Nearing 40, I work at a university where it's evident to me how 'mod' young people have become in how they present themselves and it's frankly awesome. The anti-fashion, the gender bending/punk...
Nearing 40, I work at a university where it's evident to me how 'mod' young people have become in how they present themselves and it's frankly awesome.
The anti-fashion, the gender bending/punk attitude - I feel like all of the best parts of the 90s are being fully embraced by Z's today.
Well, I'm sure the crippling anxiety isn't a welcome hallmark of Z life, but at least they're talking about it.
I think [some of this] is an outlet for anxiety over the social norms that people are expected to follow. Same with people foregoing learning to drive, the "laying down" movement in Asia or...
I think [some of this] is an outlet for anxiety over the social norms that people are expected to follow. Same with people foregoing learning to drive, the "laying down" movement in Asia or soft-quitting at work, having less kids, etc etc. We're fucking up the world in more and more complicated ways and expecting the next generation to meet higher and higher demands to live within it or even excel.
I think it's more likely that previous generations' advocacy has set up the idea that these norms are no longer required to be followed, and Gen Z is taking advantage of that groundwork to more...
I think it's more likely that previous generations' advocacy has set up the idea that these norms are no longer required to be followed, and Gen Z is taking advantage of that groundwork to more assertively claim identities that millennials like myself didn't figure out til we were out of college or later. I have never fit great into the box labeled "woman," but I also had zero concept of non-binary identity as a teen. I understood being "gay," but I wasn't gay, I still liked guys. Gen Z has had the idea of being non-binary, of being queer, asexual, pansexual, etc., accessible to them and can use it earlier!
This means that in some ways, the "what about the children" claims were right, while still being absolutely wrong.
Yeah I think your explanation makes more sense. My identity (which is really a Schrödinger's woman situation) isn't an outlet for anxiety over social norms, it's me being able to deliberately...
Yeah I think your explanation makes more sense. My identity (which is really a Schrödinger's woman situation) isn't an outlet for anxiety over social norms, it's me being able to deliberately flout those social norms to express what I feel reflects me. Queer acceptance in mainstream US culture has absolutely increased in the past decade, and by a lot more than most people (especially cis straight people) notice because it's been a gradual "boil the frog slowly" type process. Of course there has been Republican backlash, but even they've been dragged away from their old points -- Gallup polls show huge progress in approval of same-sex marriage, for instance. In 2012 53% of US adults believed same-sex marriage should be legal, whereas in 2023 it wsa 71% -- and even among Republicans it was at 49%. In 1996 the rate for the entire country was 26%. Is it any surprise that more people are willing to come out as queer when more of the adults in their lives believe queer people should be afforded basic rights?
Oh yeah absolutely -- I no longer live in the US but I still have plenty of friends there who I'm deeply worried about. But it's important not to fall into despair, especially when our brains are...
At the same time, as a queer person living in America, the boldness of certain segments of the population in making threats and committing hate crimes against (pick a minority) makes it feel like we might be on shaky ground in coming years.
Oh yeah absolutely -- I no longer live in the US but I still have plenty of friends there who I'm deeply worried about. But it's important not to fall into despair, especially when our brains are naturally more likely to pay attention to negative news as opposed to positive news. Much like with abortion rights, the bulk of the population is clearly on one side of the issue. Those passing reactionary policies and committing hate crimes are doing so at least in part as backlash against increasing cultural acceptance. Things are certainly pretty likely to be thorny for a while in the foreseeable future for queer folks in the US (and elsewhere). But I'm confident that positive improvements for us are still possible even in the US, especially in the longer term, even if we have to drag a bunch of queerphobes and Republicans kicking and screaming.
I appreciate your perspective on this and I don't have anything to add beyond that I love you referring to your self as a Schrödinger's woman situation. I am gonna share that with my queer friends.
I appreciate your perspective on this and I don't have anything to add beyond that I love you referring to your self as a Schrödinger's woman situation. I am gonna share that with my queer friends.
Agreed. I'm a mid-30s millennial, and one of my friends recently came out as bi and polyamorous (to us, but maybe also to himself). In retrospect, there were signs of him being okay with polyamory...
these norms are no longer required to be followed
millennials like myself didn't figure out til we were out of college or later
Agreed. I'm a mid-30s millennial, and one of my friends recently came out as bi and polyamorous (to us, but maybe also to himself). In retrospect, there were signs of him being okay with polyamory as far back as highschool, but if he hadn't come out, it would be easy to explain that away as experimentation, rather than a sexuality.
Not really the same, but I've got other friends who are trying "non-traditional" living arrangements. One of them converted his car and is happily living on the road. This wasn't out of necessity - he had a stable job and housing prior to this - it's because he wants the experience. Another friend is living in what he calls a "commune". Again, not out of necessity, he just likes the atmosphere and social aspect of it. If you'd asked my friends and I as kids, how we'd be living at this age, we probably would have given the traditional "suburban house with a white picket fence and 2.4 children" response. We didn't have dreams of subverting the social norms and taking down the system (okay, we did, but not in this context). We just understood the social norms and didn't care to explore any further.
Society is changing. People are (in certain aspects) more free to be who they want, do what they want, and live how they want, without needing to strictly adhere to the social norms of previous generations. If Gen Z is figuring this out sooner, that can only be a good thing for what's to come.
Regressive legislation in states like Texas and Florida will certainly slow down the visible progress in terms of subverting social norms, but the internet gives people an opportunity to explore themselves virtually, even if they can't safely or legally come out in-person yet. There are a lot of problems with the internet, but that freedom to be yourself - or to change yourself - is one thing that I think is fundamental to what the internet is (to me). I can only hope that it remains that way despite the best attempts of the lawmakers.
