Given the expanding characteristic of “LGBT+” or Queer; it encompasses potentially anyone because Gender Activists’ category definitions are deliberately vague- for reasons they refuse to reveal. All the planet’s humans meet criteria for Gender Theory definition of “Trans”. I have nothing against fashion that individuals choose for themselves.
But, cultural opportunists also benefit by pretending a category for a job resume or actual money. SF Mayor Breed created “GIFT” project to give an annual cash payment to a limited number of Trans residents. Eligibility criteria is likely “Self-identify” and nothing else.
If students at Brown and Columbia had been presented a LGBT “Information Story”, instead of a “Propaganda Story about Good Gender/Bad Gender”; then they wouldn’t be fleeing from the designated “evil identity”.
When Kinsey released his study on male sexuality, he estimated that about 3% to 4% of the adult male population in US was homosexual and an additional 6% may have tried something at some point.
I saw an article in the Economist a few months ago that estimated the adult male homosexual population to be about 3%. So no change.
What you see in these labels are hugely pose and fashion that are hem-length in durability.
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.
I tried reading this with an open mind since I admittedly am older than dirt and have not been on or near a college campus in more years than I can count. But as I read John - "It doesn't mean that we aren't seeing something based on reality and I am getting there and it is nothing to be alarmed about" it didn't make me wonder , if am i so old fashioned that I think if I sent my son to Brown at a cost of thousands I shouldn't be alarmed when he came home as I she?
Perhaps I missed John's point but I fear that for whatever reason - it is cool - it is the fashion, it will become normal as has being gay , etc, I am alarmed and greatly so. atwhat see asa profit driven motive by unethical professionals of every stripe praying on vulnerable kids. I wonder if John hasn't been at the NYT too long. He is beginning to echo their woke philosophy
I am thrilled to hear your take on this cultural change, as I’ve been observing this rapid change in identities in teenagers and perplexed as to whether it is harmless or harmful. It seems you both believe it to be a harmless cultural transition. The worrisome part to me- which I cannot decide how worried to be about- is youth gender transitions. The physical changes (which relatively few undertake) are often irreversible and have great potential for physical and psychological harm. Please consider further discussion on this point.
1. There is no LGBT. The first three are sexual orientations as measured on the Kinsey Scale. The last is a personal belief about one's gender. According to a friend who has been a gay activist for two decades, the connection with T began with an overlap in being interested in drag. He tells me that whenever T joins an organization it typically takes over and LGB becomes largely irrelevant. I can't dispute that.
2. I practiced psychiatry for a year following medical school in Germany. In studying neurology I learned that in gay males there is a structural difference in the brain between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The current thinking is that epigenetics accounts for the difference - a deficiency in testosterone in the womb. My conclusion was that LGB were involuntary, and were born that way. T is another matter. The only commonality is that no one should be subjected to medical treatment about either sexual orientation or gender identity before the brain fully matures, 24 or 25 for females, 25 or 26 for males. There is zero scientific evidence to support clusters of transsexuals.
My daughter attends Seattle Univ and according to her 50% identify as LGBT. I think it leans heavily female gay however. The bottom line is that it's simply not "cool" to identify as straight or cis hetero. Her best friend refuses to be held down to society standards and has now gone from gay to bi to pan sexual. It's absurd because basically she likes "dudes". But boy do they have the narrative down "I always thought I was different", "who determines who I can love".. blah, blah, blah. Of course I just have to nod my head in understanding lest I get schooled by my 21year old. It's a fight I'm not willing to engage in. That being said, at least her lesbian roommate said to her "It's OK to be straight"! At least there are some sane youth left.
Doesn't self-identification as queer *primarily* in the interest of fashion (as in John's last example) undermine the identity itself? If I were on the far end of the Kinsey Scale, I would be personally offended if someone casually co-opted my identity to make themselves appear more interesting, and paid the bill, so to speak, by waving a flag. I parse this phenomenon as a kind of power play, a politicking of sorts, built on a thinly-veiled narcissism.
"In this understanding, sex is not what you do, it is what you are." Glenn, I don't believe this is an accurate description, either of understandings about "sex" from before ten minutes ago or whatever is going on with kids in college. "Sex" does not refer to sexual activity. Sex IS what we are, it has always been what we are: every human being is either the male sex or the female sex. That is just basic biology. Every cell in my body is female, no matter what I fantasize myself as being. Every cell in my husband's boy is male (even if he sports a dress now and then). That has nothing to do with identity, any more than being human is our identity. (Yes, some humans have ambiguous sex characteristics, but that is a red herring I won't say more about except that according to scientists I trust, there are only two sexes in humans and all mammals.) And the blue haired queer kids would probably tell you that "sex" (either defined as I just did or as sexual activity) is not the issue at all. It's ALL about identity, which is determined and defined by each person and must be in the labyrinthine rules of the gender game "affirmed" by everyone else. That's why there's 600 genders or whatever there are. As the queer proselytizers like to say: "Sexual orientation is about who you want to go to bed WITH, whereas gender identity is about who you want to go to bed AS." Puzzle that out as you may. It only makes sense if you suspend disbelief and enter the phantasmagorical domain of gender identity ideology.
