There seem to be so many debates about such issues which have become front burner social topics. In some instances it is a mistake to focus on what appears to be the issue (whether a person is gay or queer or +, for example) when it's the social winds of the moment which are the strongest drivers. Humans are indeed fashionable, as John said. And as Glenn observed, there have been times when those in the gay community, for example, have spoken of wanting to just be who they are and at other times how they choose. In most of those times, and I'm thinking of the 70's, 80's and 90's, being gay wasn't easy nor widely fashionable. It was a tough road. That seems to have changed among young people in this country today. We seem to have gone from some women who "dabble" (a pejorative a lesbian friend who well knew of the trials actual lesbians endured explained one day) to many things tending to be cool on today's campuses.
Psychologists used to (and perhaps still do) think of sexual orientation in terms of sexual arousal. Sexual orientation had to do with sex. In today's pop culture, the coolness seems to be in sexual orientation as social identity. We seem to be in a season in which social identity and social comparison seem to be on steroids, to begin with. Or at least top of mind for young people. It seems to me that identifying socially as one thing (in the moment) is different than the old "coming out of the closet as..." One seems to be seeking social applause, while the other, earlier, instance is being true to oneself despite social stigma. One seems to appear easy, while the other was very difficult.
Some might say one is experimenting with an identity or a construct, aspirationally in full view, while the other was an expression of a burdensomely private truth.
Which is one serious reason to consider pumping the brakes on irreversible medical interventions on a wide level. "Fashion" connotes changing with the season, trying things on. Irreversible isn't compatible.
Which points out the contradictions in Gender Theory-"These kids are born KNOWING what gender they are", but apparently they can change gender at will- Male, Female, nonbinary, etc, etc. If that is so, why are we giving potentially harmful hormones and removing perfectly good body parts?
"One seems to be seeking social applause, while the other, earlier, instance is being true to oneself despite social stigma. One seems to appear easy, while the other was very difficult."
As usual, my initial thought got somewhat buried, due to my susceptibility to tangents. It's to do with social psychology, specifically herd mentality as I sometimes think of it.
It isn't as though there is an explosion in numbers of people long champing at the bit to be LGBTQ+ and are only now declaring they are because doing so has become easy and approved. It's more in trying to fit into the present fashion and, more importantly, doing nothing which could result in social ostracism. It's conforming where not conforming can earn social penalty. Imagine how strong the perceived pressure must be in order to overcome the sexuality a person has until their fear of being on the outs caused them to question it or publicly declare they are something else. It's worse than "dabbling", which is at least voluntary.
And doesn't that encourage the psychologically dangerous adoption of two identities, one for school and/or online and one for family and friends to date? Aspects of social psychology might provide explanations but a person's own psychology seems most at risk. My overall point is to do with the power and influence of the herd forces in question and what they are able to overcome.
There have already been many thoughtful comments on the subject of medical science and medical intervention, including Bill Heath, Maura and Elizabeth Hummel. On the subject of parenting, has anyone else observed a parent in fear of retaliation by a disapproving child? Fear driven parenting is another worthy topic in our topsy turvy culture.
Agree about herd mentality, but I would argue that on the fashion in question, the social stimulus is less about avoiding ostracism, and more about earning *easy* points -- frankly, on the backs of folks who have suffered through terrible trials, and continue to suffer in many sectors of society. This is where your comment on easy versus hard resonated with me.
I also believe that when it comes to sexual psychology, our instincts will prevail. That is, the forces of attraction that cause humans to couple in various ways are ultimately stronger than any social contagion.
Fair points, and I agree, Eli. Humans have not stopped being human. And of course there will always be variation, thank goodness. It's the social contagion point on which we continue to agree. Part of my point is that fashion often, perhaps usually, doesn't age well.
edited to correct my oversight by replacing "the" for "that", right before "social".
It doesn't age well, that's true, and especially so for trends that deviate further from the norm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that by definition any fashion will also inevitably become outmoded. I think of the toupee or the push-up bra. Both require trading a measure of dishonesty for vanity and/or social currency.
