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.
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.