"But today that's an obsolete model of things. And so for example, I'm not sure why, but linguistics tilts gay among men. A disproportionate number of men who major in linguistics are gay. And so I get a sense that [there are] a great many comfortably gay 19- and 20-year-olds to an extent that was not true when I was in college, despite [the fact that] gayness was hardly completely under-board."
John, that poses an interesting question. Does Linguistics, as a field of study, attract gay men, more than some other fields in liberal arts or social sciences. I don't think it did in my time (PhD, 1981, didn't stay in academics). Are there particular fields which attract 'queers'? Or, is the point that there are fields where it pays to self-describe?
This is another thoughtful conversation with Glenn and John. I found the comment about linguistics majors tending to be gay particularly interesting - sounds like a Master's thesis for some bold future social scientist.
Stepping back from the sexual alphabet fray, however, it strikes me that a society that is this obsessed about sexual identity is not serious about things that really matter, or perhaps has too much time on its hands. I mean, we have a massive spike in deaths of despair, a level of debt that's unsustainable with our declared priorities (massive entitlements, world's policeman, interminable bailouts), geopolitical challenges, massive migrant flows, etc. (add your own concerns) , and our nation's future (ivy league) leaders are trying to decide what sexual orientation polls well on their Instagram pages? It seems like frivolous adolescent navel-gazing to me.
It’s not about sexuality. It’s about authority and legitimacy. If you are not queer, you’ll literally be told to “shut up” in these circles. I am vaguely amused by the individuals declaring themselves to be “non binary”. I’m tempted to say the “enbies”are the new WASPS.
Given the expanding characteristic of “LGBT+” or Queer; it encompasses potentially anyone because Gender Activists’ category definitions are deliberately vague- for reasons they refuse to reveal. All the planet’s humans meet criteria for Gender Theory definition of “Trans”. I have nothing against fashion that individuals choose for themselves.
But, cultural opportunists also benefit by pretending a category for a job resume or actual money. SF Mayor Breed created “GIFT” project to give an annual cash payment to a limited number of Trans residents. Eligibility criteria is likely “Self-identify” and nothing else.
If students at Brown and Columbia had been presented a LGBT “Information Story”, instead of a “Propaganda Story about Good Gender/Bad Gender”; then they wouldn’t be fleeing from the designated “evil identity”.
When Kinsey released his study on male sexuality, he estimated that about 3% to 4% of the adult male population in US was homosexual and an additional 6% may have tried something at some point.
I saw an article in the Economist a few months ago that estimated the adult male homosexual population to be about 3%. So no change.
What you see in these labels are hugely pose and fashion that are hem-length in durability.
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.
I tried reading this with an open mind since I admittedly am older than dirt and have not been on or near a college campus in more years than I can count. But as I read John - "It doesn't mean that we aren't seeing something based on reality and I am getting there and it is nothing to be alarmed about" it didn't make me wonder , if am i so old fashioned that I think if I sent my son to Brown at a cost of thousands I shouldn't be alarmed when he came home as I she?
Perhaps I missed John's point but I fear that for whatever reason - it is cool - it is the fashion, it will become normal as has being gay , etc, I am alarmed and greatly so. atwhat see asa profit driven motive by unethical professionals of every stripe praying on vulnerable kids. I wonder if John hasn't been at the NYT too long. He is beginning to echo their woke philosophy
Pansexuals, non- binary? Yeah it’s cool now.
I am thrilled to hear your take on this cultural change, as I’ve been observing this rapid change in identities in teenagers and perplexed as to whether it is harmless or harmful. It seems you both believe it to be a harmless cultural transition. The worrisome part to me- which I cannot decide how worried to be about- is youth gender transitions. The physical changes (which relatively few undertake) are often irreversible and have great potential for physical and psychological harm. Please consider further discussion on this point.
I greatly value both of your perspectives.
