A very thought provoking article. I couldn’t help but think of the whiplash of this fluid identity, in that the mob also works on vibes. You don’t need to be able to summon demons to be burned as a witch.
Truly, of all the articles I've read and videos I've seen on this and similar subjects- this is one of the best written explanations of this discourse I've ever come across. You do an incredible job being impartial. I have my personal opinions on this shift- I'm sure you do too, but I don't particularly feel yours in the essay. Kudos for that, most people struggle with this.
its almost like its all made up and it doesnt matter.....because its all made up. labels were created by human beings from past and we, now humans, engage with that with changed everything.
i will be honest, i only managed to read thru half of this because you were saying identity is about action when no its not. is someone who is celibate or "virgin", are they not straight anymore? could they be gay just cos "they havent tried it yet". and asexual is lack of attraction, one can lack attraction and desire/enjoy the physical intimacy and mechanicisms and acts of sex without feeling attraction. and if YOU cant conceptualize experiencing either, thats cos youre a whole different human being.
also, lgbtq community was created for desire to exist and it not be met with murdering, violence, jail, abuse, etc. why dont you spend time writing about how lesbian terfs perpetuate the idea that violence is inherent to the male sex, therefor 1. excusing harm/violence by men by thinking its "natural" and unavoidable, 2. endangering the lives of transwomen, especially Black and Brown transwomen, both of which couple to create assumptions and expectations that transwomen of color are violent "creatures/attackers/violators" when theyre actually just human beings who want to exist as they desire.
the internet also makes one forget that we are 7 billion people and not everyones gotta agree. why do you care what someone identifies as? do you know them? are you less xyz because someone else is? are they in your irl community? if so to the last one, have you discussed with them your feelings?
You’re reading a value judgment that isn’t there. This is the crux of the piece:
“It’s not that these individuals are lying, exactly. Rather, it’s that the purpose labels serve has evolved over time. Many identity categories do not function to describe one’s lived experience. Thus the label “lesbian” no longer necessarily describes the experience or behavioral patterns of same-sex attraction.”
It’s not good or bad. It’s simply a different way of using existing language.
This was an interesting read and it got me thinking as somebody who has mixed feelings on this topic. On the one hand, I understand personally the isolation of realizing you feel differently than everybody around you (in person and online). At the same time however, I've become far more skeptical of this liberal usage of identity that is not based on material experiences.
I've seen this mostly pointed out by transwomen on the phenomenon of "AFAB transwomen". These people use a "you can do what you want forever" mentality in order to adopt labels & take authority on topics related to marginalized people that they hold power over. I've even seen somebody define being transgender as someone "who subverts the gender expected of them by cisheteronormative society" rather than someone who is not their assigned gender/sex. The former is vague enough that it can apply to cis butch women or gender non-conforming men. They also tend to argue that transgender men, no matter where they are in their transition journey, still experience misogyny due to their assigned sex, so therefore they have a place in discussion about patriarchy and are incapable of weaponizing male privilege. They will then say to transwomen that their "male socialization" (which they never experience BTW due to what many describe as being seen as the "third gender") makes them the real outsiders in discussion about misogyny, again, irrespective of their transition journey.
I didn't see this in the article or comments, so I wanna add for "What is so complex about sex?": A frequent sentiment in asexual spaces is how the idea of sexuality lumps together two things: The physical arousal/sensations of the attraction (attraction) and the desire to act on it (libido). You could say that affinity still applies to attraction/arousal without action and I'd understand why, even if I don't think affiliation/"vibes" is exactly the same as physical internally-experienced feelings. There are asexuals who will have sex with a partner to make their partner happy and it doesn't bother them. Someone who is a celibate is not automatically asexual, because that only factors in one element of sexuality. However, I've even seen people debate this and say people who rather not have sex should be accepted in the asexual community if they want to self identify, because of similar experiences with reactions they've gotten from others, even though they do not actually experience lack of attraction.
