While I’m hesitant to get all psychological here — it is offensive to offer any one-size-fits-all theory about the etiology of homosexuality — I can tell you that old-fashioned Freudians describe a familial pattern known colloquially as the “smother mother.” Many gay boys have mothers who are too affectionate and over-protective of their sons. In many such cases, the father is absent or perceived as hostile. This Freudian perspective has been criticized on many grounds, especially because it is associated with so-called “reparative therapy,” a/k/a “conversion therapy.” Beyond that, however, I think the emphasis on parental influence fails to understand how peer interactions and cultural influence may contribute to the development of homosexual tendencies. It is very important in a boy’s development that he become “one of the guys,” i.e., that he feel accepted by his male peers as a valuable member in the male-bonding rituals of boyhood. One of the common threads you’ll see in gay coming-out narratives — and this is true in both gay men and lesbians — is that, as a child, they felt somehow different from other kids. Long before they were old enough to have any idea of sexuality, they suffered from a sense of isolation or alienation, and somehow didn’t “fit in” with their peers.

The ultra-flamboyant aspect of James Charles’s personality helped him become a YouTube celebrity, but his flamboyance could also be interpreted as symptomatic of psychopathic tendencies. Why, then, were so many people willing to enable him? Anyone who paid attention could see he was a predator hiding in plain sight.

https://spectator.org/cults-collusion-and-the-echo-chamber/