I read this as well intentioned but ultimately poor reasoning. Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for. Sexual orientation, race, disabilities, gender, appearance etc. These seem like important issues to get right on civic protections.
Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong. We certainly don't want to ensure someone's right to be a homophobic asshole in a workplace for example. And it's not as simple as just saying being LGBTQ is a private thing that doesn't affect others either. Trans bathroom rights, marriage license rights, adoption rights, etc.. The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice. If homosexuality is perceived as a choice, then onlookers will wonder who influenced someone to make a choice to be gay, which muddies the perception of being gay being a personal private thing.
Homophobia is bad, but wishing it weren't a thing doesn't change the reasoning that intrinsic qualities are a lot more important to protect than choices.
Sexual orientation is more deserving of protection than, say, holocaust denialism. Religion is the only protected class that is a choice, but for many people, it's not so much a choice as an inherited identity and similarly fixed.
> Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for.
That's false though. Being intrinsically an asshole doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent people from being assholes. You have no more reason to believe that some people aren't intrinsically assholes, and that leads to the next part of my argument...
> Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong.
You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior. Homophobia is inherently anti-social. Queer sexuality is not. Murder and theft are anti-social. Sex with someone who looks like you is not.
> The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice.
No it isn't, because the argument to ban gay conversion camps is based on the fundamental principle of consent. That's why the predominant conversation is about _minors_ and _forced_ conversion therapy with additional important conversations about whether adults are able to consent to it.
> You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior.
I disagree. In a universe where being gay is a choice, there are many additional assumptions to be made that make that extend to effects on others besides yourself. I mentioned a few. I think the trans example is particularly salient, though uncomfortable.
> No it isn't, because the argument to ban gay conversion camps is based on the fundamental principle of consent. That's why the predominant conversation is about _forced_ conversion therapy with additional important conversations about whether adults are able to consent to it.
I disagree. The reason there are movements to ban them is that they're detrimental pseudo science with evidence of harm. There's plenty of alternative places to ship kids that they don't want to go to that we deal with. Religious camps and what not. In a world where being gay is 100% just a choice people make, gay conversion camps might still be ineffective, but at worst they're just trying to change someone's mind.
If you want to evaluate the ethics of accepting homosexuality if its a choice, you have to first center your world view in all of the side effects that entails. Which is annoying because a lot of them are also misinformed conservative talking points. But its not just people are instead having gay sex by choice and that's the only difference. Now there is a conversation to be had over how that choice is being made across society.
What we should respect it what is not harmful. Hate and homophobia are oppressive and destructive. People having sex is not. So some things deserve to be fought and limited whilst the other does not.
A group of people getting sex changes is arguably destructive if it's just due to a whim. Look at the suicide rates. In the real world where it's not a choice, I'd look to blame bigots for a lot of those suicide rates. In the world where it is completely a choice, I'd look to blame people who encouraged them along that path as the proximate cause.
That's a pretty gross perspective to write out, and I don't really want to write such things anymore, so I'll likely stop. But there's a perspective, and from what I casually observe, is a genuine concern among some more conservative leaning folks. People are concerned that young people are being pushed into harmful surgeries. To some dumb extent, they have a point if trans feelings are "just a choice". They have no point in reality, because it's not a choice.
> A group of people getting sex changes is arguably destructive if it's just due to a whim. Look at the suicide rates. In the real world where it's not a choice, I'd look to blame bigots for a lot of those suicide rates. In the world where it is completely a choice, I'd look to blame people who encouraged them along that path as the proximate cause.
Yes. In the present world unfortunately I don’t think we have lots of data to say either way, though it’s probably a combination of both. We should be tolerant, and also accept that not wanting to conform to gender stereotypes does not necessarily means that one needs to change sex, though sometimes it does.
> But there's a perspective, and from what I casually observe, is a genuine concern among some more conservative leaning folks. People are concerned that young people are being pushed into harmful surgeries.
I think that’s a very valid concern, considering the irreversibility of it and the potential harm. Being conservative is not in itself a bad thing: you can be conservative, empathetic and tolerant. There is no such excuse for homophobia, though, when there is no harm done to anyone.
In the INCORRECT alt world where being gay is a choice? The implication is that gay parents would demonstrate parenting that encourages gay children. spiraling into some stupid ideas about feedback loops which can't be supported by real world data because this isn't a real thing. The real world just can't be explained by plausible mechanics with homosexuality secretly being a choice without some fairly extreme side effects.
Imagining it were a choice has so many additional implications, which, while dumb, are genuine fears of some conservative worldviews, but I guess would be real problems. Frustrating, circuitous logic.
Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong. We certainly don't want to ensure someone's right to be a homophobic asshole in a workplace for example. And it's not as simple as just saying being LGBTQ is a private thing that doesn't affect others either. Trans bathroom rights, marriage license rights, adoption rights, etc.. The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice. If homosexuality is perceived as a choice, then onlookers will wonder who influenced someone to make a choice to be gay, which muddies the perception of being gay being a personal private thing.
Homophobia is bad, but wishing it weren't a thing doesn't change the reasoning that intrinsic qualities are a lot more important to protect than choices.
Sexual orientation is more deserving of protection than, say, holocaust denialism. Religion is the only protected class that is a choice, but for many people, it's not so much a choice as an inherited identity and similarly fixed.