The split attraction model got brought up in another comment, which I find complicated. IK most people see sexual attraction as attached to romantic attraction too, but if I'm being honest I've only ever heard this explained as getting those feelings shortly after forming a crush. Anybody can want emotional intimacy without sexual intimacy and vice versa. If you're dating someone, this is also a material relationship and not just internally experienced feelings. However, romantic V.S. platonic feelings cannot be objectively pinned down & culturally depend (e.g. many ideals surrounding romantic love now are meant to enforce the nuclear family model, as opposed to communal family structures seen in indigenous cultures). From my understanding, romantic love is an obsession, or seeing everything about someone as special. Even this is hard for me to conceptualize though as someone who has infatuations towards certain women, but doesn't care if we're friends or girlfriends. I've seen biology studies on pair bonding and why romantic love alongside mating/sex may exist, but I feel that doesn't erase our modern limits put onto it.
This all reminds me of a case I saw years ago, IIRC in Sweden. Two women lived together and behaved like a married couple, but never had sex. When one woman died, her family fought over her money despite her saying that she wanted the other woman to have it. The family argued that they weren't properly married, because they never had sex (I forget if they were legally married or not), so it was taken to court. Court decided that they behaved enough that the marriage counted and the dead woman's wishes were respected. I think labels are important for describing people's material realities in relation to oppressive systems because of cases like this and I think it's also why having discussion (like this article) about labels is important.
Personally, I find myself at crossroads and recently I've been feeling at odds with labels I've had for years. I consider myself a greysexual lesbian due to my limited & muted sexuality. I'm still very young and I don't have experience in any romantic or sexual relationships (mostly because I still live in a bigoted environment), but I'd like to naturally want & have a more intimate relationship with someone one day. When that happens though, I'll have to explain that our feelings in the relationship won't be the same, even if I do want emotional & physical closeness.
I see many cynical comments under this post about people adopting labels for clout or childish naivety about rebelling through their subculture that I'm sure are deserved many times (like in the first example I used), but I can't stop feeling that this generalization hurts who truly feel they have nowhere to go. I really don't mean this to start any argument and I do see the correlation brought up in many people. If I'm being honest, I'd just like a definitive answer to this, at least to begin my search.
I didn't realize you can't edit comments on Substack, so for the part about the two women: I wanted to add that even if their case worked out in their favor, they're still relying on marriage as an institution which I truly do not think can be trusted with respecting the wishes of anybody within any relationship.
Good writing, but the "asexual slut" thing is infuriating. I had an ex who did this, and it was an escape hatch for when she wanted to manipulate or use a guy she wasn't attracted to. For people like this, it's just cover for their ulterior motives.
The thing that really upsets me is the shift in the meaning of "lesbian" I do think the idea of gold star lesbians is a little outdated but oh my god can we stop it with the MEN. EVERYWHERE. Like a large part of the lesbian experience to me is the decentering of men and an escape from the patriarchy, at least in terms of love and personal relationships and its absolutely sickening to me that they're starting to appear even in lesbian spaces. At least its mostly internet foolishness and most lesbians in real life are political lesbian haters
It’s because all those things have become status symbols.. they don’t actually mean anything beyond “this thing is cool and popular” .. “this thing isn’t (or at least until most people are on board… then it flips)”
It’s not wholly new- “political lesbians” were a thing in the late 20th century. But this new thing where being gay is apparently more cultural than sexual and people adopt old labels with as much sincerity as people adopt star signs (and for similar reasons) is… a even more obnoxious than political lesbians, frankly.
I think I ran into a bit of both as an adolescent. I was active in radical feminist/‘terf’ communities and was told by a lesbian something along the lines of, I think you could be/are a lesbian, it’s clear how devoted you are to women. I basically she knew she wasn’t right but it was taken as a compliment l. Now I’m very upset on my younger self’s behalf. That kind of messaging put politics and yes vibes over my personal romantic satisfaction. I care about women a great deal, as a class and as my friends and family. Doesn’t mean I am sexually satisfied by them. I am with men, go figure.
