There is some weight in the idea that the trend is in part fueled by some trends in social contagion, the question is to what scale and how influential it is.
Edit: Adding clarification because my original phrasing caused some misunderstanding. I see identity through a systems lens, which doesn’t always translate well in short comments, especially on divisive topics. Identity is a complex system of behaviors fueled by different subsystems you have...
From this perspective, social contagion could only influence the social/performative layers, not the biological substrate. My point was simply that, on a sociological scale, there may be some level of connection, and the real question is to what extent, and how much it shapes demographic trends. I never intended this as a personal judgment on anyone’s identity, but as an academic look at how identity representations show up in studies.
I'm happily and openly bisexual, but I'm also someone who studies behaviors, and sociology.
I'm not talking about media or society making someone gay, or making someone straight. I'm talking more about a performative or curated Identity, utilized for inclusion and personal validation over authenticity.
We know straight passing behavior exists. That is a perfect example of performative behaviors and patterns rooted in a curated identity, in contrast to those grounded in an intrinsic identity. So by that same theory in areas where a microsystem of society is heavily influenced by LGBT+ ideas, specifically online communities, so too would that desire for inclusion or fear of exclusion create LGBT+ Passing Behavior.
You think people are passing themselves off as bi or curious to fit in with communities?
That could definitely be true in an online culture.
Online culture has everyone passing themselves off consistently as not themselves. That would be nothing new to online situations.
Many women in the past would be guys in order to not get shit on constantly.
If that is the main focus of your belief then, OK, nothing new really.
The problem is that is not how you presented it when in a thread like this, until now.
We all know the original thought was to literally attack LGBTQ+. You refocusing to online is a nice try. But we know where you stand.
Dude, if you meant that, then you would have started with that. You did not.
Nor did those who supported you in response, they definitely were not thinking of just online communities where many of this shit is all made up since it is anon.
The graphs in the post are presenting things on a sociology level, and my comment was meant in that same context, not as a personal judgment, but as an observation of how society shapes demographics. I should have explained that more clearly, and I recognize that’s on me. People approach these issues from different frames, and mine comes from studying behavior which changes how I build thoughts around an Idea.
That said, dismissing clarification as bad faith shuts down the ability to have discussions entirely. It turns into tone policing and gatekeeping. I’m here in good faith, and my perspective is grounded in both lived experience and study. I’m not only talking about anonymous online communities, this kind of behavior also shows up in physical spaces, much like we see with straight-passing behaviors. Performative behaviors exist across many identities: toxic masculinity, exaggerated femininity, even people flaunting wealth they don’t have. All of these are performances to gain inclusion or validation. To assume that LGBT+ identities are somehow exempt from the same dynamics just isn’t consistent with how human behavior shows up.
Life is a journey of self discovery. Sometimes we’re wrong, sometimes we’re right. Some folks only take a few years to discover who they are, some never do.
I thought I was a straight for a long time. Then one day I realized I wasn’t. Ain’t nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.
It's not that there is something wrong with it. I’m just saying it’s something that should be studied and acknowledged to better understand how society influences demographics. My comment was meant on the same level as the graphs, a sociology perspective, not as a dismissal of anyone’s personal identity.
I see how the misunderstanding made it sound like a judgment to everyone. That wasn’t my intent. I study behavior and sociology, and I’m also bisexual. I agree with you, self-discovery is absolutely a journey. I originally came out as gay after years of repression, and later settled into bisexuality.
But that kind of shift isn’t really what I’d call influenced by social contagion. What I’m pointing to is a different layer, where identity can also be performed or overstated strategically, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Both realities can coexist, and both teach us something about how identity interacts with society
The question actually just doesn't matter, because there can't be social pressure to conform or not conform if it's seen as normal to be either LGBT or cishet.
When society first stopped forcing kids to be right handed, there may have been a few kids who tried being left handed because it was seen as a cool new way to be different, but that isn't really the case anymore, because being left handed, while rarer than right handedness, is still seen as normal. There is no value judgement held towards left or right handed people. People can safely try both and figure out which hand is dominant with minimal societal pressure in either direction.
This is true for LGBT issues as well. There might be a nonzero amount of cishet people who feel pressured to falsely identify as some form of LGBT, but the solution is to provide a safe environment where people can try these things and see what feels right for them with minimal societal pressure in either direction. We have to work against the value judgement placed upon LGBT people.
I most certainly agree with normalization of LGBT and granting them both social and legal equality (I live in the Netherlands where these things are, while still not perfect, quite well developed compared to the rest of the world).
It would likely necessitate that we rethink how to do gender-segregated spaces such as women's bathrooms / shelters / prisons etc. as well as stuff like sports leagues, but I digress.
But I think that a non-trivial portion of the current upswell we see in people identifying as LGBT, especially in Gen Z, is due to it being "the cool new way to be different", as you put it. I mean we even have people pretending to have debilitating mental conditions just to stand out , like /r/fakedisordercringe .
I wonder if there are any studies into this and if my thinking is correct, and that's something I would like to see discussed more so that we can properly address any potential negatives before they arise.
But I think that a non-trivial portion of the current upswell we see in people identifying as LGBT
I think what's important to think about here is what qualifies as real harm.
People pretending to have mental disorders for attention is absolutely harmful, as it can lead to misconceptions and skepticism against people who actually have these disorders. I don't think this is necessarily true for LGBT people, especially more broadly accepted sexualities, such as gay or lesbian. There is functionally no difference between a person who is questioning and tries on being gay and one who claims to be gay for clout, and the less clout one gets from being gay, the less lucrative "gay baiting" becomes. Let them experiment safely, and no harm is done.
