Are younger generations more regressive?

Particularly interesting that she says being a "man" socially is hard because they are under pressure to act in a repressed way. A couple of men (probably Gen X or Millennials) say that's not their experience, and she mentions how a lot of the Gen Z men she knows are into Andrew Tate etc.

www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/s/S2EduMFnmU

Came to post this very interesting AMA with an 18 year old "socially detransitioned" young woman who still considers herself "trans" and to have "dysphoria" but she says the less she focuses on "gender" the easier it is to ignore it.

www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/s/Sy5OaPHl74

I think the issue is more that the vocal ones are extremely regressive, even if the majority aren’t, though at a certain point silence is complicity or agreement. And that they are expressing this internalised sexism and homophobia in ways that can be very jarring to those outside the generation which makes it more evident (compared to the homophobia and misogyny we grew up with).

I’ve seen gen Z argue that obscuring data regarding sexism and attacks on women is the same as fixing it (ignoring it would still be the female people facing discrimination); and I’ve certainly seen the argument that lesbians and gay men should date trans people because they have the ‘correct’ genitals repeated by gen z (though it may not have originated there). They are in many ways an incredibly sexist and homophobic generation in a way I did not face from my own generation (though experiences will f course vary).

I think it’s not so clear as a generational divide. Like PP says it’s not Zs who are running things. Though in some of those cases I do think it was cowardice from older generations in just giving into latest trends and making them policy eg non-binary as a legitimate thing.

For those who believe non-binary is legit you do get a lot of regressive talk. “I don’t fit in the woman box” and other such nonsense.

It is easy to hear a few young people (especially if you see YouTube clips) and write young people off but a lot don’t buy into the regressiveness. At a local university a group were handing out pronoun badges but very few students accepted them. It’s the vocal ones you hear from.

It isn't Gen Z that has made abortion illegal in 14 states in the US. Now that is regressive.

And all the organisations who embraced trans ideology hook line and sinker without adequate thought to the consequences were not being run by Gen Z but by boomers, X and Y. The way of the world is our fault not theirs, they are just beginning to navigate it as young adults and to try to make sense of things.

Oh bollocks. Sexism was absolutely fucking rife and all around us in the 1980s and totally mainstream on TV. Such rose colour glasses nonsense. Oh we had a female prime minister. Whoopee fucking dee, everything was perfect then. Try being a gay man then. Try reading The Sun then and how they wrote about Mandy Smith and teenage girls.

What absolute arse.

@fabricstash such an interesting point as I myself was part of the bekind brigade. My teenage son actually opened my eyes up to the insanity of it all. ( Plus a few debates on MN helped shift my view. )

@DadJoke
I think I know why you're refusing to be specific about what you're calling "some rights." In an argument based on emotion, being specific about what you're referring as you are throwing accusations around can only further weaken it.
Please list the rights you are referring to so people can answer as to whether they want those specific rights removed. You don't get to accuse people of wanting to remove rights when they don't even know which ones you are talking about.
If you won't be specific, that says it all then, doesn't it.

... they're less judgy in my experience

Not my experience - they like labels but if something isn't labeled or steps outside the label's parameters they seem judgy as fuck really.

Less shrugging and you do you much more conformist - though less so younger ones.

It's why DD1 years they all had same long hair style, all wore skirts - DD1 was rebel in that hers was below her knees and not a belt. DD2 4 years behind much more of a range of hair styles and many of the girls wear trousers and nothing is inferred about their sexuality or the gender from it by their peers.

I think they're just generally more accepting of anything that someone wants to be /have /present. If they want a girly pink unicorn room /outfit fine. If they don't find ... they're less judgy in my experience

@Diverze sure but the money propping up this ideology is coming from somewhere. I'm betting alot comes from the rich pervs

Why do you think the right to force other people to pretend you are something you are not is a right anyone should have? If trans people have this right, why don't I?

(I may as well add - if you think I'm being "disingenuous" it's usually just me being ND - unless it's a crap attempt at humour on my part - I've heard this sometimes and sometimes try and qualify my posts but it doesn't always come across.

You can assume I'm engaging in good faith - I think I've made it clear before that I'm genuinely interested in knowing exactly what others' views are rather than assuming, as there are bound to be areas of agreement as well as disagreement.

I'm used to rude comments about my questions, I genuinely don't take it personally; but after a particular poster ignores polite questions you do start to wonder if it's an unwillingness to engage with neurodiverse people. Again, something I'd be interested in discussing without offence taken or given. But I fear that is asking for more self-reflection than people are comfortable with, particularly if young and unused to questioning their own positions).

