# Is LGBTQIA+ being forced on society?

Nowadays, being homosexual, transgender, queer, non-binary, etc. is relatively no longer considered strange. Everyone is allowed to be who they want to be. But does the whole movement of LGBTQIA+ (abbreviation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual) sometimes go too far? Do people have to accept everything, no matter how unusual or unique something is? Are the norms and values of this movement being imposed on society?

## LGBTQIA+ is being forced on society
### Pro

* Pro These days, everything seems to be about LGBTQIA+. Take, for example, the opening of the 2024 Summer Olympics. The LGBTQIA+ community is a focal point during the Paris Olympics.
** Objection Is that forcing, you, personally, to become gay or lesbian? How could it?
*** Objection It's more that it's being enforced in the sense that everyone has to consider everything and that everything has to be normalized. For example, people don't celebrate being heterosexual or cisgender. You can be yourself, but keep it to yourself and don't bother others with it.
**** Objection Unlike heterosexual people, those who are a part of the LGBTQIA+ have been historically oppressed and still are, in varying degrees, oppressed in many countries today hence a need to recognize and/or normalize it. Recognition in this case isn’t about enforcement, but rather, general awareness of it.
***** Objection They are not oppressed in countries like Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, France (the place of the Olympics) and Sweden.
****** Objection AfD is permitted as a major political party in Germany and openly oppose same-sex marriage. Conversion therapy is still legal in Austria and Switzerland, along with there being no laws against discrimination when it comes to LGBTQ people in the latter. Sweden lacks any sort of gender neutral language for adoption proceedings, making it hard for nonbinary people to adopt children, does not allow for one to change their legal gender identity by self-determination, allows invasive surgical procedures to be done on intersex minors, has no third gender option for official forms, only allows gay men to donate blood after a waiting period, and doesn't ban conversion therapy, even on minors. Denmark has no laws against invasive surgery on intersex minors, conversion therapy is not banned, and there are no laws against discrimination on the basis of gender identity, placing trans people at greater risk of violent crime. France is perhaps the best one on the list, and they don't even recognize nonbinary identity, making things like identification on matters of public record a nightmare for nonbinary folks.
******* Objection It's a democratic right to be able to oppose marriage or subtypes of marriage. As long as AfD is not both in any position of power and implementing prohibition of same-sex marriage, LGBTQIA+ people are not oppressed. The current over-prioritization of LGBTQIA+ issues and extreme positions in that regard is a substantial factor behind the continued rise of the AfD so a good way to prevent their further rise is to not put LGBTQIA+ issues on the public agenda.
******* Objection Nearly all of these examples are trivial and are not even worth the debate, especially considering that capacities are limited and there is much work to do in other areas where there are great risks, problems and numbers of years of potential life lost, such as public health, housing, climate change, and other important subjects. It's not important whether gay people can donate blood or not.
******* Objection None of these examples represent oppression.
** Objection People have the choice not to look at things that do not appeal to them. If people have issues with the LGBTQIA+ movement, they can simply turn off the television.
*** Objection But you just can't avoid it anymore. Almost everywhere, there's something to see, hear or read about LGBTQIA+. There are also LGBTQIA+ flags visible everywhere, such as on the streets, on schools, at government agencies, at sporting events, and so on.
**** Objection Is that recognition of a long-oppressed group or "forcing something on people"? Still no evidence of the latter.
***** Objection It's more about the feeling that it's being forced on people, even if that might not be the intention. Of course, these people should be acknowledged, but do it in a subtle way without flamboyantly highlighting how different they are. This also leads to polarization in society. It's the LGBTQIA+ community versus the heterosexual cisgenders. It's better to live and celebrate together without explicitly highlighting what sets us apart.
****** Objection Differences can be highlighted without being seen as points of division. Acceptance and celebration of differences is a necessary point here, as much of what makes LGBTQ+ people seem particularly "different" or "flamboyant" is in fact an aspect of identity. LGBTQ rights do not come when every queer person manages to cram themselves into a box that society at large is comfortable with, it comes when society at large becomes comfortable with people who defy its norms - without doing harm - as a matter of habit.
******* Objection People are already okay with that in most of these countries in terms of rights.
******* Objection People are uncomfortable with all sorts of quite normal people and that's okay and their good right. Excessively trying to make them comfortable with all sorts of extravagant people is a lost cause and waste of time with all sorts of negative backslashes.
****** Objection These people should not be acknowledged, as they suffer from a mental illness, such as gender dysphoria. They would be better helped by a psychologist.
******* Objection Many things that are classified as mental illness are later classified as more accurately being described by another phenomenon. If somebody told me I were mentally ill for being transgender today, I might respond that they were simply coming down with a case of the vapors, or perhaps hysteria. In plain fact, what is now considered gender dysphoria used to be considered "gender identity disorder", which simply claimed that anyone having a gender identity that varied from the one they were assigned at birth was inherently mentally ill - the definition changed as medical professionals realized that this often did not cause significant distress, and instead focused on *dysphoria*, which is specifically distressing. Not all transgender people suffer from dysphoria, many even experience a sense of *euphoria* when able to exist as their preferred gender. The DSM-V is a diagnostic guideline that attempts to classify sources of mental distress and determine how to best treat them, and historically the best treatment for gender dysphoria has been "let them exist as the gender they want to". It is not a monster manual or a list of things corresponding to what pill you can give someone to make them go away.
