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.
Agree. I also read that Kinsey sampled heavily in the Bay area, which has had a vibrant gay scene for many decades, so some social scientists say some of Kinsey's data may be skewed. The figures I've heard, whether right or not, coincide with yours.
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.
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.
With respect, it’s a fight you SHOULD engage in. Kids need our guidance, our perspective built on additional decades of experience. I would emphasize that it’s their decision, but kids are confused also, and they desperately need the perspective of people that they know have their best interests at heart.
I agree with what you are saying and it's not that I haven't added my thoughts and opinions. But at some point, there is not much left I can say, especially for someone who is 21 and paving their own path. My daughter knows exactly what I think yet she is dug in to her own ideas and at some point I need to respect that.
Years ago, when our daughters were at university, I used to refer to it as the “Chapel Hill bubble”. We realized that our daughters were ensconced in academia, and though they were getting an education, we felt that it was important to present alternative points of view. If you have an open, respectful communication with them in these early adult years (which it very much sounds like you do), they will come back to you for counsel in the ensuing years. I’m happy to say that our grown, now successful 40something adult children ask for our thoughts and opinions all the time, especially on parenting! They don’t always agree, and we respect that, but the lines of communication remain open. So, Maura, keep talking, but especially, keep listening. Good luck.
Totally right. I agree. There will be years enough to sort all this out. She knows your position and you have to let her forge her own path, and own it.
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.
As a blue hair, there is a reading of this as anarcho communist culture appropriation from a specifically Maoist strategy. Adopt a highly vulnerable and conspicuous minority with numbers so large it becomes a majority and causes some political leverage. If reading Donald Trump as a fascist is a reading, then reading nonbinary youngsters as the youth in the Cultural Revolution is also a reading.
The question is what about this highly vulnerable and specific minority? Should the rules that apply to them apply to all of society? Playing that game is what is causing the trouble. Leave the trannies alone.
"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.
The gender phenom isn't totally disconnected from the spike in suicide. For at least a substantial cohort of people thinking they have a different "gender identity", they're searching for meaning in what many perceive to be an otherwise meaningless world - one where the temptation to despair is that much greater than it otherwise would be.
Good comment tying some of this together, LG - thanks. The WSJ just ran a piece in the last couple of weeks saying that something like a fourth of all millennials are depressed, unhappy, etc. I found that shocking. They seem like they have everything, but maybe that's the problem. Is it digital media? Lack of social connectedness? Why do they find the world so meaningless as you say?
Because compared to their predecessors (or for that matter, compared to their peers in other more traditional countries) who would have received via a religious tradition a sense of meaning and purpose for their lives, most children who grow up in secular families and/or communities (and thanks to the internet & iPhones this is bit by bit becoming the whole world) are told that they can decide for themselves not only whatever they want to do with their lives (up to and including attempting to override reality), but that it’s also up to them to determine what everything means (provided they are interested in imbuing their experiences & choices with any meaning at all). Having that much choice and freedom, particularly when it comes to the most important parts of one’s life, is a recipe for anxiety and depression - if people can get overwhelmed and can’t decide which laundry detergent to buy when they’re faced with 20 options, why would we expect things to go well when we tell kids that there are absolutely no constraints and that they can do whatever they want with their own lives?
Technology makes this problem much worse in that it functions as an additional distraction (total understatement there) from more positive pursuits that can develop people’s character and put them on a path to a meaningful life, as well as making possible things that were mere science fiction in the past (ie “sex change” surgeries). But even without disruptive technologies (after all, it’s not like people couldn’t choose to waste their lives in the past), having a culture that encourages young people to reject received wisdom & tradition (or to at least treat those things as incidental) will, I think, inevitably lead to a great many more people feeling unmoored, anxious, depressed and tending to despair. The gender identity movement that we’re seeing now is functioning as a religion for the increasing number of people who have given up on the more traditional varieties. But since it’s based on a denial of reality (and is inherently narcissistic in exalting the self), it’s ultimately not going to reduce the dissociation from one’s body (and from what I would say is one’s actual true self) and disconnection from the rest of society that leads to despair.
These are great comments. You've tied together a variety of influences and shown how they combine to create the problems you talk about. This should be a full length article. Well-done.
Cultural neoteny perhaps? There was a time when this kind of rampant narcissism would have been checked by shame. It has all but been condoned by the incumbent adult authority. Young people now find it completely normal to stare endlessly at pictures of themselves and their friends, and are compelled to distill themselves into memes in order to be represented in the virtual world.
It seems like sex has been an obsession in all significant civilizations going back to the first ones. This idea of one's sexuality as the core of one's identity then seems like the latest iteration.
I agree with you, it's all too much.
I think it's a good thing if you can regularly engage in the types of sexual activities you want--provided you have consenting partners, you don't do it to excesses that interfere with other significant aspects of your life, and you keep in mind the stark realities of these activities, that they can bring about disease and in some cases pregnancy.
But a person's identity involves many other aspects of how they are and how they interact with the people around them. And one's identity is actually negotiated with society, not determined by the person alone.
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.
Astute commentary Nancy - it frequently gives off the noxious stench of ego, self-righteousness, and interpersonal power games. I thought Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority shtick was an amusing footnote in history, however a significant subset of “enbies” today have unwittingly stolen that playbook and just flipped the script. Haughty, religious-like fervor in rainbow garb.
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.
Agree. I also read that Kinsey sampled heavily in the Bay area, which has had a vibrant gay scene for many decades, so some social scientists say some of Kinsey's data may be skewed. The figures I've heard, whether right or not, coincide with yours.
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.
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.
