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.
Thoughts
Date: 2022-05-11 10:43 pm (UTC)Yeah, blame the deciders. The Greatest Generation started the worst of the mess with things like nuclear power and plastics, but in their defense, they didn't realize what bad ideas those were and by the time anyone really did, that generation was fading. The Boomers did the most damage, followed somewhat later and lesser by their offspring. Millennials and younger? Cry in the ocean.
>>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.<<
I find both broad and specific terms to be necessary. If you don't have a broad one, you can't unite similar things in a discussion. If you don't have narrow terms, you can't see the differences that matter. Everyone has the right to their own terms. I've gone through multiple ones myself.
>>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.<<
The question is whether a given type or amount of criticism does more harm or more good. Boycotts can be useful, but I'm not a fan of Cancel Culture. Making everyone feel like they have to be pleasing all the time or be fired for something they did off-duty is a good way to kill people. Any zookeeper can tell you that animals need privacy and relief from stress, or they die.
>>I actually think it's ok for teenagers to be uncomfortable discussing sexually explicit topics with people twice their age or more.<<
Or anyone, for that matter. I think that any kind of mandatory sex education or training is abuse, because after all, it violates consent. But that has become the norm, and I think that's why it so often backfires: you're training people that with enough power, they can force others to listen to sex talk and if anyone protests, it's the victims who get punished.
>>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.<<
Don't like, don't read applies where people have informed consent. Without information -- whether that's a sorting filter or warning labels or whatever -- they can't make effective decisions. And without power to choose what they read, they're at the mercy of teachers, parents, bosses, or whoever else is forcing them to read things they don't want or taking away things they do want. Don't read something that's described as not your thing, and then bitch because it is not your thing.
>>Take the 'no kink at Pride' thing.<<
Depends on how it's billed. If you call it "gay pride" then you're justified in including only homosexual males as a focus. If you call it "Family Pride" or "Corporate Pride" then you can set those standards. But when you call it "Queer Pride" or "QUILTBAG Pride" or "Pride" then you have to let people who identify under that description participate, or you're doing more harm than good by policing the kind of things that people come to Pride to escape.
>>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.<<
I don't care about other people's opinions. I care whether they have the power to hurt people or oppress people. Often, an effective solution is to make different spaces available for different tastes, so people don't bother each other and everyone can do their own thing. In public, for general-purpose events, there's more of a responsibility to make them accessible to the widest possible audience. And trying to force everyone to follow the tastes of one group or one individual is a problem.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2022-05-12 08:05 pm (UTC)I think this is a really scary line of reasoning. We teach children to read whether they want to or not. We teach them civics and history and chemistry. Many secondary schools also teach first aid and financial literacy skills whether teens want to learn about them or not. Do you consider this abusive? Some schools teach fire safety, or second languages, or nutrition, or statistics.
I've seen some of the consequences of NOT teaching sex ed, and it's considerably worse than not teaching first aid or fire safety. Here are a few bits of sex ed I wish my students could be compelled to learn before they serve on juries or vote.
1) Pregnancy does not begin at the moment a man ejaculates. The pregnant woman cannot feel she is pregnant at that moment. Doctors count "pregnancy" from 2 weeks before that moment, but sperm meets egg several days after that moment.
2) Rape can cause pregnancy.
3) Birth control pills are usually effective but not quite always. The person needs to take one every day even if they don't have sex every day.
4) Pregnancy is very hard on a person's body even when nothing goes dangerously wrong. A C-section is a great big cut that takes a long time to heal.
5) Biological sex is complicated. Gender is even more complicated, but biological sex is not just a single pair of chromosomes you can see from across the room.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2022-05-12 08:29 pm (UTC)Whenever you force people to do things, it's risky, because if they aren't ready or aren't suited to the work, then it can harm them. There actually is a growing problem with this in schools now, where the demands damage mental and physical health; for example, as shown in the rising rate of suicide among younger children, in which school pressure is often implicated.
But sexuality is more intimate and delicate than other types of general knowledge. There's a range of time in which most children grow into it, and if you miss the right time for each child, then you're either forcing them to deal with developmentally inappropriate and possibly harmful material, or you're shorting them information they need sooner. The cookie-cutter approach to education isn't great in general, but can be downright dangerous in sex ed.
With mandatory classes, what people learn is that unwanted sex talk is just something they have to suffer through if they want an education, want a job, or want to live at all. That's a problem, because it doesn't stick with just the mandatory classes; it carries over to other contexts. And some people learn the opposite lesson, that it's okay to force people into sexualized conversations they don't want. It undermines the whole principle of consent. Hence the studies showing that mandatory classes often backfire and make the problem worse. Sadly that's accurate about how America handles sexuality; it's not about consent, it's about power.
I think it would work better to guarantee access to everyone who wants or needs it, and offer rewards for taking the classes. If you take driver's ed, you get to drive. If you take sex ed, you should get more privileges, or free birth control, or a raise at a job, etc.
>> I've seen some of the consequences of NOT teaching sex ed <<
So have I. I've also cleaned up after a lot of forced sexual education, and that problem is increasing. If you say "consent" but practice "mandatory" then people start thinking that force and suffering are part of consent.
>> compelled to learn before they serve on juries or vote.<<
Anything that limits people's right to vote undermines democracy. Sure I wish voters were better educated, but the moment you put any kind of qualification on voting, the bigots use it to cut out vast swaths of disadvantaged people. We're having that problem with racial discrimination now.