It could be argued one of the driving factors, reasons, for pushing the "everyone in (their own) house" trend was to boost the economy. After all, if everyone does obtain their own space,...
It could be argued one of the driving factors, reasons, for pushing the "everyone in (their own) house" trend was to boost the economy. After all, if everyone does obtain their own space, everyone's paying for their own space.
Hippies, who famously embraced communal lifestyles, were anti-consumer just for that reason alone. Aside from actively hating consumerism, the fact that groups of hippies would want to pool their resources and all chip in to obtain (and share) a house/apartment, a vehicle, shared utilities, group meals (which are more efficient than individuals cooking alone), reduces the individual expenses of the group members.
It seems logical that one of the results of the current economic trends will be pushing people back to communalism. When shitty apartments are going for half, two-thirds of someone's monthly take home, when food prices threaten to take up another third or half, it just makes sense. Why suffer in solitude when you could get together with your friends (or make new ones), and suddenly you actually have cash left over at the end of the month.
Money you could live a little with.
This, of course, will infuriate the people who want to sell stuff. They want buyers, not efficiency. They don't want savings. It's not in their interests to see society become communal; that impacts their ability to maximize profit off each and every citizen.
And if society gets to enjoy the other, softer, advantages of communalism, like continuing to become more understanding and compassionate and all that, win-win for everyone except the Big Wigs who are fewer renters are looking to sign leases, fewer buyers are needing this or that.
So really, anything that pisses off corporations and owners, I'm in favor of. Get communal. Seriously, please. Do it. Who decided "proper" society is everyone alone? Let's get together more. Make that the normal. Who needs "third spaces" when you can make home a shared space?
I've been in shared home arrangements and it sucks. I am super happy about only sharing the home with my life partner nowadays. Despite it being costlier. Third spaces are super nice because you...
I've been in shared home arrangements and it sucks. I am super happy about only sharing the home with my life partner nowadays. Despite it being costlier.
Third spaces are super nice because you can just walk away.
When somebody behaves like an asshole inside your home, you need to kick them out yourself. And when your house mates disagree, you are forced to get out of your home instead.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, but are you suggesting people are choosing to be LGBT because the world is getting more complicated? As in, making an active decision to be queer in the...
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, but are you suggesting people are choosing to be LGBT because the world is getting more complicated? As in, making an active decision to be queer in the same way you might choose not to have children or deciding not to learn to drive?
That even goes beyond just sexual and gender identity. I am a straight cis man and I like how the movement towards not trying to force people into strict boxes has allowed me to be myself. I am...
That even goes beyond just sexual and gender identity. I am a straight cis man and I like how the movement towards not trying to force people into strict boxes has allowed me to be myself. I am allowed to not always act in a stereotypical masculine way without having to convince people that I am not gay or trans. Growing up people always were convinced I was gay, and nothing could convince them otherwise. Now people can accept that I am just a straight guy who doesn't want to put on a macho facade.
It’s amazing how little it takes for people to start suspecting you of being non-binary in parts of the US. Feels almost like it’s the go-to explanation for non-conformance. In the town I grew up...
It’s amazing how little it takes for people to start suspecting you of being non-binary in parts of the US. Feels almost like it’s the go-to explanation for non-conformance.
In the town I grew up in, people started asking me if I was gay simply because I had hit the ripe old age of 23 without being married with a kid on the way. I’m about as boring straight cis as it gets, but I didn’t conform fully which was enough to inspire doubt.
For some reason I just had a harder time making friends with other guys when I was younger. I just didn’t understand how socializing with guys was supposed to work. I ended up feeling more...
For some reason I just had a harder time making friends with other guys when I was younger. I just didn’t understand how socializing with guys was supposed to work. I ended up feeling more comfortable with girls, and since my interactions with them were platonic, I got invited to the girls only events and stuff.
I also dabbled with wearing foundation in high school, but that was just because of insecurity about my skin instead of wanting to look feminine.
I have thought pretty hard about my sexuality because if so many people were saying it, I had to seriously consider if they were right. I just don't think I could do anything sexual with a man though. A trans woman would be fine, but it’s really the masculinity and not the genitals that doesn’t work for me.
Edit: Also in college, I heard people say something like, “It’s <current year> and you’re still straight? What’s wrong with you?” on a few occasions. Obviously it was said as a joke, but I honestly felt the sentiment around campus. It honestly would have been advantageous for me to be gay or bi in that setting, but it’s just not for me.
yeah no, like shadow said below (above?): it's more like people not allowing themselves to be forced to be what people expect them to be. i don't think being non-heterosexual is 100% a choice, but...
yeah no, like shadow said below (above?): it's more like people not allowing themselves to be forced to be what people expect them to be.
i don't think being non-heterosexual is 100% a choice, but i also don't think it's 100% not a choice. there's obviously a difference between what you feel and what you do, and how a person chooses to do something is driven by how much pressure they feel from society. Gen-Z is responding to that pressure differently than previous generations, and i think that is partly to do with how positively fucked the world is becoming.
I find this sentiment really concerning (emphasis mine). Yes, the choices a person makes are influenced by the pressure they feel from society -- that's why many queer people stayed closeted,...
there's obviously a difference between what you feel and what you do, and how a person chooses to do something is driven by how much pressure they feel from society. Gen-Z is responding to that pressure differently than previous generations, and i think that is partly to do with how positively fucked the world is becoming.
I find this sentiment really concerning (emphasis mine). Yes, the choices a person makes are influenced by the pressure they feel from society -- that's why many queer people stayed closeted, sometimes even to themselves, in previous generations. But this would, of course, be a different in the pressure they feel from society, not a difference in how people respond to that pressure.