1. There is no LGBT. The first three are sexual orientations as measured on the Kinsey Scale. The last is a personal belief about one's gender. According to a friend who has been a gay activist for two decades, the connection with T began with an overlap in being interested in drag. He tells me that whenever T joins an organization it typically takes over and LGB becomes largely irrelevant. I can't dispute that.
2. I practiced psychiatry for a year following medical school in Germany. In studying neurology I learned that in gay males there is a structural difference in the brain between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The current thinking is that epigenetics accounts for the difference - a deficiency in testosterone in the womb. My conclusion was that LGB were involuntary, and were born that way. T is another matter. The only commonality is that no one should be subjected to medical treatment about either sexual orientation or gender identity before the brain fully matures, 24 or 25 for females, 25 or 26 for males. There is zero scientific evidence to support clusters of transsexuals.
My daughter attends Seattle Univ and according to her 50% identify as LGBT. I think it leans heavily female gay however. The bottom line is that it's simply not "cool" to identify as straight or cis hetero. Her best friend refuses to be held down to society standards and has now gone from gay to bi to pan sexual. It's absurd because basically she likes "dudes". But boy do they have the narrative down "I always thought I was different", "who determines who I can love".. blah, blah, blah. Of course I just have to nod my head in understanding lest I get schooled by my 21year old. It's a fight I'm not willing to engage in. That being said, at least her lesbian roommate said to her "It's OK to be straight"! At least there are some sane youth left.
Good talk.
Doesn't self-identification as queer *primarily* in the interest of fashion (as in John's last example) undermine the identity itself? If I were on the far end of the Kinsey Scale, I would be personally offended if someone casually co-opted my identity to make themselves appear more interesting, and paid the bill, so to speak, by waving a flag. I parse this phenomenon as a kind of power play, a politicking of sorts, built on a thinly-veiled narcissism.
"In this understanding, sex is not what you do, it is what you are." Glenn, I don't believe this is an accurate description, either of understandings about "sex" from before ten minutes ago or whatever is going on with kids in college. "Sex" does not refer to sexual activity. Sex IS what we are, it has always been what we are: every human being is either the male sex or the female sex. That is just basic biology. Every cell in my body is female, no matter what I fantasize myself as being. Every cell in my husband's boy is male (even if he sports a dress now and then). That has nothing to do with identity, any more than being human is our identity. (Yes, some humans have ambiguous sex characteristics, but that is a red herring I won't say more about except that according to scientists I trust, there are only two sexes in humans and all mammals.) And the blue haired queer kids would probably tell you that "sex" (either defined as I just did or as sexual activity) is not the issue at all. It's ALL about identity, which is determined and defined by each person and must be in the labyrinthine rules of the gender game "affirmed" by everyone else. That's why there's 600 genders or whatever there are. As the queer proselytizers like to say: "Sexual orientation is about who you want to go to bed WITH, whereas gender identity is about who you want to go to bed AS." Puzzle that out as you may. It only makes sense if you suspend disbelief and enter the phantasmagorical domain of gender identity ideology.
"But today that's an obsolete model of things. And so for example, I'm not sure why, but linguistics tilts gay among men. A disproportionate number of men who major in linguistics are gay. And so I get a sense that [there are] a great many comfortably gay 19- and 20-year-olds to an extent that was not true when I was in college, despite [the fact that] gayness was hardly completely under-board."
John, that poses an interesting question. Does Linguistics, as a field of study, attract gay men, more than some other fields in liberal arts or social sciences. I don't think it did in my time (PhD, 1981, didn't stay in academics). Are there particular fields which attract 'queers'? Or, is the point that there are fields where it pays to self-describe?
This is another thoughtful conversation with Glenn and John. I found the comment about linguistics majors tending to be gay particularly interesting - sounds like a Master's thesis for some bold future social scientist.
Stepping back from the sexual alphabet fray, however, it strikes me that a society that is this obsessed about sexual identity is not serious about things that really matter, or perhaps has too much time on its hands. I mean, we have a massive spike in deaths of despair, a level of debt that's unsustainable with our declared priorities (massive entitlements, world's policeman, interminable bailouts), geopolitical challenges, massive migrant flows, etc. (add your own concerns) , and our nation's future (ivy league) leaders are trying to decide what sexual orientation polls well on their Instagram pages? It seems like frivolous adolescent navel-gazing to me.
It’s not about sexuality. It’s about authority and legitimacy. If you are not queer, you’ll literally be told to “shut up” in these circles. I am vaguely amused by the individuals declaring themselves to be “non binary”. I’m tempted to say the “enbies”are the new WASPS.
What does it even MEAN to be queer anyway? That's nothing but a political identifier
This is sickening and worrisome. Our society is unwell and in a state of serious decline.