The ‘Gay’ Attacks on Lindsey Graham Are All About Politics 70%

By James Kirchick88%

7/15/2026, 11:29:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Recency Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 48.3% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 892 faulty-reasoning hits from 265 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,771 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

Was Lindsey Graham gay? 
As the author of a book about the history of gay Washington, D.C. , it’s a question I’ve been asked frequently for years, and even more so since his sudden death last weekend. 
The South Carolina Republican’s lifelong confirmed bachelorhood, vocal intonation, and Southern dandy demeanor (if not sartorial choices) prompted many to conclude that he was, as they say in that part of the country, “light in his loafers.” 
Graham’s repeated attestations to the contrary had zero effect on those invested in the narrative that he was. 
Only about the matter of J. 
Edgar Hoover’s rumored cross-dressing (for which there is much circumstantial but no direct evidence) am I questioned more. 
Whenever I’ve been asked to speculate upon Graham’s sexuality—and speculate was all that I or anyone else could do—I always answered the question honestly. 
While my personal sense is that Graham was probably gay, as a journalist and a historian I cannot rely on my intuition to make factual assertions. 
(Gaydar hasn’t yet been scientifically perfected.) 
Given the absence of any known female or male romantic interests, Graham may very well have been a heterosexual unlucky in love. 
He might also have been asexual. 
Barring the highly unlikely postmortem emergence of a personal diary or some other unassailable evidence attesting to Graham’s innermost yearnings, we will never know the answer. 
As is depressingly the case these days when a public figure dies, a chorus of voices reveled in Graham’s passing, many of them making light of his presumed homosexuality. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.4%James Kirchick: 12.9%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%James Kirchick: 6.9%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic20.8%This article: 22.3%James Kirchick: 16.0%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic22.3%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%James Kirchick: 2.5%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias9.8%This article: 3.8%James Kirchick: 2.8%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%James Kirchick: 4.9%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.8%This article: 31.7%James Kirchick: 16.1%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias31.7%This article: 9.1%James Kirchick: 4.7%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 23.4%James Kirchick: 5.8%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 3.1%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.3%James Kirchick: 4.2%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.9%James Kirchick: 16.9%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization24.9%This article: 2.3%James Kirchick: 0.6%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring2.3%This article: 10.9%James Kirchick: 5.5%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon10.9%This article: 20.0%James Kirchick: 5.0%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion20.0%This article: 3.8%James Kirchick: 0.9%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%James Kirchick: 1.7%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.2%James Kirchick: 4.6%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.2%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%James Kirchick: 2.5%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground9.8%This article: 6.8%James Kirchick: 1.7%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity6.8%This article: 9.8%James Kirchick: 2.5%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading9.8%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 3.5%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 48.3%James Kirchick: 15.8%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice48.3%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 20.8%James Kirchick: 5.2%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Kirchick: 0.0%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

265 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.