I don't think there's any basis believe that Gen Z is identifying as queer because the world is getting worse, and I really dislike the implication that people are choosing these identities in response to being in shitty conditions. It carries a lot of unspoken negative assumptions about queer identities (that they're somehow unnatural and need to be triggered by a negative environment) but it also just doesn't track with my personal experience. In my experience, people are more likely to embrace their queer identities when they feel safe and accepted by those around them, and that's exactly the opposite of responding to "how fucked the world is becoming".
I'm not sure they meant it this way, but transition is definitely a choice. I absolutely chose to do it last year in light of the state of the world - I don't know how much longer I'll get to be...
I'm not sure they meant it this way, but transition is definitely a choice. I absolutely chose to do it last year in light of the state of the world - I don't know how much longer I'll get to be happy.
In finance, difficult geopolitical situations are inherently inflationary. When people are fearful, they are more likely to live for the moment and not save. I think the same is true in self-expression, when things are scary like they are, the risk calculus changes. We stop worrying quite so much about other people because what if tomorrow morning is our last?
Anecdotally, I'd never seen a man wear a dress in public before the pandemic. Since then I've seen it uncommonly, but occasionally enough that it made me file it away for this anecdote and to ponder internally "do people really give that much of a shit about men presenting femininely?" and now here we are. It is definitely true that interesting times shake up societal norms.
Oh yeah I absolutely agree transition is a choice, and I can see some people making that choice because they do that risk calculus. But I'm not super convinced that, for instance, the pandemic is...
Oh yeah I absolutely agree transition is a choice, and I can see some people making that choice because they do that risk calculus. But I'm not super convinced that, for instance, the pandemic is the cause of things like increased gender nonconformism rather than happening to coincide with it. I'm also not super convinced that you'd see anything similar when it comes to, say, women identifying as bisexual -- I think the effect you describe for transitioning is unlikely to be doing much there.
As for me, I chose to transition once my other needs were being sufficiently met that I felt I could handle the medical and bureaucratic hurdles involved in doing so. Having a full-time job that meant I could afford to self-pay for a trans-friendly therapist was a bigger factor than the state of the world on a grander scale.
Are you queer yourself, if you don't mind me asking? From my own experience, I can confirm that being 'non-heterosexual' was 100% absolutely not a choice. As a child, I begged and prayed for years...
Are you queer yourself, if you don't mind me asking?
From my own experience, I can confirm that being 'non-heterosexual' was 100% absolutely not a choice. As a child, I begged and prayed for years not to be. I don't know any queer people who claim it was even 1% a choice.
there's obviously a difference between what you feel and what you do
Of course there is, but choosing to not act on gay thoughts doesn't mean you're not gay. It just means you're choosing not to act on it.
Gen-Z is responding to that pressure differently than previous generations, and i think that is partly to do with how positively fucked the world is becoming.
To be honest I don't agree. At least in my experience, Gen-Z are coming out more and more because it is becoming more socially acceptable to do so, not because they're rejecting social norms or because of anxieties about the world being fucked.
while pointing to a few other comments in this thread that at least vaguely agree with me, i'll just rephrase a bit and say: when people feel the world is getting out of control, they try to...
while pointing to a few other comments in this thread that at least vaguely agree with me, i'll just rephrase a bit and say: when people feel the world is getting out of control, they try to regain some sense of control wherever they can. some latch onto conspiracy theories, others will be more adamant and open with others about who they are and what they feel, not allowing others to dictate their own being for them.
While people who are homosexual can choose not to act on that behavior, that doesn't make them straight. People who are attracted to multiple genders (bi/pan/polysexual) can indeed make choices,...
While people who are homosexual can choose not to act on that behavior, that doesn't make them straight.
People who are attracted to multiple genders (bi/pan/polysexual) can indeed make choices, but that still doesn't make them straight. It allows them to be erased or to hide their queerness. Similarly straight folks can make the choice to engage in homosexual acts. Either way, their identities would be the same if they felt safe to embrace it.
I don't like the framing you're saying about how Gen Z is somehow choosing to be queer because the world is fucked. The implication there is that this is only a choice you would make in any aggregate amount because things are awful and that therefore this is inauthentic or that they only feel free to identify as queer because of how bad things are? It just feels a like a disrespect to the younger generation's self-determination because they're perceived as kids when like half of Gen Z are adults now.
I am not queer because the world is fucked, I'm queer and the world is fucked.
I totally agree! I think this is most obvious with the increased number of people identifying as bisexual. I've talked to a lot of older people that privately mention they had "some thoughts" they...
I totally agree! I think this is most obvious with the increased number of people identifying as bisexual. I've talked to a lot of older people that privately mention they had "some thoughts" they didn't act on in their younger days.
I'm on the border of Gen Z/millennial and have recently realized I'm Bi and Gender-neutral-ish, and I hope to approach this sensitively and out of compassion, but I wonder if this is a built in...
I'm on the border of Gen Z/millennial and have recently realized I'm Bi and Gender-neutral-ish, and I hope to approach this sensitively and out of compassion, but I wonder if this is a built in genealogical/evolutionary mechanism of our species recognizing we're reaching a population peak. Like it's not as physically strong a mechanism, but in many frogs and fish specie's, they'll literally change their physical sex to help self regulate population to resource availability, and so I almost wonder if queerness is a similar built in mechanism for us.
I don't think it's likely that this is anything but cultural. Even if our species is reaching a "population peak", it would be on a worldwide scale, not a local one. And there's no way an...
I don't think it's likely that this is anything but cultural. Even if our species is reaching a "population peak", it would be on a worldwide scale, not a local one. And there's no way an individual human's development would be affected by something as remote and abstract as that -- in animals any such mechanisms are a response to their immediate local population and circumstances.
