc are routinely review-bombed because someone in the 'anti-woke' community decided the work was 'woke' and their followers immediately posted as many zero-ratings and snarky comments ('get woke, go broke') as possible. Often this is over one scene, one character, etc.

'Cancel culture' run amok, pretty much, I suppose. I'm 100% for people's freedom of speech to criticize whatever they want, but it makes no sense for e.g. rottentomatoes to provide a platform for it.

I can easily think of dozens of films and TV shows made for and embraced by 'heterosexual men' without breaking a sweat, at least if they're not so upset about gay people that they can't handle even one minor gay character. The entire MCU thus far has, what, one blink-and-you-missed-it gay reference so far? That's quite a few movies, all of which appeal strongly to an enormous number of heterosexual men.

Running down the list of top films of the past few years, and excluding films aimed primarily at children, I have to dig way down the list to find anything with a prominent gay character or the like. I'm not seeing a lot of argument that somehow Hollywood is ignoring the straight-guy market in favor of gay representation. Top of the 'gay' list would probably be "Bohemian Rhapsody", at #14 in 2018. I doubt that people flocked to that movie because Freddie Mercury was gay (or bisexual) - even though that's critical to his life story - but rather because people love Queen songs and wanted to see a movie about them.

Of course, if these 'heterosexual men' are going to be upset if there's anyone not 100% straight, or if a woman has agency, or whatever else the criteria is, obviously you can narrow it. That says far more about the 'heterosexual men' in question than it does about the film. I'm absolutely certain that films aren't making enormous amounts of money (pre-pandemic, of course) without making a lot of that money from heterosexual men, and I certainly can't imagine that the 'John Wick', 'Fast and the Furious', 'Mission: Impossible', 'Jurassic World', 'Jumanji', etc, franchises are doing a huge business on the backs of only the 'woke' demographic (and none of those have any particular 'wokeness' at all).

I'm not gay, nor am I bisexual. No encounters, no questioning, no nothing, pretty much straight as an arrow. I have to really, really perform mental gymnastics to even figure out which man is going to be perceived as handsome
by people who perceive men as handsome.

I can count more than two hands-worth (the traditional way - using binary would work just fine) in terms of people I know currently. My suspicion is that you've met far more than then you think you have, but it's not been in a setting where they can be open about it.

One of my various hats is to work in a charity volunteer organization (which is apological and the causes supported have absolutely nothing to do with 'wokeism'). Out of perhaps 100 highly active volunteers, 10 are gay men. Aside from the two partners in one couple, none of them knew each other before volunteering with us. I can't imagine anything in our mission or recruiting that would cause us to be unusually attractive to gay men.

I agree that our two real worlds seem to be different, but there's considerable evidence that mine is neither unlikely nor uncommon.

Kinsey's methodology isn't good, but that doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong.

No, it doesn't make it certain that his conclusion is wrong, However, it is perfectly rational basis for deciding that his conclusion is more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

It would be in a vacuum, yes. When numerous other studies find numbers in that general ballpark (though smaller - no question), it becomes more of a mixed bag.

Almost certainly 10% is too high. 1% is clearly far too low; 5% looks likely to be too low, based on most other work. Somewhere in the middle is likely where the truth lies.

When numerous other studies find numbers in that general ballpark

Numerous other studies mean not much at all if they are all flawed in their methodology.

And if you knew of such a study that wasn't as or more seriously flawed than Kinsey's, you would be citing that one and not Kinsey.

Gallup, for instance. Not a "study", but we're at the point now where decades of polls and studies all show numbers between 3-10%, and the ones with linear tracking show a higher rate of responses (generally attributed to people being more willing to be open about things).

Yes, it's possible that they're all wrong, but it's a pretty low probability. And, not, this isn't a case where the answer is "we don't know." We know quite a lot, to a reasonable statistical probability.

Data beats lack of data. Better data beats poorer data. Once there's data, it's out of the zone of "we don't know" and into the zone of "we wish we had even more data." When there's a significant clustering in a range (e.g. 3-10% LGB for the overall populace, and ignoring the others (T+) since they're out of Kinsey's scope), arguing about 3% vs 10% makes sense. Claiming it's 1 makes as much sense as claiming it's 20; both are out of the likely range, in the absence of a data-driven reason to believe otherwise.

