Now  I know I've made a thread similar to this a year ago and I know some people here may be thinking "Oh no not this again!", but I just feel inclined to bring this discussion up. Why is it when I come on this forum and read different generation threads do I always see people referring to my birth year(1991)  being labeled as late Y as opposed to Peak Y or I am always grouped into a cohort along with older people?  I'd really like to know this because I have even heard people imply that my coming of age decade was the 2010s when that is completely false. The decade I truly came of age in was the 2000s and most of my pop culture experiences come out of the late 90s and the 2000s. I don't think the 2010s really have all that much of an influence on me being that for almost all the decade I will be I my 20s and outlook on the world has pretty much been set in stone before the 2010s hit. I really need to know why people here seem to think us born in 1991 can't have anything in common with birth years that are older and always see us as being more in line culturally with younger cohorts? For example I noticed people are much quicker to group more with 95ers than they are with  87ers and I just couldn't understand why. Please let me know this because this whole thing is really starting to depress me now, especially knowing the fact that I relate very strongly with 80s born cohorts. Please give me your input on this guys and keep it serious and no jokes because I really need to know.

Now  I know I've made a thread similar to this a year ago and I know some people here may be thinking "Oh no not this again!", but I just feel inclined to bring this discussion up. Why is it when I come on this forum and read different generation threads do I always see people referring to my birth year(1991)  being labeled as late Y as opposed to Peak Y or I am always grouped into a cohort along with older people?  I'd really like to know this because I have even heard people imply that my coming of age decade was the 2010s when that is completely false. The decade I truly came of age in was the 2000s and most of my pop culture experiences come out of the late 90s and the 2000s. I don't think the 2010s really have all that much of an influence on me being that for almost all the decade I will be I my 20s and outlook on the world has pretty much been set in stone before the 2010s hit. I really need to know why people here seem to think us born in 1991 can't have anything in common with birth years that are older and always see us as being more in line culturally with younger cohorts? For example I noticed people are much quicker to group more with 95ers than they are with  87ers and I just couldn't understand why. Please let me know this because this whole thing is really starting to depress me now, especially knowing the fact that I relate very strongly with 80s born cohorts. Please give me your input on this guys and keep it serious and no jokes because I really need to know.
I think it's because there hasn't been a conclusion to when Y begins/ends. As for right now, there are starting dates early as 1977 and late as 1985 while the end is early as 1990 and late as 2004. One day, this will come to an end and we'll finally know when Y starts and finishes.

As for being lumped, it's clear that you can relate those born in the 80s more than the rest of the 90s. Your childhood took place in the 90s and adolescence in the 2000s. In addition, you're in your mid 20s,  have most likely been out of college for 1 or 2 years and that you remember a time before 9/11 and possibly the internet boom. Oh one more thing, I have encountered a few others who were in the same position as you and they were also tired of being lumped with those born in the late 90s and they were all the same age range as you

I made a thread about your issue almost 2 years ago and there have been lots of responses. I will link it down below for you to check it out.

http://personalitycafe.com/generations/177479-being-born-beginning-decade.html

Now  I know I've made a thread similar to this a year ago and I know some people here may be thinking "Oh no not this again!", but I just feel inclined to bring this discussion up. Why is it when I come on this forum and read different generation threads do I always see people referring to my birth year(1991)  being labeled as late Y as opposed to Peak Y or I am always grouped into a cohort along with older people?  I'd really like to know this because I have even heard people imply that my coming of age decade was the 2010s when that is completely false. The decade I truly came of age in was the 2000s and most of my pop culture experiences come out of the late 90s and the 2000s. I don't think the 2010s really have all that much of an influence on me being that for almost all the decade I will be I my 20s and outlook on the world has pretty much been set in stone before the 2010s hit. I really need to know why people here seem to think us born in 1991 can't have anything in common with birth years that are older and always see us as being more in line culturally with younger cohorts? For example I noticed people are much quicker to group more with 95ers than they are with  87ers and I just couldn't understand why. Please let me know this because this whole thing is really starting to depress me now, especially knowing the fact that I relate very strongly with 80s born cohorts. Please give me your input on this guys and keep it serious and no jokes because I really need to know.