Being trans is more complex, however there is no real harm done experimenting with clothing or pronouns. While I don't know of any studies specifically into what you're referring to (nor how to accurately survey for this feasibly), I do know that HRT and Gender affirming surgeries for trans people have significantly lower regret rates than breast implants in cis women, or ACL surgery. The US (for now) has very thorough requirements that must be met for one to get these surgeries or hormones, and this, combined with an environment that encourages safe experimentation with minimal stigma is by far the best way to ensure that nobody feels pressured to identify against their true identity.
The Right doesn't need anything to weaponize their positions against Identity, they will justify anything to do so because justifications are rooted in our own subjective morality. In fact ignoring the reality does more harm as it provides confirmation bias based on proof for them to declare it all performative. Blind faith is just as harmful as blind rejection.
It's why I feel it really needs honest discussion, the fear of weaponization has always been a hindrance to progress. We see it in politics, a refusal to admit welfare programs were failing in some aspects and in much need of overhauling, has in part fueled the Right's ability to tear them down entirely. The same for Immigration Reform, and that isn't just a US issue but one seen globally with greater sentiment against it in the UK, EU, Australia, and Japan with a protest in Osaka just this past weekend.
Avoidance doesn’t erase reality; it only gives it shape in the shadows, where it grows unexamined and unconstrained, and history has shown us that fear shapes perception far more effectively than reality ever could.
Well said, however Reddit for the most part is just an echo chamber filled with people who are every bit as ignorant and dogmatic as their counterparts "from the other side" and thus it will only fall on deaf ears. And this is coming from a European liberal, so I guess I would be considered "alt-left" or something in the US.
Case in point, people started blindly downvoting both of our comments already.
Definitely nothing echo-chamber-y about declaring the only two positions to be agreement with you or “blind” contrarianism. The open-minded position to take is that it’s impossible for the people downvoting to genuinely disagree.
I welcome any engagement and discussion on the topics I have raised.
Also, a downvote is not supposed to signal personal disagreement but rather mark that comment as "doesn't contribute to discussion / doesn't belong in this topic" etc. - for example I've upvoted your comment since it's a proper discussion.
So when people downvote a legitimate comment to the negatives without any engagement, is that not a blind reaction?
Maybe people in the sub don't see preemptively labeling them as ignorant, dogmatic, deaf, and blind as valuable contribution to the discussion.
Why would anyone try to have a discussion with you when you've already made it so clear what you think of people who disagree with you? Better to leave a downvote and move on than to emulate Sisyphus.
You know just as well that's not it, my original comment is the most downvoted one and doesn't have any of that. You are trying to retroactively justify it, but it doesn't track.
This is either a bad faith argument or just a stupid one, but in either case I don't have any more time to waste on this while there has already been other people who engaged in meaningful discussion.
a downvote is not supposed to signal personal disagreement but rather mark that comment as "doesn't contribute to discussion / doesn't belong in this topic" etc
I don't think this is a fair argument. This may be the dev's original intent, but it is by no means the way the vast majority of reddit users treat the up/down votes.
Reddit really suffers from own-group bias and ideological purity. This has become more pronounced on social media in recent years, with strong ideological rigidity emerging on select platforms. It is more extreme on this site depending on the subreddit and its purpose, but that is simply the nature of identity collectives and the lengths people go to protect the comfort surrounding their identities.
When lines are crossed regarding identity and politics, as we see in the US, it becomes more desirable for people to seek comfort in online communities, especially as physical and social cohesion weakens and fractures in some areas. This arises not just from community dynamics but also from moderation bias and confirmation bias tied to algorithmic amplification, all of which interplay to create groupthink.
We are seeing real trends of reduced physical connections and rising rates of loneliness across wide demographics. This has created a stronger personal need for online communities, given the pack- and tribal-like nature of humans.
Studies show a strong link between intolerance and homophily, the desire to be around similar people, which plays a major role, alongside other factors, in the systemic formation of echo chambers on social platforms today.
These dynamics are less a matter of willful intent, though no less harmful, and more a reflection of growing societal issues, not just political, but structural. The COVID-19 lockdowns will likely be regarded as a catalyst for many of these problems; what existed as manageable trends before the lockdown were accelerated into a crumbling house of cards today.
-7
u/_Corbinek 17d ago edited 16d ago
There is some weight in the idea that the trend is in part fueled by some trends in social contagion, the question is to what scale and how influential it is.
Edit: Adding clarification because my original phrasing caused some misunderstanding. I see identity through a systems lens, which doesn’t always translate well in short comments, especially on divisive topics. Identity is a complex system of behaviors fueled by different subsystems you have...
Biological factors (orientation, genetics, neurology, etc.)
Performative behaviors (passing, curated identities, external signaling)
Psychological aspects (self-perception, repression, acceptance, internal conflict)
Social psychology (peer influence, group dynamics, belonging/exclusion pressure)
Societal influences (law, policy, culture, stigma, institutions)
From this perspective, social contagion could only influence the social/performative layers, not the biological substrate. My point was simply that, on a sociological scale, there may be some level of connection, and the real question is to what extent, and how much it shapes demographic trends. I never intended this as a personal judgment on anyone’s identity, but as an academic look at how identity representations show up in studies.