Fluidity of LGBTQ+ Identities
Documents population-level fluidity, supporting therapeutic exploration.
Lilly, K. J., et al. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel study of New Zealand adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(9), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
Summary: Longitudinal data show stability for most but fluidity for some across waves.
Common misrepresentation: Proves universal fluidity/choice or mere error.
What it actually shows: Heterogeneity allows some to explore fluidity therapeutically, though most remain stable without change.
Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.783
Summary: Proposes a two-dimensional model of sexual orientation (heterosexual–homosexual and asexual–sexual) that challenges simple one-axis, categorical views.
Common misrepresentation: Used as if it were a definitive map of all sexual orientations today or as proof that categories like “gay” and “straight” are meaningless.
What it actually shows: An influential theoretical model that broadened how researchers conceptualize orientation, without claiming to capture all possible identities or trajectories.
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y
Summary: Documents that “mostly heterosexual” and “mostly gay/lesbian” self-identifications are common and associated with distinct patterns of attraction and behavior.
Common misrepresentation: Used either to deny that stable gay/lesbian orientations exist or to argue that everyone is essentially bisexual.
What it actually shows: Population-level evidence that many people occupy nuanced, intermediate positions on attraction spectra, complicating strictly binary categorizations.
Dickenson, J., Diamond, L., King, J., Jenson, K., & Anderson, J. (2020). Understanding heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility: The role of attention in sexual evaluations and neural responses to sexual stimuli. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa058
Summary: Examines how attentional processes are linked to heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility, including behavioral ratings and neural responses to sexual stimuli.
Common misrepresentation: Claimed to prove that women’s sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice or social influence.
What it actually shows: Evidence that attention and context shape erotic responses in meaningful ways, while not asserting that orientation is infinitely malleable or voluntary.
Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. (2014). Development of sexual orientation and identity. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 609–610). American Psychological Association.
Summary: Reviews developmental research indicating that sexual attractions and identities typically emerge over time through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors.
Common misrepresentation: Simplified into the claim that orientation is either wholly fixed at birth or entirely socially constructed.
What it actually shows: A nuanced account of development that recognizes both stability and variability and resists oversimplified “born this way” versus “choice” dichotomies.
Pela, C., & Sutton, P. M. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61–86.
https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JHS-PelaSutton.pdf
Summary: Documents reductions in same-sex attraction and well-being improvements in 40 men over 2+ years of SAFE therapy.
Common misrepresentation: Rejected as lacking controls or proving common/permanent change.
What it actually shows: Some clients report fluidity shifts and reduced distress via value-aligned exploration, without guarantees for all.
Katz-Wise, S. L., Todd, J., et al. (2025). One-in-ten adolescents and young adults report changes in their sexual orientation identity: Results from a 2-month follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Health.
Summary: Short-interval longitudinal survey of U.S. adolescents and young adults showing 11.4% changed their sexual orientation identity label over two months, with shifts both into and out of LGBTQ+ categories.
Common misrepresentation: Used to imply that all changes are toward LGBTQ+ identities.
What it actually shows: A measurable minority change labels over short periods, and these changes occur in multiple directions, underscoring meaningful fluidity for some youth.
Stewart, A. L., et al. (2024). The longitudinal measurement of sexual orientation and gender identity across adolescence and adulthood. American Journal of Public Health.
Summary: Nationally representative panel study showing that 4.1% of adults and 13.5% of teens changed sexual orientation, and 3.6% of adults and 9.3% of teens changed gender identity over the study period.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to argue that that survey questions are too unreliable to be useful.
What it actually shows: SOGI measures are sufficiently stable for population research yet flexible enough to capture real change over time, especially in youth, and warrant repeated measurement rather than one-time classification.
van der Vegt, L., et al. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel. Journal of Sex Research.
Summary: Seven-year national panel analysis reporting that 14.6% of lesbian/gay and 41.6% of plurisexual participants changed identity at least once, with transitions both toward and away from heterosexuality.
Common misrepresentation: Quoted to suggest that bisexual and other plurisexual identities are “just a phase,” rather than capturing experiences meaningful to the individual.
What it actually shows: Sexual identity is most stable for exclusive heterosexuals and less stable for sexual minorities, but changes are patterned and meaningful rather than random, with plurisexual identities showing the greatest fluidity over time.
