YouTube, Facebook "hate speech" rules could conceivably shut down discussions of low birth rates among wealthier people, and we need that conversation

Is talking about population demographics now presenting an “unacceptable ideology” (as YouTube would define it)?

In recent months, a lot of us have gotten informed about the existence of the objectionable racial idea or conspiracy theory, “great replacement”, originating from France and re-emphasizezd by Renaud Camus’s 2012 book.  Sometimes the theory also leads to anti-Semitism.  The hate-speech rules would bar presenting any ideology that admits one group to claim superiority over another, even as an abstract notion well-known from centuries of world history.  Until Charlottesville and then New Zealand, I had barely thought about the concept as such at all.  It has no chance of coming about through any reasonable political process. 

    

However, for perhaps the past two decades we have heard repeated warnings that lower birth rates among wealthier people (who in Europe and the Americas are more likely to be Caucasian). The caution about having children leads to fewer workers to support existing retirees and increases the strain on Social Security and retirement systems.

The caution is largely motivated by financial caution and development, but also by individualism, feminism, and gay rights. People who feel less “tribal” attachment tend to have fewer children.

In fact, the concern over lower birth rates has contributed to homophobia.  That’s obviously the case in Russia today (with the 2013 law).  But it also explained a lot of hostility toward homosexuals before Stonewall (and the tendency to conflate the problem with the Cold War and communism). 
  

In my own situation, since I was an only child, my announcement of “latent homosexuality” at William and Mary in 1961 was seen as a death penalty to the idea that my parents’ marriage would lead to a lineage.

People who live in relatively closed communities or “tribes” tend to have more children, but the men (husbands) especially feel more committed to lifelong marital intimacy if they believe that others around them have to follow the same moral rules of religious purity. These rules tended to demand a level of gender-conforming performance and communal risk-sharing among all persons in the group, the sort of thing that leads to drafting only men.

That’s a tough reality to follow.  Gay activists over the years have taken the intellectually lazy but culturally safe path of treating gender or sexually non conforming persons as members of separate (protected) classes rather than look at what happens at a psychological level.

And now looking at was really happening a half-century ago is almost forbidden by big Tech policy, out of fear of instigating violence and fascism all over again. The radical Left wants supposedly settled questions taken out of the purvey of free speech, which it seems a re-igniting the risk to its vulnerable protected classes. But, surprise, male-only Selective Service registration is not settled.

The Washington Post has a distantly tangential article by Hugh Ryan, "How Eugenics Gave Rise to Modern Homophobia", link. There is an odd twist in how the "born this way" meme works.