Millenials and Queerness

[Gary Childress]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gen-z ... 11cb&ei=24

I suppose the best position for a minority to take is to be in your face proud of being what they are. In the end, they're not going to get much out of empathy or consolation from people for being humble, ashamed and meek anyway. I mean, I guess it comes down to different strokes for different folks to some degree but I believe we are all still bound to whatever extent by a maxim that you will receive in kind what you give out. That presumably being the case, it still behooves us to act in ways that are fair, honest and honorable regardless of what drum we march along to (unless it is our wish to be treated something other than fairly, honestly and honorably by others).

Is it therefore "OK" to be queer? Sure. But it's not going to be an instant ticket to the ritz, heaven or an easy life (or whatever one wishes to aspire to) I don't think. It comes with advantages and limitations like any other way of living. As far as setting up a bathroom for everything a person can write down as their "gender", I don't think that's feasible in either theory of practice. But maybe something reasonable can be worked out. I don't know.

[Iwannaplato]

From the linked article...

When you zero in on Gen Z (specified as young adults born between 1997 and 2004), a whopping 19.7% self-identified as LGBTQ+. That’s right; there was 1 queer young adult for about every 5 Gen Z respondents surveyed.

Prior to that generation with was around 7%. Does this mean that people were silent before? Does that mean this generation actually has more sexuality variance?
I'm not sure.
But LGBTQ+ is a very broad category. It can include people who consider themselves asexual (not sexual). So, when asked in earlier generations whether they fit gay/bi, they would have said no. It also includes people who don't identify with a sex. Of course this could be a born biological male who sleeps with women. But doesn't feel like 'man' is the correct label. That also gets missed in earlier generations.
There are probably other categories in there that just wouldn't have gotten plopped into earlier conceptions.

Then you have the fact that it is 'in' to be in this category in some subcultures. Certainly many colleges and neighborhoods. Given that there is vastly less committment necessary to get under the LGBTQ+ heading, there could be all sorts of reasons for categorzing yourself this way. Ones that may have little to do with your sexuality.

What do I mean by committment? Well, yes, there were likely transpersons before who never got the operations/hormone treatments. But now a much larger percentage of people fit into that category of not intending to go through as much physiological change as possible. And given some of the categories it need not affect who one has sex with. You could be bi but never sleep with the same sex. Of course that was always true, but I think the cultural trends, even fashions, are drawing people to identify this way...tentatively, for a period of lives, as what seems like a solution to problems, but they can (without great effort) decide later wasn't what was really going on.

Take the gentle young man who finds many of his male peers to be harsh or cold or not interested in emotions or somehow exhibiting cliche maleness and can't identify with them. Hey, maybe I'm a girl. And a certain part of the population will raise your social status instantly. Yes, other will lower it. But given we have some control over who we have contact with and if you have no status anywhere, some status may seem worth it even if the net changes in others views may be zero, they go for it. Toss in that there is tremendous pressure, these days, to get far away from being a cisgender, straight white guy as possible. Yes, being a girl/woman gets you one notch away on one category. But you'll notice a real status change if you move to trans, for example. Again, yes, there are pressures the other way. But for a teenager or younger immediately having a niche where you are special and can come out as a victim of the system is a very strong enticement.

One area of concern I have in all this is that young people, children even, are allowed to set in motion hormone treatments, mastectomies, genetial operations, sometimes even without parental consent. How on earth can a 14 year old work out whether they are a non-traditional male, a gay male, and transperson?

We don't allow young people to get tattoos until they are 18 in the US. It varies in states and some allow younger ages with parental permission, some don't.

But get that. You can't get a tattoo, but in some places you can start the sex change process. And with parental permission
based on a child's sense
you can start removing and changing secondary sexual organs and
change the endocrine system in ways we don't know the long term results of

Sorry to sound paranoid, but I think someone wants to feed social and cultural splits in society.

[Gary Childress]

From the linked article...

When you zero in on Gen Z (specified as young adults born between 1997 and 2004), a whopping 19.7% self-identified as LGBTQ+. That’s right; there was 1 queer young adult for about every 5 Gen Z respondents surveyed.

Prior to that generation with was around 7%. Does this mean that people were silent before? Does that mean this generation actually has more sexuality variance?
I'm not sure.
But LGBTQ+ is a very broad category. It can include people who consider themselves asexual (not sexual). So, when asked in earlier generations whether they fit gay/bi, they would have said no. It also includes people who don't identify with a sex. Of course this could be a born biological male who sleeps with women. But doesn't feel like 'man' is the correct label. That also gets missed in earlier generations.
There are probably other categories in there that just wouldn't have gotten plopped into earlier conceptions.