******* Objection Not everyone who is a part of the LGBTQIA+ has a mental illness. Regardless, choosing not to recognize them can cause those who do have gender dysphoria to instead stifle their discomfort and prevent them from seeking professional help as it may be seen as weird or not a legitimate concern.
******* Objection Even if these people had a mental disorder, they still have their own inner experiences where they feel the way they feel. It's better to acknowledge that rather than to problematize it. They can certainly go to a psychologist, but that won't necessarily change how they feel. People should learn to accept themselves and learn to live with their feelings, so they should be recognized by society.
******** Objection One can acknowledge it without making it a major subject or theme of politics, culture, and public expression. People can learn to accept themselves without making large public or media events as in the example. In countries like France, there is no notable oppression of LGBTQIA+ people or anything alike that would make this argument reasonable.
* Pro The number of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ+ doubled in 12 years and a 2021 survey should extremely high rise of LGBTQ+ between recent generations.
** Objection That is because it is now more socially acceptable. This is people doing what they want, not being "forced" to do something. This could be seen as an argument that LGBTQ topics are gaining more recognition, or that there are more LGBTQ people, but certainly not that anything is being forced on anyone.
*** Objection This many people weren't unadmitting LGBTQIA+ people before.
**** Objection Firstly, that's purely speculative, and secondly, it isn't simply people who were unadmitting, but also people that simply didn't realize, and who now - due to being made aware of different forms of LGBTQ+ identity - recognize that they might fit into one of those categories.
***** Objection The opposite is also purely speculative and that this many people weren't unadmitting LGBTQIA+ people before is the more likely explanation especially as numbers rise even further.
**** Objection This does not refute any of the reasons listed as to why people are naturally now admitting on surveys to be LGBTQIA+.
***** Objection It is not disputed that there are reasons why people do not admit being LGBTQIA+ in relevant data collection methods. However, this does not explain the overall rise, in particular the pace of the rise.
****** Objection I will grant there probably are people out there who aren't honestly LGBT but claim to be for social/aesthetic/political reasons(not many but I'll grant they exist). But the question is what do you think the correct pace would be for a group that only within living memory won legal rights and social acceptability? Like if tomorrow Iran was freed would you be surprised that the number of non muslims suddenly shot way up?
******* Objection The pace would be roughly the same as 1-4 decades ago in developed European countries like Sweden or Germany where LGBTQ+ have good rights and are generally tolerated with no recent drastic change to the already good situation. For example, in Germany annual gender-affirming surgery cases have doubled within 10 years and in the U.S. the number tripled in just 3 years to 2019. In the U.S. there is a very large difference by generation.
*** Objection The question is not whether or not they are forced to be so, the question is whether this phenomena (culturally, and so on) is being forced upon society, e.g. by a minority that gets disproportionate cultural amplification.
* Pro LGBTQIA+ are a constant major subject of contemporary politics when there are nearly no issues in Northern countries like Germany or Sweden and they already have all the rights they need while other subjects due to which many people prematurely lose their lives or suffer don't get much or any political or societal attention.
** Objection The vast majority of countries, even in the global north and in fairly socially progresive countries, have yet to outlaw things like "conversion therapy", even on minors, to say nothing of ingrained attitudes in communities that lead to the abuse and ongoing risk of death to LGBTQ+ people.
*** Objection What is flawed about this is that no one tested the suicide rate of people before going through conversion therapy.
*** Objection There is not much abuse and ongoing risk of death to LGBTQ+ people, albeit that may be changing to some, likely relatively small, degree with massive immigration due to open borders policies that LGBTQ+ people are not critical but apparently supportive of.
* Pro Support for LGBTQIA+ is being required by governments and employers in some parts of the world and opposition is illegal and/or would cause a person to get fired in some parts of the world. For example, a baker in Colorado has faced multiple legal challenges for refusing to make cakes for LGBT clients. In another example, employers such as supermarket chain Kroger often expect employees to participate in LGBT Pride celebrations, and there are significant challenges for those who refuse to do so, such as the two Kroger employees who were fired for refusing to wear an apron with a pro-LGBT emblem. In the United States, critics of LGBT and/or the LGBT movement enjoy some protection under the United States Constitution, and some other countries such as India and Russia have similar freedom, but these protections do not exist in all countries. LGBT "hate speech" is illegal (with criminal penalties) in the European Union and Canada, and in some cases any criticism of LGBT could be considered hate speech. For example, protesting an LGBT pride festival could be treated differently legally than protesting any other kind of festival that does not embrace any sexual orientation. Beyond decrees from governments and employers, people are often subjected to intense social pressure to support LGBT and to not criticize LGBT.
** Objection Refusal to make cakes specifically for LGBT clients is, specifically, discrimination. Discrimination being illegal is not the same as forcing something onto people, it is rather enforcing the freedoms of those who might otherwise be discriminated against. Russia and India have incredibly regressive laws concerning the rights of LGBTQ people, and should absolutely not be seen as a model for the rest of the world, being as Russia classifies the LGBTQ "movement" as an extremist organization, whose membership (read: any and all LGBTQ+ people they can find) are subject to up to 10 years in prison, substantial fines, restrictions on their work, etc.; the Indian supreme court unanimously voted against gay marriage being legalized in 2023. The amount of social pressure to support the rights of LGBT people is, if anything, a reaction to the sheer extent of social pressure that exists in many places to revile and scorn them, particularly in religious or conservative communities, such that even torturing LGBTQ+ people outright is seen as permissible and even morally necessary.