Iḿ not trying to kiss your butt, or make you feel better  ;D , but I do consider you peak Y. But thatś just me. To me, 1987 too roughly 1992, is peak Y. Especially 1988 to 1990!

Now  I know I've made a thread similar to this a year ago and I know some people here may be thinking "Oh no not this again!", but I just feel inclined to bring this discussion up. Why is it when I come on this forum and read different generation threads do I always see people referring to my birth year(1991)  being labeled as late Y as opposed to Peak Y or I am always grouped into a cohort along with older people?  I'd really like to know this because I have even heard people imply that my coming of age decade was the 2010s when that is completely false. The decade I truly came of age in was the 2000s and most of my pop culture experiences come out of the late 90s and the 2000s. I don't think the 2010s really have all that much of an influence on me being that for almost all the decade I will be I my 20s and outlook on the world has pretty much been set in stone before the 2010s hit. I really need to know why people here seem to think us born in 1991 can't have anything in common with birth years that are older and always see us as being more in line culturally with younger cohorts? For example I noticed people are much quicker to group more with 95ers than they are with  87ers and I just couldn't understand why. Please let me know this because this whole thing is really starting to depress me now, especially knowing the fact that I relate very strongly with 80s born cohorts. Please give me your input on this guys and keep it serious and no jokes because I really need to know.


1991 is definitely Peak Y. As I've mentioned on here many times, I have a younger born in 1991, and I have always considered him to be part of the same cohort as myself. Growing up, we were into mostly the same cartoons, video games, music, movies, fads, etc. even though I'm four years older. I can remember the mid '90s better than he can, but that's hardly a big deal. With '91ers being the last class to graduate in the 2000's, though, they are undeniably within the peak of Gen Y.

I agree that 1987-1992-borns are peak Y.

I was born in 1985 but identify more with millennials than I do Generation X.  I can hang with somebody born in 1991 and they will feel like my peer for the most part with a few differences.

I agree that 1987-1992-borns are peak Y.

I was born in 1985 but identify more with millennials than I do Generation X.  I can hang with somebody born in 1991 and they will feel like my peer for the most part with a few differences.


'85ers are interesting. Definitely Millennials, but on the early side of the generation, and I've even seen some sources (such as Wikipedia years ago) list 1985 as being the last birth year of the X/Y "Cusp". You guys were the last age group to start high school in the '90s, which should count for something, and were certainly old enough in the mid '90s to have been into some late Xer stuff like first-wave Post Grunge.

I actually went to high school myself with a lot of you guys in my freshman and sophomore years, and I was mostly into same types of music (at my school, Pop-Punk and Nu Metal). The big difference would be that kids my age were more likely to be into mid '00s Peak Y trends like Emo than the average '85er would probably be.

'85ers are interesting. Definitely Millennials, but on the early side of the generation, and I've even seen some sources (such as Wikipedia years ago) list 1985 as being the last birth year of the X/Y "Cusp". You guys were the last age group to start high school in the '90s, which should count for something, and were certainly old enough in the mid '90s to have been into some late Xer stuff like first-wave Post Grunge.

I actually went to high school myself with a lot of you guys in my freshman and sophomore years, and I was mostly into same types of music (at my school, Pop-Punk and Nu Metal). The big difference would be that kids my age were more likely to be into mid '00s Peak Y trends like Emo than the average '85er would probably be.


I started 9th grade in 2000, not 1999.  I was not into grunge.  I discovered first-wave post-grunge in recent years and like it, but in the '90s I didn't.  My '90s music that I listened to at the time was mostly euro-dance, ballads, and country.

I agree that people my age were probably less likely to be emo than somebody born in 87.  There were some though.  Most of my friends during college were 2-3 years younger than me so while I was born in 1985, I identify more with true millennials.

