The Binary of Non-Binary

This morning, I was watching the news and saw reports of people vandalizing Tesla Cybertrucks. At first glance, it seemed like just another act of public defiance against a corporate symbol. However, this behavior appears to be a reaction to what Elon Musk represents—his involvement with USAID, his vision of efficiency through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and his broader impact on society. This act of defiance, driven by opposition to a public figure, led me to contemplate the broader meaning of rebellion.

Historically, teenage rebellion has been a defining feature of youth culture. In the past, it was expressed through music, fashion, or countercultural movements. Teenagers—caught between childhood and adulthood—are naturally inclined to push against authority. The concept of the "teenager" emerged around 1913, transforming adolescence into a distinct cultural phase rather than just a biological one. Figures like Elvis Presley accelerated this transformation, bringing a new kind of youthful defiance to the mainstream.

Today, however, the nature of rebellion has changed. Instead of challenging governments, the conventional family system, or corporate power structures, the focus has turned inward. The new rebellion centers on identity—specifically gender identity. Young people are no longer just experimenting with music, clothing, or politics; they are being encouraged to question something as fundamental as their biological reality. Unlike past rebellions, which were often temporary phases, this one involves decisions that are irreversible.

Rebellion during the teenage years has always been influenced by external factors. Whether it was punk, grunge, or heavy metal, youth movements have often aligned with larger cultural forces. The 1990s and early 2000s saw bands like Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down challenging the establishment. In retrospect, their message was paradoxical: they protested against capitalism while operating within it, signed to major labels like Epic Records, and profited from the very system they condemned.

But music wasn’t the only medium shaping rebellion. Before the turn of the millennium, Hollywood played a significant role in fostering countercultural sentiment. Films like Pleasantville, The Truman Show, Gattaca, The Matrix, and American Beauty—all released in quick succession—explored themes of rebelling against societal structures, questioning reality, and breaking free from oppressive systems. These films, often marketed toward younger, more impressionable audiences, reinforced the idea that the world as we knew it was manufactured, inauthentic, and in need of disruption.

It raises an interesting question: Were these films simply a reflection of the era’s collective anxieties, or were they purposely introduced into society as a means of influencing how young people perceived authority, identity, and structure? The speed at which these films were produced and the similarities in their messaging suggest a pattern—one that makes it difficult to dismiss the possibility of intentional design, not just in the films themselves, but in how and when they were introduced into culture. This shift, from using Hollywood as a vehicle to encourage questioning of systems to today’s more prescriptive cultural narratives, marks a significant transformation in how rebellion is shaped and directed.

The education system plays a crucial role in shaping young minds. Traditionally, schools have focused on imparting academic knowledge and preparing students for the future. However, there is a growing trend of introducing discussions about gender identity at increasingly younger ages. While promoting inclusivity is important, there is concern that such topics may be introduced prematurely, diverting attention from academic pursuits and personal development.

For instance, some elementary schools have implemented curricula that teach young children about complex concepts like being non-binary. While the intention is to foster understanding and respect, critics argue that these discussions may confuse children who are not yet developmentally ready to process such information. Moreover, these topics can switch focus away from essential academic subjects, potentially impacting students' proficiency in core areas necessary for their future in a rapidly changing world.

Beyond the academic concerns, it is simply not ethical to place such profound existential questions onto impressionable young minds that have never had a moment to exercise real self-reflection. Childhood and adolescence should be a time of exploration, creativity, and growth—not an age where one is expected to define themselves in absolute terms before they have even fully lived. Schools should be places of learning, not ideological battlegrounds where students are encouraged to question fundamental aspects of their identity before they have the life experience to do so thoughtfully.

Ironically, by pushing for increasingly fragmented gender categories, society is reinforcing the very binary thinking it claims to reject. Labeling individuals as "non-binary" still operates within the framework of categorization—an attempt to define identity through exclusion rather than expansion. In essence, the insistence on categorizing identity does not dismantle rigid structures but instead reconfigures them into new ones, with the same emphasis on classification. The rejection of traditional gender binaries has, paradoxically, led to a proliferation of labels, each of which serves as another box in which young people are expected to fit.

If the role of shaping personal identity is removed from the family and placed in the hands of external institutions, it shifts parenting responsibilities to the state. This is a dangerous precedent, as it allows external ideologies to shape young minds rather than letting children develop naturally under the guidance of their families. Parents are meant to be the primary figures helping their children navigate their emotions, beliefs, and values—not educators who are following politically influenced curricula.

Today's rebellion is increasingly shaped by the pharmaceutical industry and corporate media. In the past, expressing oneself required effort—forming a band, participating in protests, or creating art. Now, rebellion is often medicalized, with solutions as simple as obtaining a prescription for antidepressants, anxiety medication, or hormone therapy. This accessibility means that instead of navigating the complexities of adolescence over time, many young people are presented with quick, irreversible solutions.

The pharmaceutical industry has recognized and capitalized on this trend. By promoting medical interventions as pathways to self-discovery and authenticity, they have turned personal identity into a commodity. This raises ethical questions about the role of corporations in influencing deeply personal decisions and the long-term implications for individuals who make irreversible choices at a young age.

Furthermore, it is deeply troubling that young people, who have yet to experience real introspection, are being burdened with existential dilemmas that most adults struggle to fully comprehend. At a time when their greatest concerns should be learning, developing skills, and figuring out their place in the world, they are instead being encouraged to wrestle with profound questions about their identity, often without the necessary maturity or perspective to process them healthily. These are burdens they should not have to carry so early in life.

Beyond the pharmaceutical industry, other external entities have recognized the power of influencing youth culture as a means of achieving broader objectives. For instance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been involved in initiatives that, while ostensibly promoting arts and culture, also serve to shape societal values and norms.

A notable example is USAID's reported attempt to infiltrate Cuba's underground hip-hop movement to spark youth unrest and promote democratic values. This initiative aimed to leverage the influence of music and culture to inspire a pro-democracy sentiment among Cuban youth. While the goal of promoting democracy is laudable, the method raises questions about the ethics of manipulating cultural expression for geopolitical purposes.

Similar patterns can be observed in other countries. For example, heavy metal and alternative music are becoming more prominent in countries like Indonesia, where conservative values have traditionally dominated. By strategically introducing countercultural influences into societies with different historical and religious foundations, external entities can indirectly reshape national identities and social structures.

Not all teenagers fall into easily defined groups. Some navigate adolescence without fully identifying with a particular subculture. These are the individuals who maintain a sense of integrity, who remain in control of their identity rather than being steered by external influences.

The most radical act of rebellion today is simply being yourself—not the version that the media, corporations, or institutions want you to be, but the version that is found through faith, family, and genuine self-reflection.

Teenage rebellion has always existed. But in the past, it was something that could be grown out of—a phase that shaped but did not define a person’s entire life. Today, rebellion has become something permanent, with the pharmaceutical industry and external institutions playing a key role in facilitating identity transformation.

At its core, this is a battle for ownership—ownership over identity. Those who resist the pressures of media and consumer culture are the ones who truly own themselves.