### Con

* Con It is good that LGBTQIA+ is being promoted. This allows everyone to be themselves, even if they feel they were born in the wrong body. By giving attention to LGBTQIA+, it becomes socially normalized, which is positive. This encourages people to come out of the closet sooner and to be who they want to be. This way, we develop a more inclusive society where everyone feels at home.
** Objection If you let anyone express their feelings in that way, you can say that acting on necrophilic tendencies is correct. This whole "I want to do things because I feel like it right now" movement and the rise of hedonistic values is not good.
** Objection You are right about that, but it can also go too far. For instance, the normalization of pedophilia continues to advance. There is an attempt being made to normalize pedophilia as a mainstream lifestyle choice.
*** Objection Pedophilia has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+.
**** Objection It is related in some way. For instance, there is a known case where a pedophile sympathizer support LGBT education for children. By teaching children about LGBTQIA+, pedophilia will gradually become more normalized as well, because people can't help having this disorder and it could be something they are born with.
***** Objection Pedophiles are also often found in positions of leadership in churches that revile and attempt to eliminate the rights of LGBTQ people - to say nothing of their presence in conversion therapy camps and the like, where they can effectively get away with any manner of torture possible. This argument swings both ways. Pedophiles are abusers, and abusers are power-seeking. They will look for any way that they can be placed in a position of power over their would-be prey.
****** Objection Calling conversion therapy torture belittles actual torture.
***** Objection This is a hasty generalization that fails to establish a consistent connection between pedophilia and LGBTQIA+.
* Con In some parts of the world, the exact opposite is true. It is illegal to be gay in 64 countries. In Russia, there is a ban on "LGBT propaganda." Beyond the decrees of governments, LGBT around the world are subjected to social pressures and hate speech.
** Objection Because LGBTQ+ people are at a higher risk of suicide, we should promote conversion therapy to stop these things.
* Con The norms of LGBTQ+ people are not being imposed on society - nobody is expected to begin suddenly behaving in a different way just because of the presence of LGBTQ+ people - rather, society has been, for centuries, imposing a set of normative values that imply LGBTQ+ existence is not normal, not desirable, and not acceptable. The LGBTQ+ movement seeks to normalize different modes of existence and to break down these regressive values, seeing them as fundamentally antithetical to autonomy, happiness, and equanimity. This is not all of society somehow being chained down by a small minority, it is rather a minority throwing off their chains.
** Objection LGBTQ+ existence is de facto not normal. It's rare and thus not normal. There is no reason why it would be or even should "desirable". It is considered acceptable in most of the relevant nations – in that metaphor these minorities have long thrown off their chains.
*** Objection Just because it is rare does not mean it is not normal.
*** Objection "Normal" need not mean "not rare." Something can be "rare" and still fall within what one might logically, or normatively, anticipate as an actualizable possibility.