Given how sexual behavior is organized very differently in different cultures over different times, in ancient Rome for example the defining factor of a person's relationship was whether they were...
Given how sexual behavior is organized very differently in different cultures over different times, in ancient Rome for example the defining factor of a person's relationship was whether they were a top or bottom (sort of I'm generalizing), and being a top was the more socially acceptable option for older men and upper classes. It really didn't matter as much the gender of your partner. Individuals still have their preferences and attractions But same sex behavior has absolutely been more common in the past too.
There was some evidence at some point that boys born later in a birth order were more likely to be gay which did make some people consider the gay uncles reproductive strategy as part of humans evolution. But honestly I don't know if that has held up over time and it really doesn't explain everything anyway. Humans in general though, absolutely use our larger social networks to be more reproductively successful, so either way it works.
So the thing you are referring to is the fraternal birth order effect and it holds up pretty well. I can't speak to any evolutionary reasons for it, but from a proximate mechanism we generally...
So the thing you are referring to is the fraternal birth order effect and it holds up pretty well. I can't speak to any evolutionary reasons for it, but from a proximate mechanism we generally believe it's an increased immune response from the mother to testosterone secreted by the developing male embryo. With each progressive son, her immune system has a higher chance of influencing development.
There certainly could be some selection pressures that led to this, in terms of having a good ratios of mating males:females, but that doesn't have to be the case. As long as something doesn't negatively impact fitness, it will get passed down through generations.
Thanks, I definitely didn't go dig it up to see current research on it. I did not need another rabbit hole today. But I also don't find evolutionary pressures as important to human behaviors as...
Thanks, I definitely didn't go dig it up to see current research on it. I did not need another rabbit hole today. But I also don't find evolutionary pressures as important to human behaviors as societal ones. Plenty of things that do impact our reproductive fitness still get passed on too. Because we make choices for other reasons.
Oh yeah, we have a lot more complex interactions between selection pressures once we have the emergent psychological and sociological properties of human cognition and culture.
Oh yeah, we have a lot more complex interactions between selection pressures once we have the emergent psychological and sociological properties of human cognition and culture.
There is probably no way to know, but I wonder if this is mostly biological/psychological (there are more LGBTQ people developing/being born) or social (the rate of LGBTQ people is the same, but...
There is probably no way to know, but I wonder if this is mostly biological/psychological (there are more LGBTQ people developing/being born) or social (the rate of LGBTQ people is the same, but later generations are more likely to identify that way).
In a similar vein, the report finds that most of the growth is in people who identify as gen z bisexual women; are women naturally more inclined to be bisexual than men? is it socially more acceptable to identify a bisexual woman than a bisexual man? more socially acceptable to identify as bisexual than gay/lesbian?
For reasons that nobody knows, women are far more likely than men to be bisexual and have physical sexual reactions to the same sex. This has been true basically as long as we have data for in...
For reasons that nobody knows, women are far more likely than men to be bisexual and have physical sexual reactions to the same sex. This has been true basically as long as we have data for in every country and region. It seems to be physiological rather than exclusively cultural.
That said, there have always been more people with same-sex experiences than people that identify as non-heterosexual. I don't know if the social acceptance of bisexuality has made much difference there.
If you're referring to all the studies which assess for genital blood flow or where they stick someone in a fMRI, those are both seriously flawed ways to study attraction. If you're talking about...
have physical sexual reactions to the same sex
If you're referring to all the studies which assess for genital blood flow or where they stick someone in a fMRI, those are both seriously flawed ways to study attraction. If you're talking about more subtle ways such as pupil dilation those also have similar issues with being a biological signal that happens for many other reasons. It's also entirely possible to be very attracted to someone and not have any 'physical' reaction and the idea that people have consistent 'physical' reactions as a response of their emotional or intellectual state is kind of absurd and rife for issues with design problems due to human diversity and the realities of human lives - as an extreme example if someone just lost a loved one, they are simply less likely to respond to attraction or even recognize attraction because of the impacts of stress. Attempting to account for more minor instances of stress or other contributing factors is an extremely difficult proposition given how many potential sources of stress and environmental factors there can be.
It seems to be physiological rather than exclusively cultural.
This is kind of a huge jump, especially since we absolutely cannot control for culture. There is no way to double blind the effects of culture because we cannot opt someone out of culture nor can we fully assess how it shapes our actions because it is so all-encompassing.
The only thing we can really say about why women are more likely than men to be bisexual is that it's likely influenced by culture - as we see differences in lgbtq+ rates in countries where being queer can get you stoned to death and those which are more open and that there may be a biological basis for this but it's not really measurable as we don't understand how attraction works on a biological level and culture has a huge effect on human behavior.
I agree there are issues with the studies that point to increased genital blood flow and stuff. It's not a smoking bullet on sexual attraction since it's such a complicated feeling. Still, every...
I agree there are issues with the studies that point to increased genital blood flow and stuff. It's not a smoking bullet on sexual attraction since it's such a complicated feeling.
Still, every survey from every country everywhere that I've been able to find says AFAB individuals are more likely to report same-sex attraction or ideation. Nobody knows why obviously, but I think it's fair to assume there has to be something physiological that makes AFAB people more likely to be bisexual. I agree with you that we don't have any good way to measure how much this contributes.
I don't think that's fair at all. Sociological and cultural factors have been proven at times to be extremely strong. Taking a look at employment history by gender, or gender disparities in...
I think it's fair to assume there has to be something physiological that makes AFAB people more likely to be bisexual.
