Young people are not the problem
May. 11th, 2022 09:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livThis has been brewing for a while, but I'm sticking my flag in the ground:
I won't be drawn into generational conflict in the LGBTQ+ community
There's nothing wrong with teenagers being teenagers. They are not responsible for society's awfulness, and particularly not for homophobia / queermisia. Yes, some individual teenagers are horrible people, but even the horrible ones have very little societal power. Teenagers are not, collectively, a threat to Queer adults.
Yes, it's upsetting when some younger people reject 'Queer' as an identity when our generation fought so hard to reclaim it. But they're entitled to choose their own identity words. If people prefer microidentities which describe their particular gender, sexual and romantic orientation and other parts of their being as precisely as possible, let them be. I am by nature a lumper, a broad umbrella person, but splitters aren't the enemy. And yes, I'm sure it's partly intentional that they are choosing terms that most people over 30 haven't heard of. That's the point, that's what young people are supposed to do, explore their identities in ways that aren't legible to olds.
It's completely normal and indeed laudable for young people to find their own aesthetics and their own cultural expressions for their identities. People who prefer pastels and frills, or clashing rainbows all over everything, or clothes featuring silly cartoon characters, rather than black leather or traditional drag / camp aren't "assimilationist". They're visibly, legibly non-heteronormative. Sometimes they all wear the same brands as a sign of rebellion, but branded clothes are what teenagers mostly have access to, doesn't mean they're sellouts. Sure, they are pushing back against some aspects of Queer culture from the previous generation, but that's fine, again, that's what teenagers are supposed to do. It's not teenagers wearing rainbow dungarees who are enacting violence against men with earrings and women with flannel shirts, it's not teenagers who are enforcing gender norms by finding new ways to express their non-standard genders.
I think most people understand that the new generation like different media from what was formative for us when we were their age. But younger people also approach fandom in a different way, and that's also fine. They might well be less tolerant of queer-baiting and shows that are either all white or perpetuate racial stereotypes, and they might be overly loud and strident in condemning things that affront their sense of justice. It's a good thing that young people now are not so desperate for scraps that they'll accept any form of "representation" no matter how bad it is. If they're sometimes obnoxious in their criticism, well, so be it, it's part of learning how to navigate the world to figure out which battles are worth fighting and which approaches are effective.
Also, the internet itself has changed almost beyond recognition. Teenagers aren't making carefully hand-crafted Geocities fan pages, nor are they writing long-form meta on LiveJournal. And if they're on Tumblr at all they're using it in a different way from when it was a frontier land where copyright and obscenity laws didn't exist. Yes, it's bad to use corporate walled garden sites like Instagram and TikTok, but it's not teenagers who killed the open internet, it was already moribund by the time they were old enough to get online. And it's not just finding different places to form their communities, it's a different fandom culture, partly because there is far more surveillance, far more danger to their offline selves if they are careless in public. They don't have the same etiquette that Queer media fandom developed in the 2000s. Their manners might be worse in some ways, better in others, but mainly they're different and that itself isn't a reason to panic.
This is possibly the most controversial part of my rant, but I actually think it's ok for teenagers to be uncomfortable discussing sexually explicit topics with people twice their age or more. It doesn't mean they're "puriteens" or "tenderqueers" or any of the other horrible names that older people call them. I realize that for many of our generation, writing and discussing detailed descriptions of exactly how Harry Potter might have had sex with Snape was an important part of exploring our identities, it was an important part of our rebellion against heteronormative and sex negative society. But it's not necessary for everybody to follow the exact same path. I know people can come up with examples that are obviously ridiculous when it comes to criticism of fictional "age-gap" relationships where there isn't actually a meaningful power imbalance. But it's ok to prefer responses to your favourite media that don't centre detailed descriptions of adults having sex with children, whether such descriptions are valourized or presented as dark and fucked up. And it's ok, especially for young people who are still figuring out the world, to sometimes go a bit too far in their zeal for avoiding this kind of disturbing material.
My opinion is that the issue is not teens being overly prudish. There are far too many adults who do in fact prey on young people online, even people who are barely more than children. Most of them are straight men, the usual people who have enough social power to get away with behaviours that should otherwise be condemned. And it absolutely isn't fair that us innocent Queer adults who would never dream of hurting a child are caught in the backlash, but the problem isn't teenagers doing their best to protect themselves. They sometimes get it wrong, they see a threat where there is none, but that doesn't mean young people shouldn't be allowed to have boundaries around what conversations they want to be part of and what fic they want to read. I do believe that "don't like, don't read" is a good philosophy, but it doesn't take into account the way that the algorithm-driven internet, as well as individual bad actors, are in fact shoving unwanted material in front of young people all the time, and avoiding that takes effort beyond just not opting in.
Take the 'no kink at Pride' thing. It's not a young people versus real Queers thing. Everybody knows that the whole debate is an op originating from the nastier bits of the alt-right internet. But somehow everybody thinks it's just young people who fall for the manipulation, and never realize that middle-aged people are also being manipulated into believing that a whole younger generation are campaigning for Pride parades to be corporate friendly. Today's teenagers didn't cause mega-businesses to muscle in on Pride and other aspects of Queer culture. A particular individual teenager might be embarrassed by seeing someone on a leash in public, but they're not the real threat here.
In short, yes, it's uncomfortable when parts of your culture are rejected by the generation following you. But the real enemy is straight people who hold actual social power to harm Queer people, not teenagers who are sometimes clumsy and inept in their rebellion against the previous generation.