Data beats lack of data. Better data beats poorer data.

No, bad data doesn't beat no data.

Sigh. Seriously, that's saying "Gee, all these people have studied this, and we have some findings, and every single thing points to X. But I don't like X, so I'm going to say Y."

Lower-quality data beats no data, because "no data" is equivalent to zero-quality data. If we every time we look at something, the answer is "about X", that's data. It may not be high quality, but it's considerably better than "no data".

As I replied above to someone else: that's saying "Everything indicates X, but I like Y better, so it's Y." 1% is inconsistent with the data that we have about the world, so - while you're of course welcome to believe it - don't expect other people to act in accordance with it.

If nothing else, Gallup's polling is pretty consistent and shows that it's been well above 1% for quite a while now, and they're overall a fairly reputable organization with a track record of quality polling.

If anyone is interested the Kinsey Institute (which has an interest in protecting his reputation) has a summary of the studies.
https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical-report-diversity-of-sexual-orientation.php

Are you really trying to argue and convince us that the woke are the oppressed group these days and that the 'anti-woke' are their oppressors? Like really? honestly you're going for that position? You're really stating that the 'anti-woke' are the real problem?

You know that there is no such thing as 'anti-woke'? Those are called normal people who are using common sense. The fact that you label normal people as 'anti-woke' shows your bias.

Are you seriously going to argue that 'normal people' are organizing review-bombing campaigns on RottenTomatoes, game review sites, etc, for the purpose of giving low reviews to movies and other media that haven't even come out yet, which they obviously haven't seen, which they proclaim they haven't seen, and which they're attacking on the basis of some claimed 'wokeism'? That's something 'normal people' do? Those are activists. They're not 'normal people'.

You are beyond naïve if you believe there aren't 'anti-woke' people who are actively involved in opposing 'wokism'. Claiming there aren't is one of the oldest ploys in the world. Whatever you champion - left or right, KKK or Communist Party or whatever - you claim that all you are is 'normal people' and all you're doing is opposing those awful folks over there who are stirring up trouble.

Seriously, in our political, polarized world, you're actually trying to seriously claim that, somehow, there aren't people whose mission is to attack 'wokeism'? That would be beyond amazing. 'Wokism' would be literally just about the only thing with no 'anti-' group opposing it.

And, yes, I'm certain that if the 'woke' started reviewbombing something they'd never seen and zero-rating it, Rotten Tomatoes would shut them down.

Many, many people's social media accounts were shut down for stating simple truths. Like for example 'biological sex is a fact', or that 'There are many genders, but there are only two sexes'. Try it on twitter.

Really? That would explain why J. K. Rowling's been kicked off social media. What? She's still on there? Well, a lesser name like Matt Walsh has been kicked off. Nope, he's still there saying things like 'biological sex is a fact' nearly every day, with lots of 'regular people' replying and saying the same thing? And he's not been kicked off twitter?

The whole 'they're coming the get me' trope is another standard thing. They were always 'coming to get' the KKK. Or the American Communist Party. Or whoever. 'Powerful forces' were out to 'stamp out their message of truth and justice'.

Have people been kicked off? Sure, but it's virtually never because of a position like the ones you're straw-manning, it's for violating language rules or posting deliberate misinformation (which 'there are only two genders' is not). It's trivial to point to very long, very active twitter threads where the vast majority of people are arguing against transgenderism and yet no one is getting kicked off.

You're really going all out arguing and pushing for woke/non-hetero agenda.

A statement that only makes sense if you buy the ridiculous notion that it's the 'woke agenda' vs 'normal people'. If you buy the notion - which fits my view of the world - that there's being a decent human being and treating others with respect, and there's trying to tear down others because they believe something other than what you believe, then I'll side with the decent human beings.

I only got involved in this discussion because people were so vociferously opposed to a new character in an existing franchise being written as bisexual. That's something that should, in my opinion, elicit a 'Wow, that's interesting. Not for me. Guess I'll read some other comic.' response at best, not the angry mob coming after wokist scum.