As an older teen, a little earlier, I went down the trans tumblr rabbit hole a little, got out, kept trying to date women for a while as a terf, made some excellent friends and was a terrible girlfriend to women, and finally later accepted I’m not really bi, I’m straight. I feel for the actually lesbian and bi women I frustrated and am a bad example etc etc. But also I was young & confused & upset. Life goes on for all. I hope my female exes are happy and safe out there. I hope we Americans stop growing up online so much.
Thank you K, for pivoting back to this gem. I also appreciated the sharp note in it on Rachel Donezal and Hilaria Baldwin. There's a big category difference btwn domains where affinity is enough or almost enough for identity, and ones where affinity isn't enough, and the word "charlatan" marks that difference, sharply.
And are not those domains’ divisions into “charlatan or not” arbitrarily deemed so? In other words, apply the logic and cultural approval of “I feel like I’m a woman” to “I feel like I’m Black,” and heads explode.
Your test of applying logic and approval as an arbitrary person is inappropriate. The right test is what Chomsky called a competence test in the case of spoken sentences -- pose the problem to a native and ask what their natural opinion is as a native. That depends of course on a notion of "native speaker" in Chomsky's case, or "native" in the case of a given domain. We're not all colored grey and raised in communal creches, even if one makes that assumption hypothetically.
Hello :D I'm a young queer person in my twenties, and living in a country that scores towards the center of queer friendliness in Europe (https://www.rainbow-europe.org/).
There has been a significant cultural shift regarding public opinion and perception of queer people from "queerness is something you should hide" to "queerness is something you can tell other people about but don't be too proud of it" in the age group 25+, and either strong acceptance or strong disapproval of LGBTQ from younger people.
I personally attribute this mostly to the Internet and its effects on gradually homogenizing the customs of different countries into one large culture, particularily influenced by an american way of thinking - Older generations who are only lightly influenced by the internet have their opinion slowly shifted one way or another, while younger generations growing up with the LGBTQ as a fixed talking point in their lives have had more time forming an opinion of it.
As a result, I can confirm there's a significant cultural difference between people who are queer and people who are queer. Queer people older than me tend to be more reserved about their sexuality, are more reluctant to identify themselves with the label "queer", and tend to treat their queerness as something that does not define them. Queer people younger than me are more inclined to associate themselves with more labels, dress more in a manner not conforming to cultural and societal expectations, have their culture more influenced by Tumblr and other queer communities, and tend to treat their queerness as an intrinsic value of who they are.
In response to the question raised in the article, mostly summarized as "Why is new queer so different from old queer?", I can raise three possible options:
1. Due to queerness becoming more and more prevalent, people are now more willing to associate themselves with the LGBTQ then before. This particularily favours teenagers and young adults, as they are less penalized by society in announcing to the world "This is who I am!" than a person in their mid thirties in an established job/marriage. Also, switching labels doesn't make much sense for people in stable relationships - A lesbian happily married to another lesbian is probably not suddenly going to identify as bisexual and upend her whole life if she discovers she is also slightly attracted to certain men.
2. Labels like "gay" or "lesbian" have shifted from their usage as a label used to describe others to a label used to describe yourself. In ye olden days, "gay" or "lesbian" was used more to describe (or even insult) people living in a way that differs from societal conventions. Nowadays, teenagers are happily identifying themselves as "bi/trans/asexual/aromantic/poly". I can certainly see that are you much more likely to describe yourself with a label if it hasn't been used to insult you before.
3. Or maybe young people who identify as queer are constantly switching labels because they are being young and figuring themselves out. They want to experience multiple different lifestyles to find one they like. They want to test out who they are attracted to, and who they aren't. They might identify as lesbian after dating men and not being satisfied with that experience. Some of them will find happiness in a community that accepts them regardless if they choose to conform to society's dress code or not (like the punk or emo movement), and others will perhaps just spend their teenage years commenting on all issues LGBTQ on the internet and then settle down with a partner in a little chalet on the edge of the woods later - Maybe the "new queer" prevalent in youth now is just going to become the "old queer" later in life.