Iḿ not trying to kiss your butt, or make you feel better  ;D , but I do consider you peak Y. But thatś just me. To me, 1987 too roughly 1992, is peak Y. Especially 1988 to 1990!
Its funny you say that because in another thread you said that those born in 1991 and after are late Y.
1991 is definitely Peak Y. As I've mentioned on here many times, I have a younger born in 1991, and I have always considered him to be part of the same cohort as myself. Growing up, we were into mostly the same cartoons, video games, music, movies, fads, etc. even though I'm four years older. I can remember the mid '90s better than he can, but that's hardly a big deal. With '91ers being the last class to graduate in the 2000's, though, they are undeniably within the peak of Gen Y.
Yeah that's exactly what I always thought being that both 87ers and 91ers spent most of their adolescence in the 2000s whereas 95ers spent more adolescence in the 2010s, with that said I have a question regarding your personal opinion about 95ers. Do you see 95ers as relating culturally more to 99ers than to 91ers culturally when it comes to overall adolescence  experience? I'm kind of curious to hear how you feel about them.

I always thought late 80's babies were the peak of Generation Y.

I always thought late 80's babies were the peak of Generation Y.

Yep, late 80s and VERY early 90s babies(1990/91) are definitely peak Y!

I started 9th grade in 2000, not 1999.  I was not into grunge.  I discovered first-wave post-grunge in recent years and like it, but in the '90s I didn't.  My '90s music that I listened to at the time was mostly euro-dance, ballads, and country.

I agree that people my age were probably less likely to be emo than somebody born in 87.  There were some though.  Most of my friends during college were 2-3 years younger than me so while I was born in 1985, I identify more with true millennials.

Well, I think he was trying to say that you guys and 86ers as well, were the last to become teens in the 90s. And graduated college before the changeful 08-09 school year. Those are some Early Y characteristics I guess.

Also, you only discovered first wave post grunge in recent years? ???

Do you see 95ers as relating culturally more to 99ers than to 91ers culturally when it comes to overall adolescence  experience? I'm kind of curious to hear how you feel about them.

Well when it comes to childhood years, definitely 1991ers, but adolescent years is a different story. I'm 4 years older and 4 years younger than both birth years.  :o  I'm completely undecided on that for now, maybe I need to hear machine's thoughts!

I agree that 1987-1992-borns are peak Y.

I was born in 1985 but identify more with millennials than I do Generation X.  I can hang with somebody born in 1991 and they will feel like my peer for the most part with a few differences.


I'd agree that 1987-1991 are peak Y. However 1992 is a bit iffy. You could say that they are peak Y, but they still have characteristics of late Y, while 1993 is late Y with core Y characteristics. Another way to look at it is, those born in the first half of 1992 are core Y, while those born in the second half of 1992 are late Y. Overall though, those born anytime from 1992-1994, have characteristics of both core and late Y. There's no way 1992 is completely core Y.

Its funny you say that because in another thread you said that those born in 1991 and after are late Y.Yeah that's exactly what I always thought being that both 87ers and 91ers spent most of their adolescence in the 2000s whereas 95ers spent more adolescence in the 2010s, with that said I have a question regarding your personal opinion about 95ers. Do you see 95ers as relating culturally more to 99ers than to 91ers culturally when it comes to overall adolescence  experience? I'm kind of curious to hear how you feel about them.


I probably did. I changed my mind.

Yeah that's exactly what I always thought being that both 87ers and 91ers spent most of their adolescence in the 2000s whereas 95ers spent more adolescence in the 2010s, with that said I have a question regarding your personal opinion about 95ers. Do you see 95ers as relating culturally more to 99ers than to 91ers culturally when it comes to overall adolescence  experience? I'm kind of curious to hear how you feel about them.



Well when it comes to childhood years, definitely 1991ers, but adolescent years is a different story. I'm 4 years older and 4 years younger than both birth years.  :o  I'm completely undecided on that for now, maybe I need to hear machine's thoughts!


Ask, and ye shall receive... ;)

To tell you the truth, though, I'm not really sure if this question can be answered right now. After all, 1995ers are in college, whereas 1999ers are still in high school, so I think it's natural for '95ers to feel more "adult", and thus closer to '91ers. I know that when I was 16, kids born in 1982 or 1983 seemed way older than me, but these days I can relate to them very well for the most part.

