So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world? — Benkei

Good OP. Yes, I recognize it when I look at the social media. But I stay within the circle of reality in my own little world. I observe other things happening in the socialmediasphere. And that is, a lot of it are fake, made to look like natural or normal, but often heavily edited, filtered, or photoshopped. And we, the ones looking from the outside in, just take it as if they're true.

Anyway, the following may or may not connect with your OP: has anyone of you looked at the VP of the United States and thought -- The Manchurian Candidate?
Just joking. Peace out. I wish Trump's presidency the best!

You don’t think one important reason for the rise of categories of gender identity is that individuals found themselves rejected and ostracized over their behavior, which in many cases they had no control over? A feminine-acting gay male could be the target of bullies, and their partnership with another male not legally recognized. A tight-knit gay community was necessary as long as gays felt unsafe in mainstream society. Now that mainstream attitudes have changed these ‘gay ghettos’ are fading as their residents integrate back into the wider community, while maintaining their gay identity. And with further liberalization in attitudes toward non-conforming gender behaviors among the general population, the relevance of the concept of gay identity will likely diminish. Thus we can see how the creation of identitarian communities can serve a vital, if temporary purpose. — Joshs

I don't deny that any categories are exclusive but I guess that actual progress is to expand categories instead of creating newer and narrower ones. And we were expanding it, gays were getting more accepted, especially in the Netherlands leading to a less "campy" gay community. I think in a sense it was hard for gays that weren't campy when the gay community was still largely reactionary - they didn't feel at home among the homophobic mainstream and not in the campy alternative. It has their own set of subcultural rules that don't necessarily work for everyone.

Are you sure? My own memory is that gender stereotypes were much more rigid back in the fifties. My mother was forced to give up work (in a bank) on marriage as a 'natural' policy and custom. The hippie men growing their hair was seriously transgressive in the sixties.
Indeed gender stereotypes go back to Samson and Heracles, at least. It seems to me that these identities are being questioned and resisted by modernity rather than exaggerated. — unenlightened

I think gender roles were much more rigid. The stereotypes less so. Nowadays, nobody is allowed to be ugly. If you're a teenage boy and don't have a sixpack and spend 3 days a week in the gym, you're not meeting the expected standard. Girls with A-cups are screwed.

Neither Samson nor Heracles were stereotypes. They're heroes with supernatural strength; you're not expected to be like them.

I don't know about vacuums. Isn't another way to frame this that there are just a lot more possibilities and more ways to be mainstream today? I doubt that community or family or religion are much weaker today than they were 40-50 years ago. They've been in transition a long, long time. If anything, back in the late 70's we thought religion would be gone from society by now and, if anything, it seems to be having a revival.

Community and family? Traditional forms may well have atrophied but other forms have developed - same sex parent families, for instance. I see a lot of additional inclusion in the country I live in - input from First Nations people, lived experience informing social policy in the areas of migrant communities, homelessness, mental illness, etc. There seem to be as many improvements as disappointments. — Tom Storm

I'm glad to hear you experience this differently. The OP maybe is as much about my own biases as anything else. I guess there are more possibilities but they come with their own straightjackets you have to fit into. Gender dysphoria is on the rise and this is not driven by the availability of sex-change operations; and that's for me the main hint something is not going well. How can more options lead to more people being unhappy with their selves?

The distinction isn't subtle because it gives a nod to absolutes, to right, to wrong, to immutability over fluidity. It is not just living by clear dictates that avoids the stress of chaos, it is the belief that there are clear dictates that are with certainty true that avoids those stresses and it's adherence to an actual true standard that matters.

This isn't to suggest that the way things were were the way things should have remained because not every expression at any given moment is consistent with the way things ought to be, but I do see what "ought" to be as an objective question, not just a personal expression for the moment.

It's as if we erected all these fences so long ago and we forgot why, so we tore them down and barbarians invaded we never knew existed, so we frantically try to protect ourselves until someone suggests we might wish to reconstruct some of those fences. My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. If we don't take that stance, then we're just going to keep tearing those fences down again and again, thinking he can make friends with the barbarians and all get along.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one. — Hanover

I don't think this ultimately fits in my view that ideally there should not be fences; or they should be pitched in such a way that they're inclusive instead of increasingly exclusionary. Feminism has been a very progressive force in this respect; greatly expanding the roles women can have in wider society and simultaneously for men (stay-at-home dads is an option) - but at the same time the stereotype in media seems to have narrowed increasingly.

Therefore the frame of atomization being an effect of individualism is unsubtantiated. — Tzeentch

I disagree but I don't have the energy to argue for what is obvious. If you don't see it, you simply don't.

Individualism and the concept of civil rights is hundreds of years old, and in the West it has served as a model for relations between states and citizens for a very long time as well.

Atomization is a recent phenomenon.

I think that's indication enough that the relation you're suggesting exists between atomization and individualism is unsubstantiated and not obvious at all.

I'm glad to hear you experience this differently. — Benkei

:up:

The OP maybe is as much about my own biases as anything else — Benkei

Cool. Yep, and all I'm offering is my observations and built in biases too.

