The simplest framework is that they are a kind of pre-pubescent male child, one whose mindset is signaled by the view that "Ewww, girls are yucky!" That's the stage that their broad psychological, and to some extent physical, development is mostly stuck in.
It is only to the extent that adult females are neotenous (resembling children), that gays appear effeminate -- they both resemble children, gays far more strongly. But post-pubescent females have all sorts of mature traits that mark them apart from children, and from gays -- namely, anything related to motherhood (the maternal instinct, pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, nurturing children, and so on).
The framework of "hyper-masculine gays" never had much support -- relative to heterosexual men, gays are smaller, weaker, more easily frightened, cry more, and are totally uninterested in girls, to name the most obvious non-masculine traits. Those are all explained by resembling a child of the age that still feels that "girls are yucky".
The only piece of evidence was that gays are highly promiscuous, which is more male than female-typical. I showed how that is easily explained in the "gays as pre-pubescent boys" framework -- what would happen if you gave an adult hormonal sex drive to a boy who was still mostly pre-social. He wouldn't feel strongly attached to anyone outside his household, and could easily cycle through friends and acquaintances. Boys and girls do this normally with friends at that age; gays differ only in having a sex drive attached to it, so they cycle through "friends and acquaintances who they get it on with," rather than just friends.
It's only during adolescence that the social sense fully develops, and people become more bonded to their peers and behave in a give-and-take way to maintain durable social circles. And since gays are still in the "girls are yucky" stage, their sex drive targets males by default, who boys are not averse to interacting with socially.
Long-time readers remember this; newer readers can search the blog for "gay" and "Peter Pan," "pedomorphy," or "neoteny". The evidence is extensive. Nobody had proposed the theory before, either professionals or laymen, and either from the left, right, or center.
* * *
Having reviewed the overall framework for the first time in awhile, let's add another example to the pattern. I wasn't even planning on looking for it, it just showed up when I was looking at different music genres.
There is a very well established genre called the gay anthem. It's not just disco-dancing stuff, as there are weepy torch songs in there too. There is major overlap between "hoe anthems" and gay anthems.
And yet there is a related kind of doing-it song that does not show up at all -- the baby-making song, or the broader genre of quiet storm song. To show how little overlap there is, Wikipedia's lists of gay anthems and quiet storm songs have around 200 songs apiece, and yet there's only 1 song that belongs to both -- "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston. And that's more of a torch song than a getting-it-on, baby-making song. Only 1 out of over 200 in common? That is not a minor difference.
There are a few near misses, where the same artist and album are on each list, but different songs from the album show up on either list (gay anthem first, quiet storm song second):
1985 - Whitney Houston, "How Will I Know" vs. "Saving All My Love For You"
1994 - TLC, "Waterfalls" vs. "Red Light Special"
1998 - Brandy & Monica, "The Boy Is Mine" vs. "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You" or "Angel of Mine"
The case of TLC is revealing since you'd think "Waterfalls" would be the more normie-friendly song, and that "Red Light Special" would be the one for the over-sexed group, but it's the other way around. In the YouTube comments to the video below, unlike for a hoe anthem like "Gimme More" by Britney Spears, there's no stampede of gays rushing in to identify with the song, and the girls all refer to baby-making rather than letting their inner hoe shine.
What distinguishes baby-making songs (mainly a sub-genre of quiet storm) from the seemingly similar hoe anthems, or torch songs, that make up much of the gay anthem genre? It's the juvenile vs. mature form of social interaction that is assumed. An immature person can feel attraction, infatuation, be sexually active with another person, split apart afterward, and feel lonesome after the parting of ways. But only socially mature people feel the romance and one-on-one intimacy that goes along with long-term monogamy, marriage, raising families, and so on.
Baby-making songs are not about risking pregnancy by sleeping with just any old guy -- it's the special, unique one who you're invested in, and who is invested in you, to the degree that you wouldn't mind eventually forming a family together. If it's just about fucking any random hot guy, that's a hoe anthem, not a baby-making song.
If gays are socially-psychologically like pre-pubescent boys, then of course they don't resonate with the tone of quiet storm songs, which assumes a couple that is adult, romantic, and pair-bonded. But hoe anthems and torch songs would certainly work for gays: in their pre-adolescent and mainly pre-social state, little boys (and girls) already cycle through friends and acquaintances "promiscuously," it's just that gays have an adult sex drive attached to this process, so that they are sexually promiscuous while cycling through them, and perhaps feeling all woe-is-me after the acquaintanceship inevitably breaks apart.
* * *
In typical libtard fashion, the push for gay marriage assumed that equality before the law required equality in nature -- "just like us," "same love," etc. But gays could not be more different from normal men in the relevant domains of life. If the crusaders wanted to allow them to get married, it should have been in terms of giving them the privilege despite being so different, as a form of tolerance. I don't support it, but that's the only way to do it if you do.
Instead we just got a bunch of risible propaganda making claims about how the world works, which normies already know is bogus. It politicized and weaponized social science, as part of a polarizing culture war, rather than a civil liberties approach (tolerance, admitting the vast differences in nature).
What if you got the social science wrong? Then is it OK to revoke the rights and privileges that you based on it? Libtards never stop to think about that. If scientific discoveries -- or basic common sense -- disprove your claims about nature, and those claims are the foundation for your rights argument, then your argument is incredibly fragile. A robust argument is made independently of whatever the state of nature is, a topic to which we'll return in future posts.