Having said all that, I am, at the moment, more inclined to say that '95ers are closer culturally to '91ers than '99ers, but only by a slight bit. Obviously, '95ers and '91ers both shared similar childhood experiences in the early '00s, and '95ers would've just been coming into their own musically around 2005, the same time that '91ers were entering high school. The main differences I see between '95ers and '99ers is that '95ers would have very clear memories of early '00s and a time before the internet became a vital part of the average person's everyday life. On the other hand, '99ers would have very few memories of the days before online video streaming, social media and iTunes changed the way we consume media.

It's really all a matter of degrees when talking about this kind of stuff. '91ers are Peak Y and '95ers are not, but '95ers are, to me, undeniably part of Late Y, while most sources peg '99ers as part of the early wave of Gen Z. For that reason alone (and the fact that most '95ers did at least start high school in '00s) I'd lean '95ers more in the direction of '91ers. We'll just have to see how '99ers stack up culturally in about four or five years to get a full picture, though.

Well, I think he was trying to say that you guys and 86ers as well, were the last to become teens in the 90s. And graduated college before the changeful 08-09 school year. Those are some Early Y characteristics I guess.

I see what you are saying.  The first election I voted in was Bush v. Kerry.  Most core millennials were not able to vote until the 2008 election when they supported Obama.  With that said, I graduated college into the recession so I can identify with core millennials on that aspect.



Also, you only discovered first wave post grunge in recent years? ???


Yeah...I didn't really get fully into pop music until 1999.  I knew what was popular and liked some popular songs in the mid 90s, but I wasn't into it to the extent I was in 1999 and afterwards.  Most of the CDs I listened to at that time were not what was currently popular.

This is a first world problem if I've ever seen one. Why would you get depressed over this?

This is a first world problem if I've ever seen one. Why would you get depressed over this?


I agree completely. It's one thing to make a point. But to be depressed about birth years, is a little bit weird. No offense to the OP, but he's becoming a bit obsessive about this.

Ask, and ye shall receive... ;)

To tell you the truth, though, I'm not really sure if this question can be answered right now. After all, 1995ers are in college, whereas 1999ers are still in high school, so I think it's natural for '95ers to feel more "adult", and thus closer to '91ers. I know that when I was 16, kids born in 1982 or 1983 seemed way older than me, but these days I can relate to them very well for the most part.

Having said all that, I am, at the moment, more inclined to say that '95ers are closer culturally to '91ers than '99ers, but only by a slight bit. Obviously, '95ers and '91ers both shared similar childhood experiences in the early '00s, and '95ers would've just been coming into their own musically around 2005, the same time that '91ers were entering high school. The main differences I see between '95ers and '99ers is that '95ers would have very clear memories of early '00s and a time before the internet became a vital part of the average person's everyday life. On the other hand, '99ers would have very few memories of the days before online video streaming, social media and iTunes changed the way we consume media.

It's really all a matter of degrees when talking about this kind of stuff. '91ers are Peak Y and '95ers are not, but '95ers are, to me, undeniably part of Late Y, while most sources peg '99ers as part of the early wave of Gen Z. For that reason alone (and the fact that most '95ers did at least start high school in '00s) I'd lean '95ers more in the direction of '91ers. We'll just have to see how '99ers stack up culturally in about four or five years to get a full picture, though.
I certainly respect your open, but I think when it comes to adolescent and overall growing up experience a 91er is closer culturally to an 87er than a 95er due to the fact that we have spent most of our adolescence in the 2000s decade, and while 95ers may have begun high school in the 2000s, culture at the time was leaning more towards a 2010s feel than it was 2000s so 95ers really have no 2000s cultural high school experience, but as you said I do think it may still be a bit early to make a call on this and would have to wait until 99ers come out of high school
This is a first world problem if I've ever seen one. Why would you get depressed over this?
Well not severely depresses but a little stressed out and the reason it bothers me so much is because people have made outright ridiculous claims about us 91' borns and have grouped us with those born in the second half of the 90s, I mean it is insanity to think that a 91er has more in common culturally with somebody born in 1995/1996 than somebody born in 1989/1990 I mean if you have an 89er and a 95er I am definitely going to feel more amongst a fellow peer with an 89er, could be said with 91ers in comparison with 90ers and 96ers. I know this may sound a little silly but this 90s kid and a claim to being peak Y holds strong value to me personally. I couldn' think of anything worse than to be late Y(no offense to late Yers) or even worse YZ cusp. I don't have any gen Z traits at all and wouldn't like anybody suggesting to me that I have any.

