no one became left handed because it is now accepted
Well, a fair number of left-handed people in history BECAME right-handed due to cruelty and intolerance. When this stopped, there were more ACTUAL left-handed people in the population than previously.
In all of these cases, both stories (one: the trait is purely immutable and cannot be changed over one’s lifetime; two: the trait is a preference that can be encouraged or suppressed with effort) have some truth to them, and in most individuals I’ve talked with deeply enough, it seems to be a mix of the two (though strong enough preferences are often considered identifying, and story #1 is the stronger explanation when discussing things)).
It’s simultaneously true that being open and accepting is kinder and more fair to those who have a very strong belief that it’s necessary for them, AND that being open and accepting will encourage some of those who are borderline or less-controlled in their needs.
My preference is for a world where it just doesn’t matter WHY someone wants/needs to do something. If that thing is harmless (or even mostly harmless), it’s allowed. If it’s harmful, it’s disallowed. The problem comes in defining “harmful” or “unpleasant”. Belief in fascism and individual superiority that exempts the holder of the belief from social cooperation with the less-worthy is harmful, but it’s VERY hard to draw the line at which behaviors to punish.
Well, a fair number of left-handed people in history BECAME right-handed due to cruelty and intolerance. When this stopped, there were more ACTUAL left-handed people in the population than previously.
In all of these cases, both stories (one: the trait is purely immutable and cannot be changed over one’s lifetime; two: the trait is a preference that can be encouraged or suppressed with effort) have some truth to them, and in most individuals I’ve talked with deeply enough, it seems to be a mix of the two (though strong enough preferences are often considered identifying, and story #1 is the stronger explanation when discussing things)).
It’s simultaneously true that being open and accepting is kinder and more fair to those who have a very strong belief that it’s necessary for them, AND that being open and accepting will encourage some of those who are borderline or less-controlled in their needs.
My preference is for a world where it just doesn’t matter WHY someone wants/needs to do something. If that thing is harmless (or even mostly harmless), it’s allowed. If it’s harmful, it’s disallowed. The problem comes in defining “harmful” or “unpleasant”. Belief in fascism and individual superiority that exempts the holder of the belief from social cooperation with the less-worthy is harmful, but it’s VERY hard to draw the line at which behaviors to punish.