I have noticed that a lot of LGBTQ+ advocates are strongly opposed to any insinuation that being queer is a choice, largely due to right-wing rhetoric from the 80’s and 90’s that homosexuality was a “lifestyle choice”, an argument that aimed to establish queerness as a willful act that could be restricted and punished. I 100% disagree with this characterization of queerness, as one absolutely has no power to simply choose not to be queer. We cannot choose our attractions, we must be allowed to explore our desires and make the most of them. We have a fundamental right to pursue happiness.
But that right is rooted in our ability to make choices. What else is freedom than the right to choose? Marriage rights include the right to marry the person of our choosing. Sexual freedom includes the right to have consensual sex with people of our choosing.
Without choice, we don’t have freedom.
And yet today, even though we are mostly past the generic “harmful lifestyle” arguments of decades past, people will still reflexively reject any narrative that enshrines choice as a fundamental right as it relates to gender and sexuality.
This prevents us from making some of the most universal and compelling pro-LGBT arguments we could make.
Instead of letting the narrative that banning gay marriage only affects gay people, we can properly argue that banning gay marriage means that the government is taking away ~50% of your choices for marriage. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight, the point should be that the government wants as say in who you choose to marry.
Instead of letting the narrative be that banning being trans only affects trans people, we can properly argue that banning being trans means that the government is taking away your choice in how to dress or present yourself. It doesn’t matter if you’re trans or cis, the point should be that the government wants a say in how you dress, or what kind of makeup, if any, you’re allowed to wear - or they want control over your healthcare choices.
Bisexual and genderfluid people exist entirely on flexible choice, and despite the rhetoric that everyone is born with a lifelong sexuality, plenty of people have experienced changes in their sexuality over the course of their lives that strongly invalidates this notion that sexuality is static and inflexible. Sexuality exists on a spectrum and can be very fluid.
Choice is fundamental to freedom, so it is a shame that when fighting for freedom for LGBTQ+ people, we often reject the importance of choice.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, message received. I wasn’t aware that my opinion was so popular. I’ll post something less popular next time.
It seems like the productive discussion has run its course, and OP seems to be finished with it. Locking post.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing but there’s surely an issue when the focus shifts from “Queer people exists and have legitimates rights that need to be addressed” to “let’s make everything free so that even queer people can find their space, maybe”.
A government that doesn’t concern itself with anything (but the defense of rights the like of private property) is not necessarily as appealing as one may think.
deleted by creator
That’s not really my take, nor yours is being brought up by you here for the first time in the history of political science.
Like I said, of course I see the appeal of that stance, and it may be, especially while pressed by very real active oppression of these day and age, a great leap forward for society, but, ultimately, such a government is not the expression of a dynamic society that shape a just society, it’s an impersonal government that ultimately doesn’t care about what’s going on.
deleted by creator
That’s a libertarian stance. It has a long and strong tradition and it’s generally vilified on Lemmy because, in short, it’s a stance that plays right into the hands of glorifying the status quo. Of course it can theoretically applied in certain context and not in others, but overall is… idealist and unconcerned with practical struggles: The enry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
A bunch of practical issues close to my heart are the following. What goes on state television? What gets taught in school? What does the country do with taxes? Are taxes even meant to be a thing? Who represents the weak?
So, the argument me and others are making is, framing something that’s not a choice as a choice to leverage the need for more freedom is the kind of thing that leads to the freedom for your child to be taught the kind of history you think is proper, and that’s usually bad because people are dumb.
“Queer people exists and have legitimates rights that need to be addressed” to “let’s make everything free so that even queer people can find their space, maybe”.
Yeah to me this sounds kinda like the All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter argument.
Choice implies that you can trick yourself into/decide not to be queer and still have a fulfilled life. But you can’t because being queer is a part of yourself and by denying it you deny yourself.
deleted by creator
You’re missing their point. Being queer is not a choice, the actions you take based on that aspect of yourself might be, but the core motivation for those actions is not. Framing queerness around the idea of choice can bring more harm than good as the nuance of what’s being chosen gets lost.