I respect your open, but I think when it comes to adolescent and overall growing up experience a 91er is closer culturally to an 87er than a 95er due to the fact that we have spent most of our adolescence in the 2000s decade, and while 95ers may have begun high school in the 2000s, culture at the time was leaning more towards a 2010s feel than it was 2000s so 95ers really have no 2000s cultural high school experience, but as you said I do think it may still be a bit early to make a call on this and would have to wait until 99ers come out of high schoolWell not severely depresses but  a little stressed out and the reason it bothers me so much is because people have made outright ridiculous claims about us 91' borns and have grouped us with those born in the second half of the 90s, I mean it is insanity to think that a 91er has more in common culturally with somebody born in 1995/1996 than somebody born in 1989/1990 I mean if you have an 89er and a 95er I am definitely going to feel more amongst a fellow peer with an 89er, could be said with 91ers in comparison with 90ers and 96ers. I know this may sound a little silly but this 90s kid and a claim to being peak Y holds strong value to me personally. I couldn' think of anything worse than to be late Y(no offense to late Yers) or even worse YZ cusp. I don't have any gen Z traits at all and wouldn't like anybody suggesting to me that I have any.


From what I've seen, literally no one on this forum has claimed that 91ers have more in common with 95/96ers than they do 89/90ers. That doesn't even make sense mathematically. You're just making stuff up at this point. We all know 91ers have more in common with 89ers. And yes, it is silly to hold so much importance to being a "90s kid" or "peak Y". And there's nothing wrong with being "late Y". I was born in 1993, so I would technically be late Y (if you want to get pedantic). At the end of the day, you don't have to let your generational grouping define you. Be who you want to be, but if you really want people to take you seriously, you need to stop this crazy obsession. Some people may agree or disagree with you. That's what we call opinions. I used to be bothered that people constantly put 1992 and 1993 in separate groups. But I realized that I had to accept other people's opinions. Some people (very few, mind you), may think there's no significant difference between the childhoods of 1991ers or 1995ers. You don't have to take their opinions to heart.

From what I've seen, literally no one on this forum has claimed that 91ers have more in common with 95/96ers than they do 89/90ers. That doesn't even make sense mathematically. You're just making stuff up at this point. We all know 91ers have more in common with 89ers. And yes, it is silly to hold so much importance to being a "90s kid" or "peak Y". And there's nothing wrong with being "late Y". I was born in 1993, so I would technically be late Y (if you want to get pedantic). At the end of the day, you don't have to let your generational grouping define you. Be who you want to be, but if you really want people to take you seriously, you need to stop this crazy obsession. Some people may agree or disagree with you. That's what we call opinions. I used to be bothered that people constantly put 1992 and 1993 in separate groups. But I realized that I had to accept other people's opinions. Some people (very few, mind you), may think there's no significant difference between the childhoods of 1991ers or 1995ers. You don't have to take their opinions to heart.
Well they didn't say it directly, but they have implied it. They are always trying to cut us 91ers off completely from those born in the late 80s as if we're some completely different generation. I remember a year ago a girl named unconventional99 on this site had told me that even 90ers are culturally different from 91ers and can only relate to people younger born further on in the 90s and there was also an individual here named Inlandsvagen1986 who I don't think comes on this sight anymore had accused people born in 1991 for mistaking the first half of the 2000s for being the same as the 90s which is complete RUBISH! I for one knew that the 90s decade were much more than just teen pop, Britany Spears, Pokemon, etc and I actually can remember a time before pop culture became dominated by that type of culture but yet people try to  tell me otherwise. That's what I am really fed up with.