I seriously don't understand why some people are so adamant that everything should look exactly like it always has, and nothing should contain an opinion or a situation that's counter to their life experience and beliefs. Why it's worth fighting to make sure that other people aren't treated with respect and dignity. Why anything that broadens the scope of media must be branded 'wokism' and attacked tooth and nail.

It's a volunteer organization. That alone is enough to skew numbers.

Who volunteers usually? busy people? no. People who have enough free time to use it to volunteer.

Wow. I mean, seriously, wow. My former employer

required

that all employees put in significant volunteer hours every year, and encouraged more (as in, encouraged by donating to the charities where employees volunteered). They're a Fortune 100 company. Everyone who works there are 'busy people'. With just a handful of exceptions (retired people), everyone who volunteers at the organization I mentioned has a serious day job. Our founder is now retired, but was an active-duty police office for the first ten years of the charity. We have numerous volunteers with kids as well.

Sorry, this sounds like another 'elites' versus 'normal people' strawman. Most people who volunteer at most things are 'normal people'; if they weren't, charities who rely on volunteers would shut down en masse. Yes, people working two or three jobs don't volunteer as often, but that's not a lot of people.

I've been highly active in two volunteer organizations for quite a while (10 years with one, 25 for the other). The vast majority of volunteers have full-time jobs. Many have kids. They're normal, busy people who still want to help others.

We got involved in one of the two charities (the one I first mentioned) because of our kids. One of their service missions is youth mentoring through volunteerism, and our kids really, really wanted to volunteer there.

Finally, you get to a point that doesn't require a strawman to be reasonable:

Trans-women (biologically men) are even allowed to compete against biological women in sports despite having the huge advantage of having gone thru male puberty and built bigger skeleton and bigger musculature.

Agree. In truly competitive sports there's a serious issue. Surprised that I'd agree? You shouldn't have; most of the transgender people that I know (we have about a dozen attending our church) think that transgender women shouldn't compete in serious competitions.

On the other hand: A lot of this is conflating 'participation' with 'competition'. Transgender girls shouldn't be allowed to dominate competition. They also shouldn't be frozen out of activities which all other children have the opportunity to participate in at school. If there's a way to allow participation without penalizing biological girls (who also shouldn't be penalized), do that. That works for pretty much every individual activity, and there are ways of making it work to a large extent for most team sports.

On the other hand, 'punished online' is back to a ridiculous statement. "I used my free speech to say something mean about transgender people and now all these other people are using their free speech to say something mean about me! Mommy, save me!" What exactly do you expect to happen? How would you create a system in which one was free from being 'punished online' for unpopular speech without denying others their right to speech? Oh, right, all of those with 'unpopular speech' are being drummed off social media, just like J. K. Rowling or Matt Walsh or hundreds of other people, who I'm sure will actually be drummed off any day now, after years of loudly proclaiming their point of view.

I'm probably mostly done replying to this particular thread. Not that you need my validation, but I agree with your point about transgender girls and women in sports, up to a point anyway. On the other hand, the claim that there's not a large group of 'anti-woke' people who are actively opposing 'wokism' is beyond ludicrous. You see them every day. Similarly, perhaps your attitudes about volunteerism are accurate somewhere else, but they're utterly disconnected with reality here.

Non-woke, normal people are too busy with their family life, or don't feel strongly enough about these issue to argue about it.

Funny - I agree with you, in a way (though you do realize you just undermined your entire argument, right?). Non-woke, normal people are not out there opposing 'wokism'. They're not review-bombing things on RottenTomatoes. They're not getting in a tizzy over whether Superman's son is bisexual. They're living their lives and they really don't care if LGBTQ+ people are living their lives to. They go see movies and they watch TV and they don't care a whit over whether there's a gay character or a same-gender kiss or whatnot.

People who do go off crusading against 'wokism' are not 'normal people' - by your own definition.