Then you have the fact that it is 'in' to be in this category in some subcultures. Certainly many colleges and neighborhoods. Given that there is vastly less committment necessary to get under the LGBTQ+ heading, there could be all sorts of reasons for categorzing yourself this way. Ones that may have little to do with your sexuality.

What do I mean by committment? Well, yes, there were likely transpersons before who never got the operations/hormone treatments. But now a much larger percentage of people fit into that category of not intending to go through as much physiological change as possible. And given some of the categories it need not affect who one has sex with. You could be bi but never sleep with the same sex. Of course that was always true, but I think the cultural trends, even fashions, are drawing people to identify this way...tentatively, for a period of lives, as what seems like a solution to problems, but they can (without great effort) decide later wasn't what was really going on.

Take the gentle young man who finds many of his male peers to be harsh or cold or not interested in emotions or somehow exhibiting cliche maleness and can't identify with them. Hey, maybe I'm a girl. And a certain part of the population will raise your social status instantly. Yes, other will lower it. But given we have some control over who we have contact with and if you have no status anywhere, some status may seem worth it even if the net changes in others views may be zero, they go for it. Toss in that there is tremendous pressure, these days, to get far away from being a cisgender, straight white guy as possible. Yes, being a girl/woman gets you one notch away on one category. But you'll notice a real status change if you move to trans, for example. Again, yes, there are pressures the other way. But for a teenager or younger immediately having a niche where you are special and can come out as a victim of the system is a very strong enticement.

One area of concern I have in all this is that young people, children even, are allowed to set in motion hormone treatments, mastectomies, genetial operations, sometimes even without parental consent. How on earth can a 14 year old work out whether they are a non-traditional male, a gay male, and transperson?

We don't allow young people to get tattoos until they are 18 in the US. It varies in states and some allow younger ages with parental permission, some don't.

But get that. You can't get a tattoo, but in some places you can start the sex change process. And with parental permission
based on a child's sense
you can start removing and changing secondary sexual organs and
change the endocrine system in ways we don't know the long term results of

Sorry to sound paranoid, but I think someone wants to feed social and cultural splits in society.

The idea of changing genders seems to me, by far, the most revolutionary and unsettled territory in all this. Personally, I don't think people should mess with children's fundamental biology in ways that may be vain or unnecessary. (if it's a matter of life and death, then sure.) It sounds potentially like a recipe for dysfunction and unhappiness to me. Let nature pan out a little on its own at the very least before doing something, if that something cannot be as easily undone. With that said, I don't see a clear advantage either to people being classified as "deviant" or "ill" or whatever when they possess differences that may not be that of the majority.

As far as demographic increases in membership of once marginalized populations, what would be a reasonable criterion for being opposed to that increase? Thoughts?

[Iwannaplato]

With that said, I don't see a clear advantage either to people being classified as "deviant" or "ill" or whatever when they possess differences that may not be that of the majority.

I don't see that as good either. Though my concern is that the trend actually is based for some children on traditional gender stereotypes. Oh, I am like this, I am actually a girl or boy. What is it you feel that let's you know this? I don't think most teenagers (and there are younger children who have started physiological change programs) is ready to suss that out. Personally I think some people are correct. IOW they were born with a form/essence disconnect. My beliefs, with are really quite fringe, fit with that idea. I am not sure, quite, how many feminists and marxists manage to fit this with what are generally materialist/physicalist conceptions of identity. You are your body, in those worldviews. I mean, what is the part of you that is 'really' the opposite sex from your birth biology? But my beliefs fit with the possibility and I do think some people are correct in their assessment and I wish them well with whatever changes they can manage.

My concern is not anti-trans, but with the cavalier, and I think very naive, way this has developed societally, primarily with children. My guess is adults can also go astray here, but I am vastly more comfortable with them being allowed to make mistakes. I mean, look at the optional plactic surgery industry. Some horrible trends in there. But, adults get to make mistakes. Professionals however should be held responsible for supporting some bad choices, especially with children.

As far as demographic increases in membership of once marginalized populations, what would be a reasonable criterion for being opposed to that increase? Thoughts?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I did give some reasons in my first post for why I think the statistics might be misleading (in certain interpretaions - iow I don't question that people are answering polls that way, I just think it might not mean what it is taken to mean by many). But maybe you mean something else that I didn't cover.