Discussing Queerness
One of the more important topics I have not explored previously is queerness (LGBTQ+). First, and most importantly, there is no morally correct or incorrect position on this issue, so everything further will be just my opinion. Second, we need to explore why people are on one side of this issue or another. As with most political issues, it has to do with whether you value comfort and self-expression (EP) or survival and meaning (IM). I’ll use EP and IM abbreviations for simplicity of communication.
Naturally, those who believe that LGBTQ+ rights exist are more likely to value EP, and those who don’t are more likely to value IM, although there are some exceptions. Being a part of a queer community, you are muddying the “meaning” of your sex and going against what is biological or natural. Perhaps, even having IM values, you do understand that your sex doesn’t really “mean” anything, and sticking to biology or to what is natural is not right or moral, as nothing is. But even if you do understand that, perhaps to you, there will be something unsettling about people going against their biological imperatives, and you can proclaim that you just don’t like queerness and don’t care about the philosophy of it. This seems to be a growing position on the right.
On the other hand, if you have EP values, you are more likely to believe that it is somehow moral to allow for extended sexual freedoms and the ability to sexually express oneself. Again, if you are more sophisticated, you could update your position to “I would like people to express themselves sexually”. The advantage of this position is that it is more intuitive. Despite being literally less natural, it is about personal freedoms, and the adoption of a certain sexual identity does not impact other people. But, of course, it does.
For IM people, even seeing a person express themselves in what they consider an unnatural way is the EP equivalent of swallowing a worm – very unpleasant but not deadly or anything. Again, the advantage of the pro-LGBTQ+ position is that the negative utility caused by societal adoption of their position does not stem from actions or physical experiences, and therefore harder to identify and communicate. But the opponents of queer movement usually appeal to the damage done to children's health and psyche. A fun question to ask them is whether they are okay with adults publicly displaying their queer identity in spaces where there are no children – IM people will at least to themselves admit that it is not, in fact, okay. Again, any act of weird self-expression is like swallowing a worm; it is unpleasant on a psychological level. Modern society, and especially psychologists (about 95% of them have EP values), will tell them that there is something wrong with them. And they would be correct, from their perspective.
It would perhaps come as a surprise to nobody, given that I am pretty left-wing in my societal goals, that I would be left-wing on the queerness issues. Putting aside my personal biases, we have people who would like to express themselves, plus the people who genuinely feel that they have literally unnatural sexual preferences. On the other hand, we have people who psychologically suffer from seeing any form of unnatural self-expression. When choosing a social policy, we have to choose to hurt one of these groups. Which is why I think this issue should be highly localized; this way, a minority of people will be hurt in every locale. This same strategy can honestly be applied to a variety of issues; queerness is perhaps the most exemplary one.
