Are gays more infantile even as children?

There's a long article in the NYT Magazine about boys who dress like girls, which notes that 60-80% are future gays, some of the rest are future pre-or-post-op trannies, and some presumably small percent will wind up normal.

So they're mostly a subset of gays and others with screwed up sexualities. We can treat them as a "right tail" of the gay distribution, and infer that whatever is out at this tail is more prevalent among gays on average, compared to normal boys. That's the same way that we look at the percent of white people who can dunk a basketball, the corresponding percent among Chinese, and infer that whites are taller on average, even if most whites cannot dunk.

What then is the defining feature of these girl-boys profiled in the article? You should read it yourself because these traits do not show up in statistics about gays, so the profiles will give you a window into a group you could otherwise know little about.

Well, it definitely is not femininity (indeed, most do not consider themselves to be girls). For one thing, they have zero interest in babies, probably the single most important component of female nature. Their complete lack of interest in baby-rearing dolls, despite their fascination with fashion dolls, is just a special case of the general pattern that gays have no nurturing instinct.

Little girls aren't exactly getting ready to marry and raise their own children, but even from an early age they are fascinated by cute babies, spontaneously move to nurture them, and take jobs as babysitters. Grown men aren't as nurturing as women, but they still feel an urge to do their part in raising the young 'uns, or if childless, usually would like to have kids of their own. Little boys, though, find babies yucky and smelly and without other redeeming qualities. Thus, the gay callousness toward babies is one of their many Peter Pan traits, not a feminine trait (just the opposite).

Instead, what comes across in the profiles is that the girl-boys are unable to handle minimal stress, are desperate and needy, attention-whoring, temper tantrum-throwing, insecure about being ugly even at 4 years old, egocentric, narcissistic, demanding that others applaud their awesomeness without having earned it at all, because they're just such special snowflakes -- in a word, they're infantile, even more so than their male and female age-mates.

It's true that those traits are higher among females than males, but that's only because females are more neotenous, or resembling children. As the writer mentions, the behavior of girl-boys is if anything a parody of how girls dress and act. They are not "even more feminine" than girls, they are even more juvenile.

As children mature socially and emotionally, first during elementary school when they mostly interact with same-sex peers, and later during adolescence when they interact more with the opposite sex, they gradually lose their bratty, clingy, narcissistic, and attention-whoring ways. The simple reason is that no one other than your close blood relatives thinks you're a special snowflake, so they won't put up with any of your disruptive bullshit. So within your peer group, it's either shape up or ship out, something you never truly experience from your parents. Extreme diva behavior results only when the child is sheltered from the corrective influences of their peers.

The narcissism, etc., of gay adults is well known and provides yet another vivid example of their Peter Pan-ism. But at first my hunch was just that their development got arrested in childhood, perhaps around age 10, by whatever pathogen caused damage to the part of their brain that controls sexuality (the damage to the developmental regions being collateral damage).

However, it seems as though gays are super-infantile already as children -- not normal children who got stuck or regressed. Or maybe they began as normal infants, but then got infected as toddlers and became frozen there. On reflection, I guess their Peter Pan-isms are more typical of toddlers than of later elementary school kids. (If I recall correctly, there is no season-of-birth effect for gays, so that suggests the pathogen does not strike them as newborns.)

Why this subset of gays, the girl-boys, chooses to act out narcissistically by wearing girls' clothes, instead of some other way, I don't know. I guess they picked up on the fact that pretty little girls tend to get more attention than crude little boys, so they decided to ape the girls' appearance and mannerisms, although again not their mindset or overall behavior. They're hoping that their superficial resemblance to girls will get them the standing ovation that they just, like, totally know they deserve.

The article says that most of them will grow out of flamboyant girly clothing, so it's clearly not some deeply ingrained impulse that they just can't control. They chuck it overboard when they find some other way of whoring for attention, like joining the drama club or whatever during adolescence. Wearing pink dresses and eyeliner was merely a transient strategy for demanding that the world give them a great big hug, during a stage in the lifespan when males have few endearing qualities, so why not look like a girl?

I know I recently said that gays tend to wear little jewelry or other forms of body adornment, and yet here they are doing just that as children. What gives? My explanation rested on their social immaturity, that wearing jewelry and other adornments is a way to signal group membership, commitment to a mate, etc.

As small children, the girl-boys aren't trying to do any of that, and they aren't even trying to use jewelry, etc., for the purposes that little girls do -- namely, to establish or invite others into a social bond. Girls adorn one another to make friends, but girl-boys are instead using their girl friends to get assistance in looking dazzling, the better to whore for attention.

Girls also adorn themselves to start attracting boys; it's a sign of their intentions to be approached by boys, ultimately leading to a steady relationship. But girl-boys are not dressing up to get a feel for attracting mates -- after all, when they come out as gay, they won't be wearing long hair, eyeliner, dresses, etc., to pick up their fellow queers.

So, unlike the generally social bonding reasons that girls adorn themselves, girl-boys dress in drag for strictly egocentric and narcissistic motives -- the faggot as a toddler in caricature. Once that appearance no longer suits their needs, beginning in adolescence, they drop it like a hot potato, while teenage girls continue to try to make themselves look pretty for the boys. (Granted, more so in some eras than in others.)

I wonder why no one else has tried to mine this gay Peter Pan idea for all its worth. Others have noticed things here and there, but not pushed the idea as far as it allows. Obviously liberals are too biased and sanctimonious to even entertain the idea. Unfortunately, though, most conservatives are just not very curious people. For getting through daily life, that's probably a good thing -- don't wander over where we weren't meant to go. So they fall back on amusing but clearly wrong explanations about gays being exaggeratedly feminine. But when you really stop and think about it, a prancing little sissy is more like a toddler than a chick.