I don't think that's fair at all. Sociological and cultural factors have been proven at times to be extremely strong. Taking a look at employment history by gender, or gender disparities in education scores as it relates to specific fields, you can see entire fields shift over the course of generations entirely based on how society perceives a job to be meant for women or for men. Secretarial work, for example, was completely dominated by men at one point in history and was highly resistant to the entrance of women into the profession for quite some time. Today, it's quite the opposite. Looking at how many individuals identify as queer while a culture goes through removing anti queer laws and explicitly granting them protection, it's clear to see that social repercussions can easily result in a whole magnitude of increase in self reported behavior.
Furthermore when we examine other animals which are not human, we do not find huge disparities between sex and homosexual behavior. There are few animals for which there are sex differences in homosexual behavior and when there is, it's often situations in which homosexual behavior has higher relative rates within a species based on the culture present at their location. Digging further, we have plenty of examples of sex based behavior completely flipping within a single species based on the culture they are surrounded by - one such case are the troops of macaque monkeys in Takasakiyama Japan and their not so distant neighbors in Katuyama. In one location fathers are deeply involved in child rearing behavior and in the other they are indifferent and leave raising children entirely to the mothers.
The idea that this must be physiological because we seem to always see this in modern societies is misled. Today's cultures are heavily shaped by the history of humanity on this world. This viewpoint ignores historical cultures such as the Greeks who by all accounts had much more male homosexual behavior than female, and it ignores cultures which don't hit the mainstream or have been erased by history such as societies with more than two genders (let alone how problematic this makes determining physiological factors that contribute to sexuality) or who may have had higher rates of sex-specific homosexuality.
I think pointing to behaviour in animals is a good idea since human culture shouldn't matter. Genetically, bonobos and chimpanzees are our closest cousins, and the frequency of same-sex relations...
I think pointing to behaviour in animals is a good idea since human culture shouldn't matter. Genetically, bonobos and chimpanzees are our closest cousins, and the frequency of same-sex relations varies a lot by sex.
I guess you could argue that some species have cultural reasons that males or females engage in more same-sex relationships. It seems much more likely that there's something partially biological or physiological though. I agree culture matters, but it seems like biology has some impact too.
Yes, that's why I highlighted sex differences that exist within a single species (the macaque monkey example) that vary by location (culture of the troop), such as child rearing behavior. While I...
I guess you could argue that some species have cultural reasons that males or females engage in more same-sex relationships.
Yes, that's why I highlighted sex differences that exist within a single species (the macaque monkey example) that vary by location (culture of the troop), such as child rearing behavior. While I am not aware of specific cultural influences on sexual behavior within a single species of animal outside of humans, I would be really surprised if this wasn't true because of how much evidence we have of culture vastly modifying animal behavior within a single species. Unfortunately, however, female-female sexual behavior is often minimized not just in humans, but also in the animal kingdom, so recording inter-cultural differences in homosexuality based on the animal's sex is difficult.
Nearing 40, I work at a university where it's evident to me how 'mod' young people have become in how they present themselves and it's frankly awesome.
The anti-fashion, the gender bending/punk attitude - I feel like all of the best parts of the 90s are being fully embraced by Z's today.
Well, I'm sure the crippling anxiety isn't a welcome hallmark of Z life, but at least they're talking about it.
I think [some of this] is an outlet for anxiety over the social norms that people are expected to follow. Same with people foregoing learning to drive, the "laying down" movement in Asia or soft-quitting at work, having less kids, etc etc. We're fucking up the world in more and more complicated ways and expecting the next generation to meet higher and higher demands to live within it or even excel.
I think it's more likely that previous generations' advocacy has set up the idea that these norms are no longer required to be followed, and Gen Z is taking advantage of that groundwork to more assertively claim identities that millennials like myself didn't figure out til we were out of college or later. I have never fit great into the box labeled "woman," but I also had zero concept of non-binary identity as a teen. I understood being "gay," but I wasn't gay, I still liked guys. Gen Z has had the idea of being non-binary, of being queer, asexual, pansexual, etc., accessible to them and can use it earlier!
This means that in some ways, the "what about the children" claims were right, while still being absolutely wrong.
Yeah I think your explanation makes more sense. My identity (which is really a Schrödinger's woman situation) isn't an outlet for anxiety over social norms, it's me being able to deliberately flout those social norms to express what I feel reflects me. Queer acceptance in mainstream US culture has absolutely increased in the past decade, and by a lot more than most people (especially cis straight people) notice because it's been a gradual "boil the frog slowly" type process. Of course there has been Republican backlash, but even they've been dragged away from their old points -- Gallup polls show huge progress in approval of same-sex marriage, for instance. In 2012 53% of US adults believed same-sex marriage should be legal, whereas in 2023 it wsa 71% -- and even among Republicans it was at 49%. In 1996 the rate for the entire country was 26%. Is it any surprise that more people are willing to come out as queer when more of the adults in their lives believe queer people should be afforded basic rights?
Oh yeah absolutely -- I no longer live in the US but I still have plenty of friends there who I'm deeply worried about. But it's important not to fall into despair, especially when our brains are naturally more likely to pay attention to negative news as opposed to positive news. Much like with abortion rights, the bulk of the population is clearly on one side of the issue. Those passing reactionary policies and committing hate crimes are doing so at least in part as backlash against increasing cultural acceptance. Things are certainly pretty likely to be thorny for a while in the foreseeable future for queer folks in the US (and elsewhere). But I'm confident that positive improvements for us are still possible even in the US, especially in the longer term, even if we have to drag a bunch of queerphobes and Republicans kicking and screaming.
I appreciate your perspective on this and I don't have anything to add beyond that I love you referring to your self as a Schrödinger's woman situation. I am gonna share that with my queer friends.
Agreed. I'm a mid-30s millennial, and one of my friends recently came out as bi and polyamorous (to us, but maybe also to himself). In retrospect, there were signs of him being okay with polyamory as far back as highschool, but if he hadn't come out, it would be easy to explain that away as experimentation, rather than a sexuality.