I actually consider them privileges. Because to me and viewing it from
a industrial relations perspective, “rights” would mean those male people could NOT be excluded. Ever. Because to do so would violate their rights.

But this is not the case.

I used the term because you keep using it and therefore I assume that is all you understand.

“you think they have negatively impacted "female people" and you'd like to remove them. I'm really not sure how this is hard to understand. You don't like rights, you want to remove them.”

Again, you can keep repeating this but it is a falsity.

And please do keep posting about the acts and every time you do, someone will point out that male people can be excluded using the exceptions and we will go around again. But every time we do it, readers see the absolute terms you are trying to convey simply don’t stack up to the reality of the act.

Oh dear Dad, read my post again! I didn't accuse you of lying...

"You don't like rights, you want to remove them."

Well, this is untrue for me as a GC person. I like rights as a concept. I expect there are "some" rights where I might not agree with the specific allowances in every case - some planning laws are questionable, in my book. But as I've said, if you want to discuss a specific allowance or legal provision, to see if I "like" it, that's fine. But it helps if you cite it.

This kind of statement is really unhelpful, and it's unnecessary.

Most trans people genuinely do want to just live their lives, in a way they feel represents how they feel.

Now in my opinion they have usually been groomed to feel this way by virtue of being often rather young, rather lost, neurodivergent, not understanding that almost everyone hates their body and feels awkward through teen years and early adulthood, plus toxic online forums saying bollocks like "cis people never question their gender, if you even wonder it's because you aren't cis".

Where it all goes wrong is when people's need for validation for the serotonin bump drives their behaviour. When misgendering is taken as deliberate and oppressive rather than accidental, because really you don't pass that well and it's your rainbow army lying to you about how wonderful you look. When your desire to be validated leads you to enter female spaces (assuming you are a natal male) because it makes it all seem "real" to be in those spaces.

At the end of the day most trans people don't go in the ladies' "in order to" perve at girls. I accept that this can and does happen. However it also doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day your desire as a trans person to be validated doesn't outweigh women and girls' rights to privacy and dignity.

I have a close family member who has been taken in by this movement. They are absolutely not a pervert. They are a vulnerable young person who wanted to find somewhere to belong. It's a tragedy more than an outrage.

I can't answer that, because I literally have no idea what you mean by "gender critical people" and you won't say.

I have no idea what you mean by 'some rights' because you won't say. Can you copy from the relevant acts which rights you mean when you say this?

Oh he means the exemptions? Wasn't clear. Presumably this is because he thinks there is no difference between man-gender and woman-gender so they don't apply because there's no distinction? I can't really tell the logic behind the vague statements so having to assume!

Yes, they can sometimes be excluded. That's how the EA2010 balances rights in this regard and many other. But that's not enough for gender critical people.

And you accept that they are rights, you think they have negatively impacted "female people" and you'd like to remove them. I'm really not sure how this is hard to understand. You don't like rights, you want to remove them.

I agree with this. Every generation rebels against a lot of the ideas, values, aesthetic etc of the generation before them and therefore I imagine TWAW and like, have had their peak some time ago.
And yes, I expect many who thought they were so edgy and enlightened with their TWAW stance in their teens/early twenties will soon be having families of their own and their views will change as they become more emotionally mature. I do think ultimately people like Emma Roberts, Dan Radcliffe etc, will feel embarrassed.

I'm not sure if you are being disingenous, but do you agree that many gender critical people want to repeal the GRA2006, which codifies some rights for transgender people? Do you agree that the EA2010 codifies some rights for people with protected characteristic of gender reassigment, and that some gender critical people want to modify or repeal that act to lessen those rights?

You do know, dadjoke, that you can copy and paste from a legal bill? Why not to that, to specify what you're actually talking about? The Act(s) is online. You don't have to say "some rights", you can write them out here in the wording used in the Act (that's called "quoting a primary source").

You keep bringing these act up as some kind of shield.

The equality act is clear that there are times male people can be excluded using the exceptions in the act. So therefore, any organisation or individual excluding these male people act lawfully using these exceptions. We just have to encourage organisations to use them.

What other human rights that are there for ‘equality’ can be revoked in this way? So either some people have tried to make these particular rights sound like they have more power than they do, or they are indeed additional rights and not treated as the foundational rights everyone has?

Just pointing to them doesn’t work in this case. There is context that just pointing to them as a ‘right’ ignores.

For example, if a male person was materially a female person, then no court in the country would treat them as male. Just another way that these ‘additional’ rights have negatively impacted female people.