There's nothing wrong with teenagers being teenagers. They are not responsible for society's awfulness, and particularly not for homophobia / queermisia. Yes, some individual teenagers are horrible people, but even the horrible ones have very little societal power. Teenagers are not, collectively, a threat to Queer adults.
Yes, it's upsetting when some younger people reject 'Queer' as an identity when our generation fought so hard to reclaim it. But they're entitled to choose their own identity words. If people prefer microidentities which describe their particular gender, sexual and romantic orientation and other parts of their being as precisely as possible, let them be. I am by nature a lumper, a broad umbrella person, but splitters aren't the enemy. And yes, I'm sure it's partly intentional that they are choosing terms that most people over 30 haven't heard of. That's the point, that's what young people are supposed to do, explore their identities in ways that aren't legible to olds.
It's completely normal and indeed laudable for young people to find their own aesthetics and their own cultural expressions for their identities. People who prefer pastels and frills, or clashing rainbows all over everything, or clothes featuring silly cartoon characters, rather than black leather or traditional drag / camp aren't "assimilationist". They're visibly, legibly non-heteronormative. Sometimes they all wear the same brands as a sign of rebellion, but branded clothes are what teenagers mostly have access to, doesn't mean they're sellouts. Sure, they are pushing back against some aspects of Queer culture from the previous generation, but that's fine, again, that's what teenagers are supposed to do. It's not teenagers wearing rainbow dungarees who are enacting violence against men with earrings and women with flannel shirts, it's not teenagers who are enforcing gender norms by finding new ways to express their non-standard genders.
I think most people understand that the new generation like different media from what was formative for us when we were their age. But younger people also approach fandom in a different way, and that's also fine. They might well be less tolerant of queer-baiting and shows that are either all white or perpetuate racial stereotypes, and they might be overly loud and strident in condemning things that affront their sense of justice. It's a good thing that young people now are not so desperate for scraps that they'll accept any form of "representation" no matter how bad it is. If they're sometimes obnoxious in their criticism, well, so be it, it's part of learning how to navigate the world to figure out which battles are worth fighting and which approaches are effective.
Also, the internet itself has changed almost beyond recognition. Teenagers aren't making carefully hand-crafted Geocities fan pages, nor are they writing long-form meta on LiveJournal. And if they're on Tumblr at all they're using it in a different way from when it was a frontier land where copyright and obscenity laws didn't exist. Yes, it's bad to use corporate walled garden sites like Instagram and TikTok, but it's not teenagers who killed the open internet, it was already moribund by the time they were old enough to get online. And it's not just finding different places to form their communities, it's a different fandom culture, partly because there is far more surveillance, far more danger to their offline selves if they are careless in public. They don't have the same etiquette that Queer media fandom developed in the 2000s. Their manners might be worse in some ways, better in others, but mainly they're different and that itself isn't a reason to panic.
This is possibly the most controversial part of my rant, but I actually think it's ok for teenagers to be uncomfortable discussing sexually explicit topics with people twice their age or more. It doesn't mean they're "puriteens" or "tenderqueers" or any of the other horrible names that older people call them. I realize that for many of our generation, writing and discussing detailed descriptions of exactly how Harry Potter might have had sex with Snape was an important part of exploring our identities, it was an important part of our rebellion against heteronormative and sex negative society. But it's not necessary for everybody to follow the exact same path. I know people can come up with examples that are obviously ridiculous when it comes to criticism of fictional "age-gap" relationships where there isn't actually a meaningful power imbalance. But it's ok to prefer responses to your favourite media that don't centre detailed descriptions of adults having sex with children, whether such descriptions are valourized or presented as dark and fucked up. And it's ok, especially for young people who are still figuring out the world, to sometimes go a bit too far in their zeal for avoiding this kind of disturbing material.
My opinion is that the issue is not teens being overly prudish. There are far too many adults who do in fact prey on young people online, even people who are barely more than children. Most of them are straight men, the usual people who have enough social power to get away with behaviours that should otherwise be condemned. And it absolutely isn't fair that us innocent Queer adults who would never dream of hurting a child are caught in the backlash, but the problem isn't teenagers doing their best to protect themselves. They sometimes get it wrong, they see a threat where there is none, but that doesn't mean young people shouldn't be allowed to have boundaries around what conversations they want to be part of and what fic they want to read. I do believe that "don't like, don't read" is a good philosophy, but it doesn't take into account the way that the algorithm-driven internet, as well as individual bad actors, are in fact shoving unwanted material in front of young people all the time, and avoiding that takes effort beyond just not opting in.
Take the 'no kink at Pride' thing. It's not a young people versus real Queers thing. Everybody knows that the whole debate is an op originating from the nastier bits of the alt-right internet. But somehow everybody thinks it's just young people who fall for the manipulation, and never realize that middle-aged people are also being manipulated into believing that a whole younger generation are campaigning for Pride parades to be corporate friendly. Today's teenagers didn't cause mega-businesses to muscle in on Pride and other aspects of Queer culture. A particular individual teenager might be embarrassed by seeing someone on a leash in public, but they're not the real threat here.
In short, yes, it's uncomfortable when parts of your culture are rejected by the generation following you. But the real enemy is straight people who hold actual social power to harm Queer people, not teenagers who are sometimes clumsy and inept in their rebellion against the previous generation.
