Also when are we going to stop pretending NPR isn't some liberal BS most of the time.
Because it is normal.
The gender/sexual binary is the norm, but it isn't the law, and it isn't explicitly a binary, but the top of a distribution curve. People are complicated. Gender, sexuality, preference, what expressions are acceptable in society and what are transgressive, are all complex and... dare one say... fluid.
Having a sexual preference or gender identity that falls outside the heteronormative gender binary isn't a sign of genetic defect, mental illness or moral failing, it's simply not the norm, but still natural.
We need to come to the point where being gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever is seen as no different than having an unusual eye or hair color, or being left handed.
I don't even see why they lump intersex with all the others. Intersex people are born with variations in the chromosomes/genitals/gonads and, as far as I know, that sounds like the exact definition of a defect - not sure if genetic or not. It's not a mental illness or a moral failing, but it's definitely outside the spectrum of what is considered normal physical (or chromosomal) characteristics at birth.
As far as your last comment, we're basically already there, I wish people would stop talking about it already. I think nothing when I see homosexuals, don't even look twice at trans. Zero fucks given.
On the other hand, I am a bit annoyed that nearly every TV show feels the need to push an agenda down my throat in one way or another. Does every sitcom really need a gay couple now? Is that even representative of the population as a whole?
I may have a skewed view because of where I've lived (mostly the SF Bay Area and Seattle area), but yeah, it seems to be the norm -- both at work and in my small circle of friends, I see homosexual couples.
Even in my small (~30,000 people) hometown in Ohio, homosexual couples are prevalent and don't need to hide - my nephew recently came out as gay and I was surprised when he said how accepted it is in the community, it's been nearly 30 years ago since I last lived there, and at the time, being gay was a huge stigma that had to be kept hidden.
So in my view, what you're seeing in the media mirrors what's happening in society - homosexuality is becoming mainstream. It's not an "agenda" they are pushing, but normal life.
Alternative gender identities are slowly gaining acceptance, but even in the Bay Area it can be hard for a trans person to be accepted.
There are some gay focused shows (Grace & Frankie, Will and Grace), but looking at the top 5 current sitcoms [1]
1. Big Bang Theory - none of the main characters are gay
2. Modern Family - out of 11 main characters, 2 are gay
3. Brooklyn Nine Nine - out of 10 main characters, 1 is gay
4. The Simpsons - I don't know how to count main characters, but I don't think any are gay
5. Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Out of 5 main characters, one is (or might be?) gay.
(I used Wikipedia for most of these, so I may not have gotten the counts completely accurate)
This doesn't seem to be a gross over representation of homosexuality - I wonder if you're suffering from observation bias, or if maybe you're just watching sitcoms that have more gay characters for whatever reason.
[1] - https://www.ranker.com/list/best-current-tv-sitcoms/ranker-t...
Good for you, but "we" aren't basically already there at all.
>On the other hand, I am a bit annoyed that nearly every TV show feels the need to push an agenda down my throat in one way or another.
So... you feel the presence of gay characters in media represents an "agenda" being "pushed down your throat." You likely have no problem with straight characters, nor perhaps would even notice if a series had only straight characters, but feel that gay characters need to be justified.
Fucks given after all, I guess?
>Does every sitcom really need a gay couple now? Is that even representative of the population as a whole?
Not every sitcom has a gay couple, that's hyperbole. However, a dearth of gay characters in media does not represent the population as a whole (whatever that might mean in context) and the perception created by this historical lack of gay representation in media makes it seem as if gay people are less common in reality than they are.
So, yes, the few gay characters you see in media now probably do represent reality more accurately than would their absence, and may even still under represent the norm in some contexts.
Here[0] is a good video by one of the Council of Geeks members on why mainstream LGBT representation in media matters.
I knew that was coming eventually ;)
You make several valid points. I will check out the video you referenced.
On the other hand - I have wondered if maybe Hollywood is over-represented by LGBT persons (not that it's a bad thing) and thus gay screenwriters/investors/producers are of course going to include their own stories in the things they create. I could be totally wrong here, just an idea I have had.
What is few to some is many to others, it seems. Maybe I just watch a lot of progressive stuff. There are a ton of teenage lesbian characters in a lot of stuff on Netflix; enough to make me think being lesbian is in vogue.
I don't know about being "over-represented," but I don't think it's unreasonable that there is a newer generation of LGBT writers and showrunners interested in writing the sort of stories that represent them, or that they never got to see when they were younger and struggling with their identity. That's not an agenda so much as writing what you know, though.
And let's not beat around the bush - if all a show wanted was token representation, "teenage lesbian" is the most palatable form it can take in a heteronormative, male-dominant culture.
Currently watching Dear White People. It's great. Most racial minorities seem well-represented these days. Off the top of my head, Muslim-Americans and Middle-Easterners could use some more representation. Indians too.
If they are accepted, they are fine, and happy. This is supported by plenty of scientific research.
Basic human decency, as well as Occam's Razor, demand that we take this seriously. And to deny it is nothing short of sadism.
What kind of help are you proposing?
For example, if you assume gender is binary and XX=Female/XY=Male, which gender is someone with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY)?
Normalizing what? There are doctors involved. What do you think the recommended course of action is for someone with gender dysphoria or someone born intersex?
For people who get intervention, the rates of depression and suicide remain alarmingly high. For children and adolescents who are told to wait until they are adults before receiving physical intervention, what are the rates of depression and suicide? I have read and heard that many such people become well adjusted as adults. For those that don't become well adjusted, there's still the option of physical intervention.
No one here is questioning that.
The sources I imagine you reach for are non-scientific and not appropriate for HN.
That's quite an Authoritarian stance. How about a mainstream liberal paper and a mainstream conservative one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/sunday-dia...
https://nationalpost.com/news/cbc-orders-last-minute-cancell...
Reading the reactions around the articles and media referenced in them just strike me as a combination of science and medicine along with ideological activism. My experience is that so long as people are in a community which accepts them, the vast majority of people will figure things out without the need for surgery and hormone injections.
With a claim like that, you're going to have to provide some evidence, or at least a solid argument.