There seem to be so many debates about such issues which have become front burner social topics. In some instances it is a mistake to focus on what appears to be the issue (whether a person is gay or queer or +, for example) when it's the social winds of the moment which are the strongest drivers. Humans are indeed fashionable, as John said. And as Glenn observed, there have been times when those in the gay community, for example, have spoken of wanting to just be who they are and at other times how they choose. In most of those times, and I'm thinking of the 70's, 80's and 90's, being gay wasn't easy nor widely fashionable. It was a tough road. That seems to have changed among young people in this country today. We seem to have gone from some women who "dabble" (a pejorative a lesbian friend who well knew of the trials actual lesbians endured explained one day) to many things tending to be cool on today's campuses.
Psychologists used to (and perhaps still do) think of sexual orientation in terms of sexual arousal. Sexual orientation had to do with sex. In today's pop culture, the coolness seems to be in sexual orientation as social identity. We seem to be in a season in which social identity and social comparison seem to be on steroids, to begin with. Or at least top of mind for young people. It seems to me that identifying socially as one thing (in the moment) is different than the old "coming out of the closet as..." One seems to be seeking social applause, while the other, earlier, instance is being true to oneself despite social stigma. One seems to appear easy, while the other was very difficult.
Some might say one is experimenting with an identity or a construct, aspirationally in full view, while the other was an expression of a burdensomely private truth.
Which is one serious reason to consider pumping the brakes on irreversible medical interventions on a wide level. "Fashion" connotes changing with the season, trying things on. Irreversible isn't compatible.
Excellent point, GB.
Which points out the contradictions in Gender Theory-"These kids are born KNOWING what gender they are", but apparently they can change gender at will- Male, Female, nonbinary, etc, etc. If that is so, why are we giving potentially harmful hormones and removing perfectly good body parts?
All of this, especially:
"One seems to be seeking social applause, while the other, earlier, instance is being true to oneself despite social stigma. One seems to appear easy, while the other was very difficult."
As usual, my initial thought got somewhat buried, due to my susceptibility to tangents. It's to do with social psychology, specifically herd mentality as I sometimes think of it.
It isn't as though there is an explosion in numbers of people long champing at the bit to be LGBTQ+ and are only now declaring they are because doing so has become easy and approved. It's more in trying to fit into the present fashion and, more importantly, doing nothing which could result in social ostracism. It's conforming where not conforming can earn social penalty. Imagine how strong the perceived pressure must be in order to overcome the sexuality a person has until their fear of being on the outs caused them to question it or publicly declare they are something else. It's worse than "dabbling", which is at least voluntary.
And doesn't that encourage the psychologically dangerous adoption of two identities, one for school and/or online and one for family and friends to date? Aspects of social psychology might provide explanations but a person's own psychology seems most at risk. My overall point is to do with the power and influence of the herd forces in question and what they are able to overcome.
There have already been many thoughtful comments on the subject of medical science and medical intervention, including Bill Heath, Maura and Elizabeth Hummel. On the subject of parenting, has anyone else observed a parent in fear of retaliation by a disapproving child? Fear driven parenting is another worthy topic in our topsy turvy culture.
Agree about herd mentality, but I would argue that on the fashion in question, the social stimulus is less about avoiding ostracism, and more about earning *easy* points -- frankly, on the backs of folks who have suffered through terrible trials, and continue to suffer in many sectors of society. This is where your comment on easy versus hard resonated with me.
I also believe that when it comes to sexual psychology, our instincts will prevail. That is, the forces of attraction that cause humans to couple in various ways are ultimately stronger than any social contagion.
Fair points, and I agree, Eli. Humans have not stopped being human. And of course there will always be variation, thank goodness. It's the social contagion point on which we continue to agree. Part of my point is that fashion often, perhaps usually, doesn't age well.
edited to correct my oversight by replacing "the" for "that", right before "social".
It doesn't age well, that's true, and especially so for trends that deviate further from the norm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that by definition any fashion will also inevitably become outmoded. I think of the toupee or the push-up bra. Both require trading a measure of dishonesty for vanity and/or social currency.