Ott, M. Q., et al. (2011). Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in young people: The Growing Up Today Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Summary: Prospective cohort of adolescents and emerging adults documenting movement among “completely heterosexual,” “mostly heterosexual,” bisexual, and same-sex-oriented categories across several years.
Common misrepresentation: Used to argue that adolescent same-sex attractions and identities are too unstable to take seriously in clinical or educational settings.
What it actually shows: While many youth maintain the same label, a substantial minority shift categories as they mature, illustrating that identity development is a process and that intermediate labels capture meaningful experiences.
Savin-Williams, R. C., et al. (2009). Trajectories of sexual orientation from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology.
Summary: Ten-year longitudinal study identifying multiple trajectories in attractions and identity labels, including persistent heterosexual, persistent sexual minority, and groups that adopt then later relinquish minority labels.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to claim that adolescent disclosures should be dismissed.
What it actually shows: Both stability and change occur; a group persists as sexual minorities and another group move into or out of minority identities, reflecting diverse developmental pathways rather than a single “phase.”
Srivastava, A., et al. (2022). Sexual identity fluidity in adolescence: A systematic review. Journal of Research on Adolescence.
Summary: Review of longitudinal studies estimating that 6–30% of adolescents experience sexual identity change, and about two-thirds of sexual minority youth report some identity change over time.
Common misrepresentation: Used to deny that any early-identified LGBTQ+ youth remain so.
What it actually shows: A consistent minority experience identity shifts, while many remain stable; both patterns are empirically supported and need to be anticipated in research and practice.
Drummond, K. D., et al. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology.
Summary: Follow-up of natal female children diagnosed with gender identity disorder; most no longer met diagnostic criteria at adolescence/young adulthood, though sexual minority outcomes were more common than in the general population.
Common misrepresentation: Presented as definitive evidence that “most trans-identified children are really just future lesbians” and that affirmation is inappropriate.
What it actually shows: In a highly selected clinical cohort under older diagnostic criteria, many did not maintain a transgender identity into later adolescence, but they had elevated rates of non-heterosexual orientations, underscoring complex links between gender variance and sexual orientation.
Steensma, T. D., et al. (2011/2013). Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Summary: Qualitative follow-up of 25 youth from a gender clinic, comparing those whose gender dysphoria persisted with those whose dysphoria abated, and exploring experiential factors linked to each path.
Common misrepresentation: Used to claim that clinicians can reliably predict which individual child will desist.
What it actually shows: Some youth persist and some desist, highlighting uncertainty and the need for individualized care.
Turban, J. L., et al. (2021). Factors leading to “detransition” among transgender and gender diverse people in the United States. LGBT Health.
Summary: Survey of transgender and gender diverse adults, 13.1% of whom reported detransition, examining self-reported reasons for doing so.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to claim that detransition is almost always due to social pressure and never reflects reconsideration, or conversely that detransition is overwhelmingly about regret.
What it actually shows: Detransition is multifactorial; external pressures are common, but some participants also describe shifts in identity, health concerns, or psychological factors.
Vandenbussche, E. (2021). Detransition: A survey of 100 detransitioners. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Summary: Community-based survey of 100 people who had detransitioned, documenting demographics, treatments received, reasons for detransition, and current identity.
Common misrepresentation: Used as if it were a population-based estimate of detransition prevalence, or framed as showing that all detransitioners regret any prior transition.
What it actually shows: Among this self-selected sample, medical and psychosocial concerns, changing understanding of dysphoria, and social factors all feature prominently, and some participants still identify as gender nonconforming.
Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG). (2024). On detransition. CAN-SG briefing paper.
Summary: Narrative review and expert synthesis of existing detransition literature, case reports, and clinical experience, emphasizing heterogeneity of pathways and outcomes.
Common misrepresentation: Quoted selectively to portray detransition as vanishingly rare.
What it actually shows: Detransition exists, is diverse in cause and meaning, can involve regret or relief, and should be addressed with open, non-punitive clinical follow-up.
Two Prisms. (n.d.). Sex, gender, and identity research archive.
https://www.twoprisms.com/
Summary: Provides annotated scientific literature summaries.
Common misrepresentation: Labeled as ideological.
What it actually shows: Primary-source documentation with methodological notes.
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash