As Gen Z, this whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me. Sexuality isn't a binary choice, nor is it spectrum, it's person-wise social interaction... I am attracted to some men, but not all. Likewise for women.
Strictly speaking, when asked on a survey, I am bisexual since I've had sex with both genders, but IRL im not "out" in the t…
As Gen Z, this whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me. Sexuality isn't a binary choice, nor is it spectrum, it's person-wise social interaction... I am attracted to some men, but not all. Likewise for women.
Strictly speaking, when asked on a survey, I am bisexual since I've had sex with both genders, but IRL im not "out" in the traditional sense because most people in my life don't care, nor do I.
"Bisexual" is a broad category with a clear threshold, one that in modern times is really easy to cross. Especially when in practice the other options are subsets (most gays have had straight sex), and the cost of answering is zero, you should expect regression to the broader category.
Claiming SDB here is a big deal, since it implies that ~10% of gen z is lying to themselves or others, which from my experience, is just wrong.
I always joke that humans don't actually have a theory mind, since they seem to behave as if everyone sees the world exactly the same as them and are just being irrational. This is why hard core pro-lifers think that libs are "evil baby killers who just want to have irresponsible sex" (my local Christian radio station), and hard core pro-choicers think that conservatives don't actually care about children and it's just a proxy war on women's rights.
Folks don't recognize that it's a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies.
In this less extreme case, I come on here and see people claim that large portions of genz are lying to themselves, arguing that it's just "normal behavior" and the trends are just cuz identity politics and SDB, but "normal" isn't very meaningful here. As noted, the threshold for classification is vague and we live in a different regime of social pressure.
My point is its a complicated self identity problem with multiple valid perspectives. There are genuine cases where people deceive themselves, but we should avoid crying wolf and save them for, like, holocausts and stuff.
Thoughts? Bridging worldviews rn is important and worth my time.
"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.
I'm pretty sure that's the hypothesis of the people who say this is all just people finally coming out. Even Millennials and Gen X are full of people lying to themselves, and perhaps Gen Z is too, but some future generation will finally reveal the true level of different sexualities in the population.
(Or at least, so goes one theory that completely agrees with the comment you left, but probably has the opposite view about the underlying facts.)
I get what you're saying, and there is group identity politics going on which is alarming more generally, but I think pinning these observations on our drive to conform is a little heavy handed when the movement is explainable just by removing cultural stigma.
Everyone is, as you said, to some extext "bi" due to "normal" experimentation, but nowadays there is little pressure to stop experimenting. If you are open to gay sex, even if you are not primarily gay, it makes sense to label yourself 'bi' and roll it into your identity, even if just for the practical purpose of communicating you sexual preferences.
I know if I was of my father's generation, I would identify as straight because sex isnt important enough for me to endure any stigma. Am I lying to myself, or just being more honest about the messy nature of sexual attraction?
In some sense it's probably semantics, I think my defintion of "bi" is different from yours. I view it as a classification of a sexual behavior, one which may become part of an identity if you choose. If you view it as strictly a category to signal your membership to the group of other bisexuals (which I argue is too cynical), then the SDB explanation makes sense.
When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
I doubt you are bi. You're a hetero with some gay experiences, clearly chosen and not born into.
How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity.
The study precisely viewed these as self-identified categories. You are probably right the survey failed to distinguish between people who feel bi and those who marked bi after mere experimentation. Thus, bi would be grossly over counted. This is distinguished from all other categories.
"Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity". This is precisely my point (that I made in the other thread about theory of mind)
You think these people see sexuality as you do, and thus think they are irrational for disagreeing. When confronted with someone who is clearly normal and rational with a carefully considered argument, opposed to concede that I may have a point, you say IM LYING TO MYSELF (sorry for yelling, cant italicise).
Like bro, there's a dude in bed sleeping as we speak lmao. Im bi. Period.
I can't comment on the methodology since I haven't seen the questions, but my argument is it is valid and not overcounting. The spike is expected and not alarming at all.
I never accused YOU of lying to yourself. Quite the opposite, you seem very self aware.
My comment was cautioning you to not discount that a large number of the non-hetero respondents, especially Bi, are lying to themselves. It's also possible self reported heterosexuals are actually gay.
I'm confused by one thing in the table maybe you can explain. It shows the percentage of men and women identifying as gay and lesbian. Doesnt gay exclusively apply to men and lesbian exclusively to women? How can a man be a lesbian? What am I missing here?
I guess I would then ask "So what?". If "they are mostly just conforming with the identity trend and seeking the social prestige it confers" what does that matter for them as individuals or for society?
Yea, It seems to hinge on an empirical fact about how people define bisexuality, which is something that neither of us probably care enough to figure out lol.
As Gen Z, this whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me. Sexuality isn't a binary choice, nor is it spectrum, it's person-wise social interaction... I am attracted to some men, but not all. Likewise for women.
Strictly speaking, when asked on a survey, I am bisexual since I've had sex with both genders, but IRL im not "out" in the traditional sense because most people in my life don't care, nor do I.
"Bisexual" is a broad category with a clear threshold, one that in modern times is really easy to cross. Especially when in practice the other options are subsets (most gays have had straight sex), and the cost of answering is zero, you should expect regression to the broader category.
Claiming SDB here is a big deal, since it implies that ~10% of gen z is lying to themselves or others, which from my experience, is just wrong.
Humans are masters of self-delusion. Never casually discount a suggestion people are lying to themselves.
I always joke that humans don't actually have a theory mind, since they seem to behave as if everyone sees the world exactly the same as them and are just being irrational. This is why hard core pro-lifers think that libs are "evil baby killers who just want to have irresponsible sex" (my local Christian radio station), and hard core pro-choicers think that conservatives don't actually care about children and it's just a proxy war on women's rights.
Folks don't recognize that it's a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies.
In this less extreme case, I come on here and see people claim that large portions of genz are lying to themselves, arguing that it's just "normal behavior" and the trends are just cuz identity politics and SDB, but "normal" isn't very meaningful here. As noted, the threshold for classification is vague and we live in a different regime of social pressure.
My point is its a complicated self identity problem with multiple valid perspectives. There are genuine cases where people deceive themselves, but we should avoid crying wolf and save them for, like, holocausts and stuff.
Thoughts? Bridging worldviews rn is important and worth my time.
"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.
Your “joke” is very insightful
I'm pretty sure that's the hypothesis of the people who say this is all just people finally coming out. Even Millennials and Gen X are full of people lying to themselves, and perhaps Gen Z is too, but some future generation will finally reveal the true level of different sexualities in the population.
(Or at least, so goes one theory that completely agrees with the comment you left, but probably has the opposite view about the underlying facts.)
I get what you're saying, and there is group identity politics going on which is alarming more generally, but I think pinning these observations on our drive to conform is a little heavy handed when the movement is explainable just by removing cultural stigma.
Everyone is, as you said, to some extext "bi" due to "normal" experimentation, but nowadays there is little pressure to stop experimenting. If you are open to gay sex, even if you are not primarily gay, it makes sense to label yourself 'bi' and roll it into your identity, even if just for the practical purpose of communicating you sexual preferences.
I know if I was of my father's generation, I would identify as straight because sex isnt important enough for me to endure any stigma. Am I lying to myself, or just being more honest about the messy nature of sexual attraction?
In some sense it's probably semantics, I think my defintion of "bi" is different from yours. I view it as a classification of a sexual behavior, one which may become part of an identity if you choose. If you view it as strictly a category to signal your membership to the group of other bisexuals (which I argue is too cynical), then the SDB explanation makes sense.
When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
I doubt you are bi. You're a hetero with some gay experiences, clearly chosen and not born into.
How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity.
The study precisely viewed these as self-identified categories. You are probably right the survey failed to distinguish between people who feel bi and those who marked bi after mere experimentation. Thus, bi would be grossly over counted. This is distinguished from all other categories.
"Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity". This is precisely my point (that I made in the other thread about theory of mind)
You think these people see sexuality as you do, and thus think they are irrational for disagreeing. When confronted with someone who is clearly normal and rational with a carefully considered argument, opposed to concede that I may have a point, you say IM LYING TO MYSELF (sorry for yelling, cant italicise).
Like bro, there's a dude in bed sleeping as we speak lmao. Im bi. Period.
I can't comment on the methodology since I haven't seen the questions, but my argument is it is valid and not overcounting. The spike is expected and not alarming at all.
I never accused YOU of lying to yourself. Quite the opposite, you seem very self aware.
My comment was cautioning you to not discount that a large number of the non-hetero respondents, especially Bi, are lying to themselves. It's also possible self reported heterosexuals are actually gay.
I'm confused by one thing in the table maybe you can explain. It shows the percentage of men and women identifying as gay and lesbian. Doesnt gay exclusively apply to men and lesbian exclusively to women? How can a man be a lesbian? What am I missing here?
Idk, I'd have to look at the actual data (i don't really care that much, sorry gotta work lol).
Wow, I've never seen anyone pull off a reverse "No True Scotsman" maneuver before. That's like the triple Axel of argumentative fallacy.
> When it comes to nontraditional sexuality, that identity and activity largely becomes the center of their existence.
[citation needed]
Most Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, treat their employment as the center of their identity and existence.
I guess I would then ask "So what?". If "they are mostly just conforming with the identity trend and seeking the social prestige it confers" what does that matter for them as individuals or for society?
Good points, and I think it also ties in with the explosion in other identities such as deaf, autistic, disabled, etc.
Yea, It seems to hinge on an empirical fact about how people define bisexuality, which is something that neither of us probably care enough to figure out lol.