The LGBTQ movement is not looking for freedom, that is (in theory) enshrined in the constitution. Instead it is looking for equal treatment and equality under the law. People don’t want to be “allowed to chose” people want to be treated just like everyone else.
deleted by creator
There is certainly a problem with how anti-queer legislation is presumed to only effect queer people, leaving cishets completely safe from the consequences. I guarantee, though, that if (for example) a trans bathroom ban goes into effect you’re going to have cis women getting harassed constantly when trying to use the bathroom.
Not sure if that has anything to do with “choice” though.
deleted by creator
Coming out the closet isn’t a choice but it is a decision, we have to decide to live. The choice is to come out or commit suicide.
That’s not really a choice.
But, I think the argument “being queer is not a choice” was already won. Everyone essentially agrees with that part, even the right.
The disagreement is whether it’s nature or nurture - are we born this way or made this way? That’s why these days the right believes we’re groomed in becoming queer and woke by the Antichrist cult of pedophiles from the Department of Education, the American Federation of Teachers, and Disney. So yes, arguing about whether it is or is not a choice is actually missing the point because we’re at the point where they want to purge society to save their children from the woke mind virus.
But, it’s still not a choice.
deleted by creator
The unpopular component here is the inconsistent use of ‘choice’. Same word, wildly different applications.
The ‘choice’ in regards to a state of being: ‘choosing to be gay’.
Vesus:
The ‘choice’ in regards to a decision made in life: ‘getting married’, or ‘engaging in a (sexual) relationship with someone(s)’.
Those are whole orders of magnitude different. One presupposes rights. The other does not.
deleted by creator
Humoring the bigots
People don’t have patience for that sort of thing, as it cedes the notion a demonstrably wrong and bigoted perception deserve to be humored.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t seem like a single comment you made in this thread was operating on that spirit of nuanced conversation since everyone else’s comment is pointing out an important nuance you missed with the original opinion. The way you’ve reacted to that is in public display, so whatever.
I’m pretty sure your heart is in the right place, but your argument is a little confusing.
The first paragraph clearly states that you believe sexual attraction is not a choice, and yet your argument is that “it’s not a choice” is counter-productive.
If I understand it correctly, you’re basically saying to re-frame the “it is a choice” narrative into something that affects straight people who oppose LGBT+ rights because they believe it is a choice that can be made?
e.g. If you’re straight and then one day “choose” to be gay, but LGBT+ rights have been abolished, then the government has taken away your right to choose?
If I’m understanding correctly, all other points aside, it may be too confusing to have any good/meaningful impact.
I think a better way they could have phrased it is “it’s not a choice, but even if it was it wouldn’t matter”
To be fair to OP, I didn’t even think of phrasing it that way when I was trying to parse it.
That’s a lot better put.
Interesting argument.
I’ll counter by saying the demonization of liberalism was intentional, though, and many Americans want to deprive liberty and freedom at a very fundamental level. I think many of them know this, and simply lie about it when asked, because it is a very difficult to defend position. Their lines about supporting freedom are a form of virtue signaling, and they know this.
This is why small-govt types have been pushed out of the republican party, it was done with awareness and intentionality. They want no libertarians within their leadership ranks, but are more than willing to simply tell libertarians what they want to hear while acting in other ways.
Libertarians noticing this is why Trump got broadly heckled at the libertarian convention this year.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, message received. I wasn’t aware that my opinion was so popular. I’ll post something less popular next time.
i was wonder who you pissed off before reading the entirety of your posts because of the negative downvotes. i usually only see that on lemmy.world when someone posts anything pejorative about biden.
the federal government attempted to use arguments like your in enforcing title 9 related issues; but it’s proven to be a losing strategy legally and you’re seeing that it’s not popular socially either.
you’re not wrong, but cis-heteronormativity rules this world and so long they’re still in charge and sexual minorities continue to be heavily influenced by it; this paradigm is not going to shift.