> I can confirm there's a significant cultural difference between people who are queer and people who are queer.
Now you’re just trolling us.
Question: can you name a single person in history, anywhere in the world, who is/was not “queer”? This will tell you whether that label has any semantic content.
Look, every generation thinks that it invented youthful rebellion and subversion of cultural norms. Sounds like you kids are no different. Congratulations, you are faithfully performing the ancient coming of age rituals of your culture.
The question raised in the article is less "Why is new queer different than old queer" and also less about the ability to more openly identify, and more about the abstraction of "queer culture" from "queer identity." Which to be clear -- isn't necessarily a bad thing! Just an observation.
I gather quite a significant percentage of transsexuals are also attracted to people of their own gender (if that is the approved word - I always get sex and gender mixed up, and I know it is quite a minefield these days! :-)
For example, surprisingly, many F2M trans guys prefer sex exclusively with men. One can only assume they are attracted to what they aspire to be, or are pleased to have become, themselves. The same presumably applies to M2F trans women in a relationship with a cis woman.
If any of the above sounds offensive, either vaguely or blatantly, then rest assured that is not intentional. As indicated above, I am not very au fait with the niceties of discussions on this topic!
That's true. I'm confident that transgender people are more likely to identify as gay/lesbian than cis (= not transgender) people.
I think this is probably due to the fact that the hardest part of being queer is coming out, i.e. the mental hurdle of accepting yourself, telling others, aligning yourself and your relationships to the way you want to live. And if you've already come out once, you realize it's not that hard to come out again :D
What's the name of the piece that contains the phrase 'I don’t know what [queer] is, but it’s not gay sex.'?
A very thought provoking article. I couldn’t help but think of the whiplash of this fluid identity, in that the mob also works on vibes. You don’t need to be able to summon demons to be burned as a witch.
A pretend world, where words speak louder than actions or physical reality, and everyone who wants to can claim to belong to a marginalized group.
yes
Truly, of all the articles I've read and videos I've seen on this and similar subjects- this is one of the best written explanations of this discourse I've ever come across. You do an incredible job being impartial. I have my personal opinions on this shift- I'm sure you do too, but I don't particularly feel yours in the essay. Kudos for that, most people struggle with this.
Thank you! I try
this is really good!!
its almost like its all made up and it doesnt matter.....because its all made up. labels were created by human beings from past and we, now humans, engage with that with changed everything.
i will be honest, i only managed to read thru half of this because you were saying identity is about action when no its not. is someone who is celibate or "virgin", are they not straight anymore? could they be gay just cos "they havent tried it yet". and asexual is lack of attraction, one can lack attraction and desire/enjoy the physical intimacy and mechanicisms and acts of sex without feeling attraction. and if YOU cant conceptualize experiencing either, thats cos youre a whole different human being.
also, lgbtq community was created for desire to exist and it not be met with murdering, violence, jail, abuse, etc. why dont you spend time writing about how lesbian terfs perpetuate the idea that violence is inherent to the male sex, therefor 1. excusing harm/violence by men by thinking its "natural" and unavoidable, 2. endangering the lives of transwomen, especially Black and Brown transwomen, both of which couple to create assumptions and expectations that transwomen of color are violent "creatures/attackers/violators" when theyre actually just human beings who want to exist as they desire.
the internet also makes one forget that we are 7 billion people and not everyones gotta agree. why do you care what someone identifies as? do you know them? are you less xyz because someone else is? are they in your irl community? if so to the last one, have you discussed with them your feelings?
You’re reading a value judgment that isn’t there. This is the crux of the piece:
“It’s not that these individuals are lying, exactly. Rather, it’s that the purpose labels serve has evolved over time. Many identity categories do not function to describe one’s lived experience. Thus the label “lesbian” no longer necessarily describes the experience or behavioral patterns of same-sex attraction.”
It’s not good or bad. It’s simply a different way of using existing language.
i will take your reply and try to read it again holding that.
Thank you
This was an interesting read and it got me thinking as somebody who has mixed feelings on this topic. On the one hand, I understand personally the isolation of realizing you feel differently than everybody around you (in person and online). At the same time however, I've become far more skeptical of this liberal usage of identity that is not based on material experiences.
I've seen this mostly pointed out by transwomen on the phenomenon of "AFAB transwomen". These people use a "you can do what you want forever" mentality in order to adopt labels & take authority on topics related to marginalized people that they hold power over. I've even seen somebody define being transgender as someone "who subverts the gender expected of them by cisheteronormative society" rather than someone who is not their assigned gender/sex. The former is vague enough that it can apply to cis butch women or gender non-conforming men. They also tend to argue that transgender men, no matter where they are in their transition journey, still experience misogyny due to their assigned sex, so therefore they have a place in discussion about patriarchy and are incapable of weaponizing male privilege. They will then say to transwomen that their "male socialization" (which they never experience BTW due to what many describe as being seen as the "third gender") makes them the real outsiders in discussion about misogyny, again, irrespective of their transition journey.
I didn't see this in the article or comments, so I wanna add for "What is so complex about sex?": A frequent sentiment in asexual spaces is how the idea of sexuality lumps together two things: The physical arousal/sensations of the attraction (attraction) and the desire to act on it (libido). You could say that affinity still applies to attraction/arousal without action and I'd understand why, even if I don't think affiliation/"vibes" is exactly the same as physical internally-experienced feelings. There are asexuals who will have sex with a partner to make their partner happy and it doesn't bother them. Someone who is a celibate is not automatically asexual, because that only factors in one element of sexuality. However, I've even seen people debate this and say people who rather not have sex should be accepted in the asexual community if they want to self identify, because of similar experiences with reactions they've gotten from others, even though they do not actually experience lack of attraction.
The split attraction model got brought up in another comment, which I find complicated. IK most people see sexual attraction as attached to romantic attraction too, but if I'm being honest I've only ever heard this explained as getting those feelings shortly after forming a crush. Anybody can want emotional intimacy without sexual intimacy and vice versa. If you're dating someone, this is also a material relationship and not just internally experienced feelings. However, romantic V.S. platonic feelings cannot be objectively pinned down & culturally depend (e.g. many ideals surrounding romantic love now are meant to enforce the nuclear family model, as opposed to communal family structures seen in indigenous cultures). From my understanding, romantic love is an obsession, or seeing everything about someone as special. Even this is hard for me to conceptualize though as someone who has infatuations towards certain women, but doesn't care if we're friends or girlfriends. I've seen biology studies on pair bonding and why romantic love alongside mating/sex may exist, but I feel that doesn't erase our modern limits put onto it.
This all reminds me of a case I saw years ago, IIRC in Sweden. Two women lived together and behaved like a married couple, but never had sex. When one woman died, her family fought over her money despite her saying that she wanted the other woman to have it. The family argued that they weren't properly married, because they never had sex (I forget if they were legally married or not), so it was taken to court. Court decided that they behaved enough that the marriage counted and the dead woman's wishes were respected. I think labels are important for describing people's material realities in relation to oppressive systems because of cases like this and I think it's also why having discussion (like this article) about labels is important.
Personally, I find myself at crossroads and recently I've been feeling at odds with labels I've had for years. I consider myself a greysexual lesbian due to my limited & muted sexuality. I'm still very young and I don't have experience in any romantic or sexual relationships (mostly because I still live in a bigoted environment), but I'd like to naturally want & have a more intimate relationship with someone one day. When that happens though, I'll have to explain that our feelings in the relationship won't be the same, even if I do want emotional & physical closeness.
