Translation from: http://trilema.com/2010/tipologiile-homosexualitatii/
You know how sometimes you say at the beginning of an article "prepare to cut the raw flesh"? Mnoa. Get ready.
The most important type to call themself gay is also the least numerous. There are people who genuinely prefer their own gender sexually as though it was the opposite gender. It is not clear whether this preference has a genetic substrate or is simply that, a preference, just as some like apples and others like pears. I'm inclined to be persuaded of the second explanation for some purely statistical reasons, but I can't say that I'm proven.
There are two statistical reasons supporting this. The first is the fact that on average their gays compose somewhere around 3% of the population. This density seems, at least to my mind, was what level you'd expect to come out of the model with apples and pears. The second is the fact that on average the men who are homosexuals is like three to five times more numerous than gays themselves. This density distribution on the genders again is what level it seems to you'd expect to come out of the model with apples and pears, given what we know about the composition (hormonal and psychological) of women in relation to men.
Among the gay recruits are generally exceptional people, those Turings or Michelangelos of the world, perhaps explained in detail by virtue of the fact that exceptional performance (in the vulgar, genius) has something in common with their own preferences assuming a rare (and possibly unpopular) courage-neglecting orthodoxy in favor of truth.
On basis of their existence has has been founded the argument that convinces me to no right of appeal in favor of perfect social tolerance of homosexuality: one more Alan Turing in this world, is better than gogi gogi is upset that other men kiss in a bar, or what ever stupidity carries them over. Elitism to the bone, eh.
The second type, more numerous than the first are concretely improper gays. These people are using homosexuality as a solution at the time or indefinitely, while they grapple with their issues or certain psychological defects. Homosexuality improper can appear in childhood or adolescence in rarer following often after a failed relationship with a difficult father or deviant mother, or in the course of life as a result of exposure to certain kinds of situations with psychological stress (more common in the prison evironment, for example).
I'm unclear if improper homosexuality is more or less evenly distributed on the two genders, but I guess in the absence of evidence that men dominate, even if it is more moderate than in the previous case. Let's say two to one, if you really need the numbers so I can laugh.
Improper gays are a poor fit for "cure", in the sense that if the psychological defensive structures have not become an integral part of the definition of their identity they may be solved by means of psychotherapy as any other psychological problems. On the other hand, given the often very young age at which those flaws happen, affordable psycotherapy in those cases is actually rare. In most cases any "cure" would necessarily involve a modification (often fulminant) of the individual's identity, which is unacceptable from a therapeutic perspective.
Sure a person has the inalienable right to alter his identity to hers, and consider that life is just a gradual change of identity, from toddler to the corpse. However, these changes are a citizen's untouchable empire, and not subject to "therapies" originated from the doctor.
Particular problems unfit homosexuals encounter in their particular situations (and after that they are relatively easily to recognize, anecdotally) lead them to require confirmation of the universality and objectivity of their homosexuality. As a result of this minor condition unfit homosexuals put the medical profession into a formidable professional dilemma when asking for sex change operations (in the vast majority of cases they are the ones who demand something). On the one hand we have the discussion on top of how the identity of the individual who is strong and supported, on the other hand we Hippocratic oath and first, do no harm.
For many doctors it is insolvent dilemma, even if slowly, in the last two or three decades orthodoxy seems to evolve slowly in the sense of the individual right to self-determination over the rule of biologic principles of medicine. The cause is not that the solution is more widely accepted, but mere commoditization of a profession that evolves slowly but inexorably from a liberal occupation toward a certain technique.
As a result of the same States actually discussed above, improper gays tend to follow certain typical professional directions, of which by far the two most important are the "harsh" call to the military, bikers clubs, etc and "his" histrionic call being a Musician, actor, TV personality and deceptions of all kinds.
Worth noting here is that the psychological problems resulting in plenty of cases from an artifact of homosexuality through mental unfitness are much more common than the latter. The vast majority of cases are worse up there, but it is placed on a continuum. No doubt you've noticed signs that suggest a latent homosexuality between those guys passionate about cars, bodybuilding, entertainment to some confidence level. Popular intuition would indicate the "direction" as indicating harsh interest suggests active homosexuality within copulation, and histrionic direction indicates passive or receptive homosexuality. This assumption does not hold in reality. It deserves being observed that for homosexuals copulation is more rare and less important than for heterosexual with oral sex having a primary, more significant role, for example.
Finally, the last type, otherwise completely irrelevant to any real discussion about homosexuality are social gays. They have chosen homosexuality just as anyone is free to choose the colors of their clothing or the type of car one drives, it is a social identity assumed, as some high school kids are emo, others are rockers, others are what have they, and so some adults are gay, others are hipster, others are Liverpool... These "are" not a big deal, neither in their existence nor their essence, simple whores of some sort or another who do not need to follow anybody. People who matter are not in high school and care neither of one nor the other, but learn of them and see them. W adults loiter and I see all of them, without "being" expert in gay stars or what ever roughly the irrelevant scum is.
The frequency of the last type is of course a function of youth models, they can become ten or a hundred times more numerous than the sum of the chosen and unfit gay in twenty years, may vanish to one in twenty, still shows of course advantage for improper gays as they resolve to some extent part of the needs of self-justification, but temporarily and piecemeal (the famous "gay spats" are usually just missed intercourse between a homosexual and an improper social gay, by the way).
In relation to organized repression gays tend to develop their own neuroses, improper gays tend to develop psychosis, and social gays tend to disappear. In the United States the three types (which are otherwise socially and subjectivily, separate and distinct) have discovered common interests and needs, trying somehow to work these completely disparate things into a common identity. This miracle is impossible beyond a political front as the three groups do not actually have much in common, or in other words social repression is the only thing that unites them.
The absence of repression in Romania is the cause for the three groups to go further on their paths undisturbed, become their somewhat parallel. That is the reason they are profoundly unable to organise a more or less decent parade, or even more fleshy than a watery tweetmeet.