Not really the same, but I've got other friends who are trying "non-traditional" living arrangements. One of them converted his car and is happily living on the road. This wasn't out of necessity - he had a stable job and housing prior to this - it's because he wants the experience. Another friend is living in what he calls a "commune". Again, not out of necessity, he just likes the atmosphere and social aspect of it. If you'd asked my friends and I as kids, how we'd be living at this age, we probably would have given the traditional "suburban house with a white picket fence and 2.4 children" response. We didn't have dreams of subverting the social norms and taking down the system (okay, we did, but not in this context). We just understood the social norms and didn't care to explore any further.
Society is changing. People are (in certain aspects) more free to be who they want, do what they want, and live how they want, without needing to strictly adhere to the social norms of previous generations. If Gen Z is figuring this out sooner, that can only be a good thing for what's to come.
Regressive legislation in states like Texas and Florida will certainly slow down the visible progress in terms of subverting social norms, but the internet gives people an opportunity to explore themselves virtually, even if they can't safely or legally come out in-person yet. There are a lot of problems with the internet, but that freedom to be yourself - or to change yourself - is one thing that I think is fundamental to what the internet is (to me). I can only hope that it remains that way despite the best attempts of the lawmakers.
It could be argued one of the driving factors, reasons, for pushing the "everyone in (their own) house" trend was to boost the economy. After all, if everyone does obtain their own space, everyone's paying for their own space.
Hippies, who famously embraced communal lifestyles, were anti-consumer just for that reason alone. Aside from actively hating consumerism, the fact that groups of hippies would want to pool their resources and all chip in to obtain (and share) a house/apartment, a vehicle, shared utilities, group meals (which are more efficient than individuals cooking alone), reduces the individual expenses of the group members.
It seems logical that one of the results of the current economic trends will be pushing people back to communalism. When shitty apartments are going for half, two-thirds of someone's monthly take home, when food prices threaten to take up another third or half, it just makes sense. Why suffer in solitude when you could get together with your friends (or make new ones), and suddenly you actually have cash left over at the end of the month.
Money you could live a little with.
This, of course, will infuriate the people who want to sell stuff. They want buyers, not efficiency. They don't want savings. It's not in their interests to see society become communal; that impacts their ability to maximize profit off each and every citizen.
And if society gets to enjoy the other, softer, advantages of communalism, like continuing to become more understanding and compassionate and all that, win-win for everyone except the Big Wigs who are fewer renters are looking to sign leases, fewer buyers are needing this or that.
So really, anything that pisses off corporations and owners, I'm in favor of. Get communal. Seriously, please. Do it. Who decided "proper" society is everyone alone? Let's get together more. Make that the normal. Who needs "third spaces" when you can make home a shared space?
I've been in shared home arrangements and it sucks. I am super happy about only sharing the home with my life partner nowadays. Despite it being costlier.
Third spaces are super nice because you can just walk away.
When somebody behaves like an asshole inside your home, you need to kick them out yourself. And when your house mates disagree, you are forced to get out of your home instead.
But yeah, I am pretty introverted. YMMV.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, but are you suggesting people are choosing to be LGBT because the world is getting more complicated? As in, making an active decision to be queer in the same way you might choose not to have children or deciding not to learn to drive?
From what I understood the comment to be, it's about choosing not to force yourself into the social norms.
That even goes beyond just sexual and gender identity. I am a straight cis man and I like how the movement towards not trying to force people into strict boxes has allowed me to be myself. I am allowed to not always act in a stereotypical masculine way without having to convince people that I am not gay or trans. Growing up people always were convinced I was gay, and nothing could convince them otherwise. Now people can accept that I am just a straight guy who doesn't want to put on a macho facade.
It’s amazing how little it takes for people to start suspecting you of being non-binary in parts of the US. Feels almost like it’s the go-to explanation for non-conformance.
In the town I grew up in, people started asking me if I was gay simply because I had hit the ripe old age of 23 without being married with a kid on the way. I’m about as boring straight cis as it gets, but I didn’t conform fully which was enough to inspire doubt.
This is a large part of why we need to do the work on dismantling gender norms. Cis people should be allowed to be gender nonconforming too!
For some reason I just had a harder time making friends with other guys when I was younger. I just didn’t understand how socializing with guys was supposed to work. I ended up feeling more comfortable with girls, and since my interactions with them were platonic, I got invited to the girls only events and stuff.
I also dabbled with wearing foundation in high school, but that was just because of insecurity about my skin instead of wanting to look feminine.
I have thought pretty hard about my sexuality because if so many people were saying it, I had to seriously consider if they were right. I just don't think I could do anything sexual with a man though. A trans woman would be fine, but it’s really the masculinity and not the genitals that doesn’t work for me.
Edit: Also in college, I heard people say something like, “It’s <current year> and you’re still straight? What’s wrong with you?” on a few occasions. Obviously it was said as a joke, but I honestly felt the sentiment around campus. It honestly would have been advantageous for me to be gay or bi in that setting, but it’s just not for me.
yeah no, like shadow said below (above?): it's more like people not allowing themselves to be forced to be what people expect them to be.
i don't think being non-heterosexual is 100% a choice, but i also don't think it's 100% not a choice. there's obviously a difference between what you feel and what you do, and how a person chooses to do something is driven by how much pressure they feel from society. Gen-Z is responding to that pressure differently than previous generations, and i think that is partly to do with how positively fucked the world is becoming.
I find this sentiment really concerning (emphasis mine). Yes, the choices a person makes are influenced by the pressure they feel from society -- that's why many queer people stayed closeted, sometimes even to themselves, in previous generations. But this would, of course, be a different in the pressure they feel from society, not a difference in how people respond to that pressure.