And don't reply with 'normal people'. If 'normal people' really didn't like something, it'd pretty much be gone. Trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of 'I'm just a normal person, like all these other normal people' won't fly. I've got just as much - more! - claim to being a 'normal person'. You'd be hard-pressed to distinguish my gay friends, or my transgender friends, from anyone else except that they're gay or transgender. They're perfectly 'normal people'. They have jobs, many have kids, they watch movies and TV, they do all those 'normal people' things. Trying to pretend they're not 'normal people' is being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Arguing that people deserve dignity and respect regardless of whether they're gay, straight, transgender, religious, non-religious, whatever is pretty much what 'normal people' believe. Fighting against respecting them, and trying to attack anything where they see themselves in the media, is not 'normal'.

Let me respond with a final question. You questioned why I'm "arguing and pushing for woke/non-hetero agenda" (a characterization I flatly reject, but let's run with it). Why are you "arguing and pushing for a non-woke/hetero agenda" (also a terrible characterization, really)? Why is it so important to you that gay people not be represented in media? That there aren't have 'woke remakes'? I mean, I don't like some movies, so I don't go see them. I don't review-bomb them, I don't support others review-bombing them, I don't rail against the so-and-so's who make them. I don't like that some professions are massively overrepresented and glamorized on TV, but I'm not crusading to end that. I'm curious as to why 'wokism' is such a big deal to you. It's not as if there aren't literally hundreds of non-woke movies and TV shows and recordings and books and every other thing out there to spend your time with.

ETA: I know the formatting in the chart would be off.

The information from the Gallup poll is more complicated than that.

Americans' Self-Identified Sexual Orientation, by Generation

Bisexual Gay Lesbian Transgender Other

%

%

%

%

%

Generation Z (born 1997-2002) 11.5 2.1 1.4 1.8 0.4

Millennials (born 1981-1996) 5.1 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.4

Generation X (born 1965-1980) 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.1

Baby boomers (born 1946-1964) 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.0

Traditionalists (born before 1946) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1

Figures represent the percentage of all adult members of each generation who have that sexual orientation

GALLUP, 2020

In addition to the pronounced generational differences, significant gender differences are seen in sexual identity, as well as differences by people's political ideology:

Women are more likely than men to identify as LGBT (6.4% vs. 4.9%, respectively).

Women are more likely to identify as bisexual -- 4.3% do, with 1.3% identifying as lesbian and 1.3% as something else. Among men, 2.5% identify as gay, 1.8% as bisexual and 0.6% as something else.

What does "bisexual" mean in this context? Would the results be different if the number of same-sex encounters was asked?

The raw data is always questionable. Then they manipulate the raw data with advanced statistical techniques without including anyone with an advanced degree in statistics in the process.

You know the saying: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (wikipedia).

You know the saying: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (wikipedia).

The problem is often the misuse of various statistical techniques.

Statistics is it's own branch of advanced mathematics

Yet, even in the hard sciences there are a lot of papers that are heavy on statistical analysis, but they never include an actual expert in statistics in setting up the analysis or writing the paper nor are statistics experts included in the peer review process.

The problem is often the misuse of various statistical techniques.

Actually the problem is not statistics in itself but the way it is presented in the news (of course by non-statisticians). Often only specific subsets or percentages of subsets are presented that give the reader "true" numbers but the context/total set is lost and suggests something totally different from what a closer look at the raw data would reveal. Only those numbers are picked that fits the view of the news paper. And of course statistics are used on questionable raw data in the first place if it fits the cause.

Actually the problem is not statistics in itself but the way it is presented in the news

No, often the statistics in the academic papers themselves are either badly bungled or new/difficult statistical techniques are applied to situations they were not intended for without consulting an actual statistician on how they should be applied.

The statistics in the papers themselves are as often as not garbage before the news media gets around to misreporting it

The raw data is always questionable. Then they manipulate the raw data with advanced statistical techniques without including anyone with an advanced degree in statistics in the process.

Two kinds of statisticians, liars and damn liars. That was told to me by my stats professor back in the day. I've seen no evidence that has changed.

Two kinds of statisticians, liars and damn liars. That was told to me by my stats professor back in the day. I've seen no evidence that has changed.

There are also actuaries who work mostly for insurance companies.

I agree and disagree.

Of course one needs to take survey data under advisement. There are entire fields of study in how to do this properly, and I seriously doubt they're ignoring people with advanced degrees in statistics.

