Forgive this, for it is only the beginnings of an idea:
Can the trend of fluid gender identity and increasingly fractured sexual identity be a somewhat 'equal and opposite' force to that of nationalism?
Nationalism, as defined in Orwell's notes, is a grouping of people under a single banner, whether positive or negative. The new classifications and terms that have sprung from the Gender and Sexual identity movement (ironically, that's a classification in itself) are brought about by the lack of existing nomenclature adequately describing the group of people considered to be under that banner; "Don't categorise me".
That is individualism, that is anti-nationalism.
Is that what 'the West' should be supporting and embracing if it truly values individual freedoms?
Is the difficulty of acceptance of this gender and sexual individualism by society at large a result of the fact that it's challenging to humanity's baser instincts of "us and them" that we tend to revert to in times of instability and stress? (described in detail by Orwell).
(admittedly, I find it hard to process the gender and sexual identity 'stuff' because I happily sit in existing boxes and have only recently put enough thought into the implications of myself being "mis-classified")
As a white American who identifies non-binary, no. It can potentially help you understand overlapping concepts, but it’s a fundamentally different experience to be ‘unusual’ in a cultural context you mostly share than to be an outsider in the cultural experience you inhabit. Even though I prefer they/them pronouns I can conveniently be male, with my beard and my masculine presentation, for any situation that warrants it. Even if I couldn’t I’m being evaluated as a member of the same community. I’m only othered in situ. The only reason other nationalists (in Orwell’s usage) would care to take notice is to exploit divisions in situ or divisions between how their “nation” regards my gender expression and how ours does, for whatever value of “ours”.
Edit: I wrote this kind of in a rush and I feel remiss that I didn’t address “overlapping concepts” more: this is at the root of intersectionalism. Some of the experience of every marginalized group is similar to the experience of other groups. Recognizing those similarities is really valuable especially among people marginalized in different ways. I don’t mean to dismiss your recognition either, because this is a good instinct to have. My point is it’s different, even though it’s similar. But its similarity does matter as you’ve recognized.
Can the trend of fluid gender identity and increasingly fractured sexual identity be a somewhat 'equal and opposite' force to that of nationalism?
Nationalism, as defined in Orwell's notes, is a grouping of people under a single banner, whether positive or negative. The new classifications and terms that have sprung from the Gender and Sexual identity movement (ironically, that's a classification in itself) are brought about by the lack of existing nomenclature adequately describing the group of people considered to be under that banner; "Don't categorise me".
That is individualism, that is anti-nationalism.
Is that what 'the West' should be supporting and embracing if it truly values individual freedoms?
Is the difficulty of acceptance of this gender and sexual individualism by society at large a result of the fact that it's challenging to humanity's baser instincts of "us and them" that we tend to revert to in times of instability and stress? (described in detail by Orwell).
(admittedly, I find it hard to process the gender and sexual identity 'stuff' because I happily sit in existing boxes and have only recently put enough thought into the implications of myself being "mis-classified")