How can more options lead to more people being unhappy with their selves? — Benkei

I think more options mean there are likely to be more ways of being authentic (in the West), which is likely to promote more potential satisfaction. We are no longer limited to mainstream looks, orientations, lifestyles or cultures. When I grew up it was harder.

Gender dysphoria is on the rise and this is not driven by the availability of sex-change operations; and that's for me the main hint something is not going well. — Benkei

I'm no expert but it may be a positive sign that gender dysphoria is on the rise. Perhaps it shows a truer figure of the issue's prevalence, which was suppressed for so long. People often point to how a hundred years ago left handed people were rare, maybe 2%. Once it was accepted that being left handed was not a sign of evil or a bad practice, the percentage increased to maybe 12%. As it happened, I used to try to write left handed and I remember the teacher slapping my left hand and intoning, 'That's wrong!' That was 1970.

Nowadays, nobody is allowed to be ugly. If you're a teenage boy and don't have a six-pack and spend 3 days a week in the gym, you're not meeting the expected standard. — Benkei

I can see why people might think this, but it's not what I'm seeing. Maybe it's different in Australia. Unfit and perhaps unattractive people don't seem to find it hard to make friends and get laid, from what I can tell. And it's even cool to belong to the nerd group, which definitely wasn't a thing when I was 15. I think it may well be true that certain subcultures and occupations have set standards which may be unattainable to some others, but I recall that being a thing 40 years ago too. Overall, I think self-confidence and purpose will get you almost anywhere. Always have.

I'm no expert but it may be a positive sign that gender dysphoria is on the rise. — Tom Storm

Then it's oxymoronic because it can't be dysphoric and be good. The opposite of dysphoria is euphoria, but I don't know that we can consider those who believe they're something they're not in a state of bliss, nor can we can generally call those who medically alter themselves euphoric. Maybe they find some benefit, but transitioning has hardly shown to be curative of the depression and other symptoms associated with gender dysphoria.

There simply is no good logical explanation for why gender can be entirely removed from ontological reality and be declared entirely a social construct and yet other genetic designations cannot unless you say that we as a society have the right to arbitratrarily decide which designations to allow be linked to reality and which to societal choices.

And that is a long way of just saying you can't say that gender is not associated with chromosomes but race (or any other genetic condition) is unless you just arbitrarily decide to do that. As indicated by the OP:

For some, the solution is to dismantle traditional categories entirely, embracing fluidity and rejecting labels. For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. Yet neither path fully resolves the underlying problem, as both are reactions to a distorted reality. — Benkei

What this means is that the reason you refuse or permit someone of Nordic descent to declare themselves of Asian descent is based upon one of two reasons: (1) we choose fludity and allow the person to call themselves Asian, or (2) we choose the comfort of tradition and insist he call himself Nordic.

My response it that the decision is based upon neither, but it's based upon the unstated #3, which is that we don't call the Swede Japanese because he's not, and he will not be regardless of how he might change appearance, dress, speach patterns and whatnot.

If we deny it's my #3, but instead insist we've just chosen option #2 in this instance as it pertains to ethnicity because we arbitrarily have chosen to do so, then you have no reason to object to the person who choses #2 as it pertains to gender. They have just acted arbitrarily differently than you.

And this was the crux of my initial response to the OP, which was that it was correct in noting the problems, but that it still had buy in to the notion that we as a society have complete freedom in declaring what reality is. Your post suggests we should celebrate as each traditional shackle is removed and handed back over to society to decide what to do best. I'm disagreeing with that because there is a right way and a wrong way regardless of what society says.

Either we declare immutable truths or we don't. The consequence of not is what we're currently dealing with. You can base the immutablity of truth on God or just plain stubbornness if that suits you better, but without it, you end up with the anything goes chaos described in the OP. And your question is when should we do this, when should we declare we've reached a barrier and not permit society to allow the change.

I'd respond by saying that we shouldn't allow the Nordic person to be accepted as Asian. If you don't agree with me, why not?

Then it's oxymoronic because it can't be dysphoric and be good. — Hanover

This sounds like you're just playing word games. The bigger point isn't about the word 'dysphoria' but the concept of transitioning to a desired state—the idea that happiness, or even euphoria, can be achieved by changing gender and thereby feeling normal. I would take it as good that more people are able to identify a problem and be supported in the solution rather than spending their lives suppressing who they are.

There simply is no good logical explanation — Hanover

I make no comment on any so-called logic or attempts to paint transitioning as somehow deviant or unnatural. And I won't enter into yet another futile anti-trans debate masquerading as a search for truth (not that you necessarily approach it like this, but many do.) My point was a simple response to whether it is on the rise. And it may be on the rise because more people feel brave enough to express their identity, and take action - not because the commie, woke, progressives have done something nefarious to our youth... :wink:

I'd respond by saying that we shouldn't allow the Nordic person to be accepted as Asian. If you don't agree with me, why not? — Hanover

Your argument sounds like a case of false equivalence or a slippery slope style fallacy.

How is this not like the response to the 'love is love' argument for gay marriage: 'Next thing they'll want to marry a fridge or an animal'? How is this not like the response on homosexuality that permitting it is the slippery slope to bestiality or paedophilia? All familiar 'arguments'.

And who knows, maybe in the future the notion of gender and race will be be abolished and we may well be able to chose from many identities.