I see many cynical comments under this post about people adopting labels for clout or childish naivety about rebelling through their subculture that I'm sure are deserved many times (like in the first example I used), but I can't stop feeling that this generalization hurts who truly feel they have nowhere to go. I really don't mean this to start any argument and I do see the correlation brought up in many people. If I'm being honest, I'd just like a definitive answer to this, at least to begin my search.
I didn't realize you can't edit comments on Substack, so for the part about the two women: I wanted to add that even if their case worked out in their favor, they're still relying on marriage as an institution which I truly do not think can be trusted with respecting the wishes of anybody within any relationship.
Good writing, but the "asexual slut" thing is infuriating. I had an ex who did this, and it was an escape hatch for when she wanted to manipulate or use a guy she wasn't attracted to. For people like this, it's just cover for their ulterior motives.
The thing that really upsets me is the shift in the meaning of "lesbian" I do think the idea of gold star lesbians is a little outdated but oh my god can we stop it with the MEN. EVERYWHERE. Like a large part of the lesbian experience to me is the decentering of men and an escape from the patriarchy, at least in terms of love and personal relationships and its absolutely sickening to me that they're starting to appear even in lesbian spaces. At least its mostly internet foolishness and most lesbians in real life are political lesbian haters
It’s because all those things have become status symbols.. they don’t actually mean anything beyond “this thing is cool and popular” .. “this thing isn’t (or at least until most people are on board… then it flips)”
It’s not wholly new- “political lesbians” were a thing in the late 20th century. But this new thing where being gay is apparently more cultural than sexual and people adopt old labels with as much sincerity as people adopt star signs (and for similar reasons) is… a even more obnoxious than political lesbians, frankly.
I think I ran into a bit of both as an adolescent. I was active in radical feminist/‘terf’ communities and was told by a lesbian something along the lines of, I think you could be/are a lesbian, it’s clear how devoted you are to women. I basically she knew she wasn’t right but it was taken as a compliment l. Now I’m very upset on my younger self’s behalf. That kind of messaging put politics and yes vibes over my personal romantic satisfaction. I care about women a great deal, as a class and as my friends and family. Doesn’t mean I am sexually satisfied by them. I am with men, go figure.
As an older teen, a little earlier, I went down the trans tumblr rabbit hole a little, got out, kept trying to date women for a while as a terf, made some excellent friends and was a terrible girlfriend to women, and finally later accepted I’m not really bi, I’m straight. I feel for the actually lesbian and bi women I frustrated and am a bad example etc etc. But also I was young & confused & upset. Life goes on for all. I hope my female exes are happy and safe out there. I hope we Americans stop growing up online so much.
Thank you K, for pivoting back to this gem. I also appreciated the sharp note in it on Rachel Donezal and Hilaria Baldwin. There's a big category difference btwn domains where affinity is enough or almost enough for identity, and ones where affinity isn't enough, and the word "charlatan" marks that difference, sharply.
And are not those domains’ divisions into “charlatan or not” arbitrarily deemed so? In other words, apply the logic and cultural approval of “I feel like I’m a woman” to “I feel like I’m Black,” and heads explode.
Your test of applying logic and approval as an arbitrary person is inappropriate. The right test is what Chomsky called a competence test in the case of spoken sentences -- pose the problem to a native and ask what their natural opinion is as a native. That depends of course on a notion of "native speaker" in Chomsky's case, or "native" in the case of a given domain. We're not all colored grey and raised in communal creches, even if one makes that assumption hypothetically.
It's weird, right
Yes
Hello :D I'm a young queer person in my twenties, and living in a country that scores towards the center of queer friendliness in Europe (https://www.rainbow-europe.org/).
There has been a significant cultural shift regarding public opinion and perception of queer people from "queerness is something you should hide" to "queerness is something you can tell other people about but don't be too proud of it" in the age group 25+, and either strong acceptance or strong disapproval of LGBTQ from younger people.