On the other hand, while I'm highly skeptical of anything that relies on survey data, I'm far MORE highly skeptical of anything that says "Well, all the surveys say X, but my gut feeling is Y, so Y's the truth."

Given 'some data' versus 'no data at all', 'some data' is almost always going to win without any contest at all.

Given 'some data' versus 'no data at all', 'some data' is almost always going to win without any contest at all.

No, what should win in such situations is an admission of ignorance. "We just don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.

Sometimes you have to make decisions based on insufficient data

Yes, but even then an acceptance of ignorance would help.

Making bad decisions on the basis of insufficient and possibly wrong data will make thinks worse, not better.

And without that early acceptance of ignorance, it becomes difficult to reverse course on wrong decisions made on bad data.

What surprises me most is most of you would defend a fanfic of having Superman a flamer

I wouldn't defend it (in more than a general free speech way) and I wouldn't read it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to disparage it either.

It's not 'stupid'. It's stupid when you don't sample an adequate cross-section of people. If surveying a well-chosen random sample of people and applying it to broader populations didn't work, we'd have to throw out much of modern medicine, actuarial science, marketing, advertising, media, and dozens of other things.

It's entirely possible to extrapolate from 400 people to 'Mississippi Republican Voters' within a few percentage people if the 400 people are a true random sample of all Mississippi Republican Voters. Getting that true random sample is the hard part.

Getting that true random sample is the hard part.

Getting that true random sample is impossible. FTFY.

Philosophically, I (almost) agree. A true random sample is highly is extremely improbable (mathematically not impossible).

That's why we have margins of error. Getting a random sample within a few percentage points margin of error is entirely possible.

There's a reason why polling was highly accurate overall for many decades and is still far better than random noise, even in the presence of multiple factors that confound getting a truly random sample (pollster resistance, cell phones, the Internet, spam calls reducing willingness to answer, etc). High-quality polls mirror reality far, far more than they would if they were simply random, or even if they were chosen to get the desired answer.

It's not so much that he has problems having sex so much as his partners have problems

Not just his partners. A super ejaculation could take out several city blocks.

It's not so much that he has problems having sex so much as his partners have problems SURVIVING having sex with him. The same reasoning would apply to a male partner as well.

That could well be true for female partners.

With male partners there would always be a butt…..

:)

You can read Man of Steel Woman of Kleenex by Larry Niven, and a couple of other unpublished or rare shorts (includes one previously published only in Playboy), essays and commentaries, including his Laws, on his site.

I like Patton Oswalt's take on this:

"The alien with super-strength who flies through the air and has heat vision and there's different colored rocks that can kill him or change his powers can't be "Gay". That's ridiculous!"

Sexual orientation is kind of beside the point if he can't ever safely have sex with a human.

He isn't gay, bi, or heterosexual, he's necessarily and incel.

Even masturbation would carry a risk of killing bystanders unless he does it on the far side of the moon or something.

Ahh, but canonically, Superman is able to overcome those limitations. Else, how does he have a child? I'm pretty sure artificial insemination with reinforced steel collection chambers isn't the answer.

There is the question of why the baby kicking doesn't cause enormous destruction, but, eh. Again, canonically it works.

And, even if all that weren't true, his sexual orientation could still be bisexual or gay. A gay person who chooses not to have a partner is still 'gay' - they are merely a celibate gay person.

Most incels (or, at least, ones who become well-known as such) seem to be quite heterosexual, though the term itself doesn't seem to be restricted.

Even masturbation would carry a risk of killing bystanders unless he does it on the far side of the moon or something.

So that wasn't a shooting star after all…..??

Forgive my ignorance, can Superman survive in space? Does he not need to breathe or can he just hold his breath for a really long time?

Is the dark side of the moon caused because dried cum is a poor reflector of sunlight?

He can hold his breath for however long the plotline requires him to do so. Not just in space, but also underwater as well.

Actually some of the comics have shown him taking a small oxygen bottle with a simple face mask on long space trips.

Actually some of the comics have shown him taking a small oxygen bottle with a simple face mask on long space trips.

But they're not consistent, either. Because some of the comics show him talking in space without a helmet, or a breather mask, too.

That's why I said plotline. The image of him with a helmet on that was created by Green Lantern also shows Krypto without any breathing apparatus.

