Often people make generalizations that are highly inaccurate because they're based on exposure to, and awareness of, only a small number and variety of the group that they're generalizing about. The generalizations they make don't take into account, reflect or even acknowledge the actual variety within the group being generalized about. This is often true whether a person is generalizing about a group to which they themselves belong, or about others.

For example, when Joe Biden told Charlemagne Tha God "if you're not voting for me, you ain't black," Biden was generalizing that all black people in the US are of one mind politically. Which just isn't true, and I believe is a highly offensive thing to say about them. This generalization tells much more about Joe Biden's own prejudices and narrow-mindedness than about the political views of black Americans.

If you're making a text post about certain trends in society and you make mention of a trend/meme among a certain group,

My impression is that online & IRL people often make sweeping statements about "trends in society" as a whole when in fact they are speaking only of the small sliver of their own particular society that they are personally familiar with based on their own limited life experiences and narrow POV.

In fact, just using the term "trends in society" indicates a parochial perspective on the part of the person making the statement, coz after all the world is a very big place and there are many types of societies.

Which society does the statement-maker mean: American (US) society? Pakistani society? Japanese society? Ugandan society? Swedish society? Guatemalan society? French Canadian society? Bosnian Muslim society? US old-money WASP society? Ultra-orthodox Jewish (Haredi or frum) society?

Seems to me, when people make pronouncements about "trends in society" online what they often mean are "trends amongst the small group of people I grew up with in the particular place I come from/live in and I choose to pay attention to."

For example, in neuroscientist's Deborah Soh's recent book promoting sex stereotyping (which is inaccurately titled "The End of Gender"), she makes all sorts of generalizations about what all male and female humans innately believe, think and how we behave based on our biological sex - as well as many blanket generalizations about "human nature" and "feminism" - that indicate she doesn't get out much, has not travelled widely, doesn't read much about the world, is not well-versed in - or even superficially familiar with - fields like history and anthropology, knows very little/next to nothing about feminism and its history, and basically has never bothered to take any time to talk to or even consider persons different to herself (whether in age, place of origin/residence, life experiences, viewpoints and so on) and outside her own small social circle.

Soh similarly makes many generalizations about newborn babies and children, and how they behave and develop, yet her sweeping pronouncements are so off-base that it seems clear she has never intimately known, cared for or carefully observed any actual babies or children IRL. Reading her book, I got the distinct impression she lives in a very small bubble, socially and in terms of the ideas she's been exposed to and is open to considering - and that the grand, sweeping generalizations and pronouncements she makes about all humans, all men, all women, all babies and children across all cultures from the beginning of history are largely just projections of her own beliefs and prejudices.

Today's gender ideology in particular shows just how wildly inaccurate and just plain wrong many generalizations about the two sexes and human beings as a whole are, and it also shows the drawbacks and dangers of making unsubstantiated generalizations.

One of the basic tenets of today's gender ideology is the generalizing assertion that "everyone has a gender identity" and it is innate. But that's not true. As several sexologists in the field of gender identity have observed, most people on earth do not have "gender identity" - until very recently, the only people who claimed to have a "gender identity" were those people who want to be the opposite sex, or not to be of either sex. But now this tiny group of people is demanding that what they themselves experience must be taken as the general human experience that applies to everyone on earth, and it's bigoted and hateful to say "hey wait a second, what's true of you isn't necessarily true of all others."

What's more, gender ideology has become so unquestioningly embraced by many people in education, psychology, politics and the online world that children, teenagers and young adults whose minds are still developing are learning/being taught from an early age that "everyone has a gender identity" and a crucial task of becoming a fully-developed human with an "authentic self" is for each of us to decide/figure out what our own "gender identity" is, then proclaim it to the world, and expect and demand that the world "validate" it. This sort of BS foisted on the young has already caused great distress and done deep damage to many of the impressionable young people conned by it, through no fault of their own.

Gender identity propagandists also like to generalize that the gender identity they insist everyone has is not only in-born, but it's permanently fixed and will not change over time. But as we all know, that's not true either. A lot of people who cling fiercely to having a particular "gender identity" at one time in their life switch to a different one at another time, sometimes the next week, day or hour - and a lot of people grow out of their belief that they have a "gender identity" altogether.