I personally attribute this mostly to the Internet and its effects on gradually homogenizing the customs of different countries into one large culture, particularily influenced by an american way of thinking - Older generations who are only lightly influenced by the internet have their opinion slowly shifted one way or another, while younger generations growing up with the LGBTQ as a fixed talking point in their lives have had more time forming an opinion of it.
As a result, I can confirm there's a significant cultural difference between people who are queer and people who are queer. Queer people older than me tend to be more reserved about their sexuality, are more reluctant to identify themselves with the label "queer", and tend to treat their queerness as something that does not define them. Queer people younger than me are more inclined to associate themselves with more labels, dress more in a manner not conforming to cultural and societal expectations, have their culture more influenced by Tumblr and other queer communities, and tend to treat their queerness as an intrinsic value of who they are.
In response to the question raised in the article, mostly summarized as "Why is new queer so different from old queer?", I can raise three possible options:
1. Due to queerness becoming more and more prevalent, people are now more willing to associate themselves with the LGBTQ then before. This particularily favours teenagers and young adults, as they are less penalized by society in announcing to the world "This is who I am!" than a person in their mid thirties in an established job/marriage. Also, switching labels doesn't make much sense for people in stable relationships - A lesbian happily married to another lesbian is probably not suddenly going to identify as bisexual and upend her whole life if she discovers she is also slightly attracted to certain men.
2. Labels like "gay" or "lesbian" have shifted from their usage as a label used to describe others to a label used to describe yourself. In ye olden days, "gay" or "lesbian" was used more to describe (or even insult) people living in a way that differs from societal conventions. Nowadays, teenagers are happily identifying themselves as "bi/trans/asexual/aromantic/poly". I can certainly see that are you much more likely to describe yourself with a label if it hasn't been used to insult you before.
3. Or maybe young people who identify as queer are constantly switching labels because they are being young and figuring themselves out. They want to experience multiple different lifestyles to find one they like. They want to test out who they are attracted to, and who they aren't. They might identify as lesbian after dating men and not being satisfied with that experience. Some of them will find happiness in a community that accepts them regardless if they choose to conform to society's dress code or not (like the punk or emo movement), and others will perhaps just spend their teenage years commenting on all issues LGBTQ on the internet and then settle down with a partner in a little chalet on the edge of the woods later - Maybe the "new queer" prevalent in youth now is just going to become the "old queer" later in life.
"But don't be too proud of it"? *That* is what you think it has shifted *to* most recently?
> I can confirm there's a significant cultural difference between people who are queer and people who are queer.
Now you’re just trolling us.
Question: can you name a single person in history, anywhere in the world, who is/was not “queer”? This will tell you whether that label has any semantic content.
Look, every generation thinks that it invented youthful rebellion and subversion of cultural norms. Sounds like you kids are no different. Congratulations, you are faithfully performing the ancient coming of age rituals of your culture.
I think it's a typo and she meant old/young LOL
The question raised in the article is less "Why is new queer different than old queer" and also less about the ability to more openly identify, and more about the abstraction of "queer culture" from "queer identity." Which to be clear -- isn't necessarily a bad thing! Just an observation.
I gather quite a significant percentage of transsexuals are also attracted to people of their own gender (if that is the approved word - I always get sex and gender mixed up, and I know it is quite a minefield these days! :-)
For example, surprisingly, many F2M trans guys prefer sex exclusively with men. One can only assume they are attracted to what they aspire to be, or are pleased to have become, themselves. The same presumably applies to M2F trans women in a relationship with a cis woman.
If any of the above sounds offensive, either vaguely or blatantly, then rest assured that is not intentional. As indicated above, I am not very au fait with the niceties of discussions on this topic!
That's true. I'm confident that transgender people are more likely to identify as gay/lesbian than cis (= not transgender) people.
I think this is probably due to the fact that the hardest part of being queer is coming out, i.e. the mental hurdle of accepting yourself, telling others, aligning yourself and your relationships to the way you want to live. And if you've already come out once, you realize it's not that hard to come out again :D