I don't think there's any basis believe that Gen Z is identifying as queer because the world is getting worse, and I really dislike the implication that people are choosing these identities in response to being in shitty conditions. It carries a lot of unspoken negative assumptions about queer identities (that they're somehow unnatural and need to be triggered by a negative environment) but it also just doesn't track with my personal experience. In my experience, people are more likely to embrace their queer identities when they feel safe and accepted by those around them, and that's exactly the opposite of responding to "how fucked the world is becoming".
I'm not sure they meant it this way, but transition is definitely a choice. I absolutely chose to do it last year in light of the state of the world - I don't know how much longer I'll get to be happy.
In finance, difficult geopolitical situations are inherently inflationary. When people are fearful, they are more likely to live for the moment and not save. I think the same is true in self-expression, when things are scary like they are, the risk calculus changes. We stop worrying quite so much about other people because what if tomorrow morning is our last?
Anecdotally, I'd never seen a man wear a dress in public before the pandemic. Since then I've seen it uncommonly, but occasionally enough that it made me file it away for this anecdote and to ponder internally "do people really give that much of a shit about men presenting femininely?" and now here we are. It is definitely true that interesting times shake up societal norms.
Oh yeah I absolutely agree transition is a choice, and I can see some people making that choice because they do that risk calculus. But I'm not super convinced that, for instance, the pandemic is the cause of things like increased gender nonconformism rather than happening to coincide with it. I'm also not super convinced that you'd see anything similar when it comes to, say, women identifying as bisexual -- I think the effect you describe for transitioning is unlikely to be doing much there.
As for me, I chose to transition once my other needs were being sufficiently met that I felt I could handle the medical and bureaucratic hurdles involved in doing so. Having a full-time job that meant I could afford to self-pay for a trans-friendly therapist was a bigger factor than the state of the world on a grander scale.
Are you queer yourself, if you don't mind me asking?
From my own experience, I can confirm that being 'non-heterosexual' was 100% absolutely not a choice. As a child, I begged and prayed for years not to be. I don't know any queer people who claim it was even 1% a choice.
Of course there is, but choosing to not act on gay thoughts doesn't mean you're not gay. It just means you're choosing not to act on it.
To be honest I don't agree. At least in my experience, Gen-Z are coming out more and more because it is becoming more socially acceptable to do so, not because they're rejecting social norms or because of anxieties about the world being fucked.
while pointing to a few other comments in this thread that at least vaguely agree with me, i'll just rephrase a bit and say: when people feel the world is getting out of control, they try to regain some sense of control wherever they can. some latch onto conspiracy theories, others will be more adamant and open with others about who they are and what they feel, not allowing others to dictate their own being for them.
While people who are homosexual can choose not to act on that behavior, that doesn't make them straight.
People who are attracted to multiple genders (bi/pan/polysexual) can indeed make choices, but that still doesn't make them straight. It allows them to be erased or to hide their queerness. Similarly straight folks can make the choice to engage in homosexual acts. Either way, their identities would be the same if they felt safe to embrace it.
I don't like the framing you're saying about how Gen Z is somehow choosing to be queer because the world is fucked. The implication there is that this is only a choice you would make in any aggregate amount because things are awful and that therefore this is inauthentic or that they only feel free to identify as queer because of how bad things are? It just feels a like a disrespect to the younger generation's self-determination because they're perceived as kids when like half of Gen Z are adults now.
I am not queer because the world is fucked, I'm queer and the world is fucked.
I totally agree! I think this is most obvious with the increased number of people identifying as bisexual. I've talked to a lot of older people that privately mention they had "some thoughts" they didn't act on in their younger days.
This comic encapsulates my feelings talking to my own homophobic mother talking about her cheerleading days: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fmom-got-secrets-art-by-grs-v0-fn9gszxul8cc1.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D67382eb6ff9654ed31ebddbdc8d1c0742b932a4e
Edit: grammar
I'm on the border of Gen Z/millennial and have recently realized I'm Bi and Gender-neutral-ish, and I hope to approach this sensitively and out of compassion, but I wonder if this is a built in genealogical/evolutionary mechanism of our species recognizing we're reaching a population peak. Like it's not as physically strong a mechanism, but in many frogs and fish specie's, they'll literally change their physical sex to help self regulate population to resource availability, and so I almost wonder if queerness is a similar built in mechanism for us.
I don't think it's likely that this is anything but cultural. Even if our species is reaching a "population peak", it would be on a worldwide scale, not a local one. And there's no way an individual human's development would be affected by something as remote and abstract as that -- in animals any such mechanisms are a response to their immediate local population and circumstances.
Given how sexual behavior is organized very differently in different cultures over different times, in ancient Rome for example the defining factor of a person's relationship was whether they were a top or bottom (sort of I'm generalizing), and being a top was the more socially acceptable option for older men and upper classes. It really didn't matter as much the gender of your partner. Individuals still have their preferences and attractions But same sex behavior has absolutely been more common in the past too.
There was some evidence at some point that boys born later in a birth order were more likely to be gay which did make some people consider the gay uncles reproductive strategy as part of humans evolution. But honestly I don't know if that has held up over time and it really doesn't explain everything anyway. Humans in general though, absolutely use our larger social networks to be more reproductively successful, so either way it works.
So the thing you are referring to is the fraternal birth order effect and it holds up pretty well. I can't speak to any evolutionary reasons for it, but from a proximate mechanism we generally believe it's an increased immune response from the mother to testosterone secreted by the developing male embryo. With each progressive son, her immune system has a higher chance of influencing development.
There certainly could be some selection pressures that led to this, in terms of having a good ratios of mating males:females, but that doesn't have to be the case. As long as something doesn't negatively impact fitness, it will get passed down through generations.