"The alien with super-strength who flies through the air and has heat vision and there's different colored rocks that can kill him or change his powers can't be "Gay". That's ridiculous!"

He wears "boy shorts" outside his leotard… he is either gay or a lumberjack of the monty python variety.

This isn't a remake. This is the son of Superman, Jon Kent - a new character. Nothing about Clark Kent / Kal-El has changed or been remade. There is no change in canon.

Jon Kent doesn't have a canon in this regard. This is part of establishing it.

It is still part of the superman canon. I don't recall any part of that being sexualized much less being specified as gay or bisexual.

Superman has had a very, very, VERY long relationship with Lois Lane. It's always been "sexualized" in the same way that Jon Kent is "sexualized."

Superman (Clark Kent / Kal-El) has always been heterosexual to the best of our ability to discern that. He's obviously attracted to women and, canonically, he has a child with one. Changing Clark to bisexual or gay would be changing the canon, since there has - to the best of my knowledge - never been the slightest sign whatsoever that Clark is hiding anything.

Giving a new character with little history a dating relationship to someone of the same gender is not "changing the canon", nor it is "sexualizing" the canon in a way that it was not previously "sexualized."

Heterosexual dating is no more, and no less, "sexualizing" than homosexual dating. Also, heterosexual couples produce gay offspring on a regular basis, otherwise there would be virtually no gay people.

Why is it unreasonable for Clark Kent and Lois Lane's child to be bisexual? How does that break canon? Why should it be the case that established characters cannot have LGBT offspring, despite 'normal people' doing that on a regular basis?

Why is it unreasonable for Clark Kent and Lois Lane's child to be bisexual? How does that break canon?

Isn't Superman different from most if not all other superheroes in that he was born (on another planet) and his abilities were normal on that planet but make him 'super' here on earth?

Nobody seems to have considered the abilities his child might inherit given that his mother is human. Obviously the writers can just make shit up, but realistically his child would only have a fraction of his father's genetics.

If the child grows up and chooses to be gay then presumably there will not be a third generation here on earth. If however the 'turkey baster' option is used, then the resultant offspring will have even further reduced 'abilities'.

Isn't Superman different from most if not all other superheroes in that he was born (on another planet) and his abilities were normal on that planet but make him 'super' here on earth?

Actually not quite.

As I understand it, the comic book cannon is that Krypton orbited a red giant star. Kryptonians in their native environment were somewhat stronger than humans (higher gravity) but not to the level of Superman's abilities on Earth.

It is exposure to the different radiation from Earth's sun that gives Kryptonians on earth most of their super powers.

Also, heterosexual couples produce gay offspring on a regular basis, otherwise there would be virtually no gay people.

Virtually???

Has intercourse between two men or two women EVER resulted in one of them giving birth?

Definition from Britannica:

Critical race theory is an intellectual movement and a framework of legal analysis according to which (1) race is a culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour and (2) the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, political, and economic inequalities between white and nonwhite people.

That is a load of horseshit. It is also most definitely being taught in elementary schools. Maybe not by name, but taught nonetheless.

The premise of the US being inherently racist is definitely being taught in schools.
"A framework of legal analysis" is what you're hanging your hat on. That analysis puts forth the claim that US law is designed to oppress people of colour. The latter part is a rehash from the late 60's. People being oppressed by "the man."
Where they fail is that there are still enough people alive to recognize their bullshit. To sell the premise of oppression, there has to be an oppressor. They have designated white people as the oppressors. That is most definitely being taught in all levels of education. Their power base is derived from the victim (oppressed) class. Without the victims, they fade away into obscurity.
A "framework of legal analysis" is nothing more than playing word games to manipulate a class of people. In college they tried to suck me into their liberal bullshit trying to convince me I've been oppressed as a person of colour. I succeeded just fine without them. I don't need them to represent me for anything, and take exception to a bunch of white liberals trying to convince me my race means I've been oppressed.

There is no CRT course being taught in elementary school.

And you know that how exactly? Or is that an assumption?

But racially motivated teaching isn't the same thing as CRT.

By every definition of CRT I can find, it is the same thing.