Well they didn't say it directly, but they have implied it. They are always trying to cut us 91ers off completely from those born in the late 80s as if we're some completely different generation. I remember a year ago a girl named unconventional99 on this site had told me that even 90ers are culturally different from 91ers and can only relate to people younger born further on in the 90s and there was also an individual here named Inlandsvagen1986 who I don't think comes on this sight anymore had accused people born in 1991 for mistaking the first half of the 2000s for being the same as the 90s which is complete RUBISH! I for one knew that the 90s decade were much more than just teen pop, Britany Spears, Pokemon, etc and I actually can remember a time before pop culture became dominated by that type of culture but yet people try to  tell me otherwise. That's what I am really fed up with.


Perhaps there may have been a couple of people who separate 91ers from those born in the late 80s. However, it seems like the majority of people in this forum, go as far as grouping 92ers with those born in the late 80s (which I don't completely agree with, but whatever). I actually see more people grouping those in 1993 (such as myself) with those born later in the 90s. I'm often grouped with people born in 1996/1997, while those born merely a year earlier are group with people born as early as 1988. I even saw one person grouping 93ers with those born in 1999, but you don't see me complaining about it. I don't completely agree with these posters, however I have to accept their opinions. In your case, you have less reason to complain, because most people support your opinion. It seems like most people (including yourself) believe in crossing the line between 92 and 93. I don't really share the same opinion, which puts me in the minority. If I don't care what the majority on this site believe, you shouldn't care about what the small minority believe.

Perhaps there may have been a couple of people who separate 91ers from those born in the late 80s. However, it seems like the majority of people in this forum, go as far as grouping 92ers with those born in the late 80s (which I don't completely agree with, but whatever). I actually see more people grouping those in 1993 (such as myself) with those born later in the 90s. I'm often grouped with people born in 1996/1997, while those born merely a year earlier are group with people born as early as 1988. I even saw one person grouping 93ers with those born in 1999, but you don't see me complaining about it. I don't completely agree with these posters, however I have to accept their opinions. In your case, you have less reason to complain, because most people support your opinion. It seems like most people (including yourself) believe in crossing the line between 92 and 93. I don't really share the same opinion, which puts me in the minority. If I don't care what the majority on this site believe, you shouldn't care about what the small minority believe.


Yeah, that's the reason that I believe the whole concept of grouping people based on birth years is somewhat pointless (even though I am admittedly guilty of doing it from time to time).

From my experience, the people that you are going to have the absolute most in common with are those born within about two years of you either way. These are, after all, the kids you went to school with, and most likely the ones in your neighborhood that you grew up hanging out with. For me, I can relate fairly well to kids born as early as 1983 and as late as 1991, but those born from 1985-1989 are the ones I feel that I had the closest childhood/adolescent experiences to.

Now  I know I've made a thread similar to this a year ago and I know some people here may be thinking "Oh no not this again!", but I just feel inclined to bring this discussion up. Why is it when I come on this forum and read different generation threads do I always see people referring to my birth year(1991)  being labeled as late Y as opposed to Peak Y or I am always grouped into a cohort along with older people?  I'd really like to know this because I have even heard people imply that my coming of age decade was the 2010s when that is completely false. The decade I truly came of age in was the 2000s and most of my pop culture experiences come out of the late 90s and the 2000s. I don't think the 2010s really have all that much of an influence on me being that for almost all the decade I will be I my 20s and outlook on the world has pretty much been set in stone before the 2010s hit. I really need to know why people here seem to think us born in 1991 can't have anything in common with birth years that are older and always see us as being more in line culturally with younger cohorts? For example I noticed people are much quicker to group more with 95ers than they are with  87ers and I just couldn't understand why. Please let me know this because this whole thing is really starting to depress me now, especially knowing the fact that I relate very strongly with 80s born cohorts. Please give me your input on this guys and keep it serious and no jokes because I really need to know.

If you identify more with 80's born people, then identify with that group! In my book it's still very much Y and not at all cusp with Z. You'd be in your mid 20's now, so while that's still youthful it's not barely out of the teen years level like what 95 born people are. It's really not something to worry about.