With respect, it’s a fight you SHOULD engage in. Kids need our guidance, our perspective built on additional decades of experience. I would emphasize that it’s their decision, but kids are confused also, and they desperately need the perspective of people that they know have their best interests at heart.
I agree with what you are saying and it's not that I haven't added my thoughts and opinions. But at some point, there is not much left I can say, especially for someone who is 21 and paving their own path. My daughter knows exactly what I think yet she is dug in to her own ideas and at some point I need to respect that.
Years ago, when our daughters were at university, I used to refer to it as the “Chapel Hill bubble”. We realized that our daughters were ensconced in academia, and though they were getting an education, we felt that it was important to present alternative points of view. If you have an open, respectful communication with them in these early adult years (which it very much sounds like you do), they will come back to you for counsel in the ensuing years. I’m happy to say that our grown, now successful 40something adult children ask for our thoughts and opinions all the time, especially on parenting! They don’t always agree, and we respect that, but the lines of communication remain open. So, Maura, keep talking, but especially, keep listening. Good luck.
Totally right. I agree. There will be years enough to sort all this out. She knows your position and you have to let her forge her own path, and own it.
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.
More like not so 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.
"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."
Which is why adding the other letters to LGB is a category error.
And why screwing around with language becomes the weapon of choice in these matters.
As with all aspects of identity politics.
As a blue hair, there is a reading of this as anarcho communist culture appropriation from a specifically Maoist strategy. Adopt a highly vulnerable and conspicuous minority with numbers so large it becomes a majority and causes some political leverage. If reading Donald Trump as a fascist is a reading, then reading nonbinary youngsters as the youth in the Cultural Revolution is also a reading.
The question is what about this highly vulnerable and specific minority? Should the rules that apply to them apply to all of society? Playing that game is what is causing the trouble. Leave the trannies alone.
"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.
The gender phenom isn't totally disconnected from the spike in suicide. For at least a substantial cohort of people thinking they have a different "gender identity", they're searching for meaning in what many perceive to be an otherwise meaningless world - one where the temptation to despair is that much greater than it otherwise would be.
Good comment tying some of this together, LG - thanks. The WSJ just ran a piece in the last couple of weeks saying that something like a fourth of all millennials are depressed, unhappy, etc. I found that shocking. They seem like they have everything, but maybe that's the problem. Is it digital media? Lack of social connectedness? Why do they find the world so meaningless as you say?
Because compared to their predecessors (or for that matter, compared to their peers in other more traditional countries) who would have received via a religious tradition a sense of meaning and purpose for their lives, most children who grow up in secular families and/or communities (and thanks to the internet & iPhones this is bit by bit becoming the whole world) are told that they can decide for themselves not only whatever they want to do with their lives (up to and including attempting to override reality), but that it’s also up to them to determine what everything means (provided they are interested in imbuing their experiences & choices with any meaning at all). Having that much choice and freedom, particularly when it comes to the most important parts of one’s life, is a recipe for anxiety and depression - if people can get overwhelmed and can’t decide which laundry detergent to buy when they’re faced with 20 options, why would we expect things to go well when we tell kids that there are absolutely no constraints and that they can do whatever they want with their own lives?
Technology makes this problem much worse in that it functions as an additional distraction (total understatement there) from more positive pursuits that can develop people’s character and put them on a path to a meaningful life, as well as making possible things that were mere science fiction in the past (ie “sex change” surgeries). But even without disruptive technologies (after all, it’s not like people couldn’t choose to waste their lives in the past), having a culture that encourages young people to reject received wisdom & tradition (or to at least treat those things as incidental) will, I think, inevitably lead to a great many more people feeling unmoored, anxious, depressed and tending to despair. The gender identity movement that we’re seeing now is functioning as a religion for the increasing number of people who have given up on the more traditional varieties. But since it’s based on a denial of reality (and is inherently narcissistic in exalting the self), it’s ultimately not going to reduce the dissociation from one’s body (and from what I would say is one’s actual true self) and disconnection from the rest of society that leads to despair.
These are great comments. You've tied together a variety of influences and shown how they combine to create the problems you talk about. This should be a full length article. Well-done.
I so appreciate that my fellow readers continue Glenn and John’s discussion in such an intelligent way. Thank you, Sea Sentry.
Cultural neoteny perhaps? There was a time when this kind of rampant narcissism would have been checked by shame. It has all but been condoned by the incumbent adult authority. Young people now find it completely normal to stare endlessly at pictures of themselves and their friends, and are compelled to distill themselves into memes in order to be represented in the virtual world.
I agree. It’s really weird. I don’t know how to react to all this other than to be glad I’m not an adolescent today.
The "me, me, me" trend goes back to the boomers, who were indulged in turn by their parents during the unprecedented prosperity of the 1950s.
I couldn't agree more. My boomer generation has really made a hash of so many things in this country.
It seems like sex has been an obsession in all significant civilizations going back to the first ones. This idea of one's sexuality as the core of one's identity then seems like the latest iteration.
I agree with you, it's all too much.
I think it's a good thing if you can regularly engage in the types of sexual activities you want--provided you have consenting partners, you don't do it to excesses that interfere with other significant aspects of your life, and you keep in mind the stark realities of these activities, that they can bring about disease and in some cases pregnancy.
But a person's identity involves many other aspects of how they are and how they interact with the people around them. And one's identity is actually negotiated with society, not determined by the person alone.
Thoughtful comments- thanks LM.
Your last sentence: BINGO!
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.
Astute commentary Nancy - it frequently gives off the noxious stench of ego, self-righteousness, and interpersonal power games. I thought Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority shtick was an amusing footnote in history, however a significant subset of “enbies” today have unwittingly stolen that playbook and just flipped the script. Haughty, religious-like fervor in rainbow garb.
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.