Thanks, I definitely didn't go dig it up to see current research on it. I did not need another rabbit hole today. But I also don't find evolutionary pressures as important to human behaviors as societal ones. Plenty of things that do impact our reproductive fitness still get passed on too. Because we make choices for other reasons.
Oh yeah, we have a lot more complex interactions between selection pressures once we have the emergent psychological and sociological properties of human cognition and culture.
There is probably no way to know, but I wonder if this is mostly biological/psychological (there are more LGBTQ people developing/being born) or social (the rate of LGBTQ people is the same, but later generations are more likely to identify that way).
In a similar vein, the report finds that most of the growth is in people who identify as gen z bisexual women; are women naturally more inclined to be bisexual than men? is it socially more acceptable to identify a bisexual woman than a bisexual man? more socially acceptable to identify as bisexual than gay/lesbian?
For reasons that nobody knows, women are far more likely than men to be bisexual and have physical sexual reactions to the same sex. This has been true basically as long as we have data for in every country and region. It seems to be physiological rather than exclusively cultural.
That said, there have always been more people with same-sex experiences than people that identify as non-heterosexual. I don't know if the social acceptance of bisexuality has made much difference there.
https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual%20Fluidity%20in%20Males%20and%20Females.pdf
If you're referring to all the studies which assess for genital blood flow or where they stick someone in a fMRI, those are both seriously flawed ways to study attraction. If you're talking about more subtle ways such as pupil dilation those also have similar issues with being a biological signal that happens for many other reasons. It's also entirely possible to be very attracted to someone and not have any 'physical' reaction and the idea that people have consistent 'physical' reactions as a response of their emotional or intellectual state is kind of absurd and rife for issues with design problems due to human diversity and the realities of human lives - as an extreme example if someone just lost a loved one, they are simply less likely to respond to attraction or even recognize attraction because of the impacts of stress. Attempting to account for more minor instances of stress or other contributing factors is an extremely difficult proposition given how many potential sources of stress and environmental factors there can be.
This is kind of a huge jump, especially since we absolutely cannot control for culture. There is no way to double blind the effects of culture because we cannot opt someone out of culture nor can we fully assess how it shapes our actions because it is so all-encompassing.
The only thing we can really say about why women are more likely than men to be bisexual is that it's likely influenced by culture - as we see differences in lgbtq+ rates in countries where being queer can get you stoned to death and those which are more open and that there may be a biological basis for this but it's not really measurable as we don't understand how attraction works on a biological level and culture has a huge effect on human behavior.
I agree there are issues with the studies that point to increased genital blood flow and stuff. It's not a smoking bullet on sexual attraction since it's such a complicated feeling.
Still, every survey from every country everywhere that I've been able to find says AFAB individuals are more likely to report same-sex attraction or ideation. Nobody knows why obviously, but I think it's fair to assume there has to be something physiological that makes AFAB people more likely to be bisexual. I agree with you that we don't have any good way to measure how much this contributes.
I don't think that's fair at all. Sociological and cultural factors have been proven at times to be extremely strong. Taking a look at employment history by gender, or gender disparities in education scores as it relates to specific fields, you can see entire fields shift over the course of generations entirely based on how society perceives a job to be meant for women or for men. Secretarial work, for example, was completely dominated by men at one point in history and was highly resistant to the entrance of women into the profession for quite some time. Today, it's quite the opposite. Looking at how many individuals identify as queer while a culture goes through removing anti queer laws and explicitly granting them protection, it's clear to see that social repercussions can easily result in a whole magnitude of increase in self reported behavior.
Furthermore when we examine other animals which are not human, we do not find huge disparities between sex and homosexual behavior. There are few animals for which there are sex differences in homosexual behavior and when there is, it's often situations in which homosexual behavior has higher relative rates within a species based on the culture present at their location. Digging further, we have plenty of examples of sex based behavior completely flipping within a single species based on the culture they are surrounded by - one such case are the troops of macaque monkeys in Takasakiyama Japan and their not so distant neighbors in Katuyama. In one location fathers are deeply involved in child rearing behavior and in the other they are indifferent and leave raising children entirely to the mothers.
The idea that this must be physiological because we seem to always see this in modern societies is misled. Today's cultures are heavily shaped by the history of humanity on this world. This viewpoint ignores historical cultures such as the Greeks who by all accounts had much more male homosexual behavior than female, and it ignores cultures which don't hit the mainstream or have been erased by history such as societies with more than two genders (let alone how problematic this makes determining physiological factors that contribute to sexuality) or who may have had higher rates of sex-specific homosexuality.
I think pointing to behaviour in animals is a good idea since human culture shouldn't matter. Genetically, bonobos and chimpanzees are our closest cousins, and the frequency of same-sex relations varies a lot by sex.
In bonobos, basically all females have frequent same-sex relations while it's less common in males. https://phys.org/news/2019-09-insights-same-sex-sexual-interactions-important.html
In chimpanzees, it seems same sex behaviours are much more common amongst males. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Chimpanzees
I guess you could argue that some species have cultural reasons that males or females engage in more same-sex relationships. It seems much more likely that there's something partially biological or physiological though. I agree culture matters, but it seems like biology has some impact too.
Yes, that's why I highlighted sex differences that exist within a single species (the macaque monkey example) that vary by location (culture of the troop), such as child rearing behavior. While I am not aware of specific cultural influences on sexual behavior within a single species of animal outside of humans, I would be really surprised if this wasn't true because of how much evidence we have of culture vastly modifying animal behavior within a single species. Unfortunately, however, female-female sexual behavior is often minimized not just in humans, but also in the animal kingdom, so recording inter-cultural differences in homosexuality based on the animal's sex is difficult.