Wolfy Chai

I am writing this piece in reaction to the current conservative sentiments against LGBTQ people. As an avid consumer myself of both liberal and conservative media, the conservative media almost always excludes any discussion of LGBTQ people. Being anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion (pro-birth), and pro-traditional values are common threads within the conservative base. At the same time, the recent turn towards being pro-human rights—at least when it comes to foreign policy—marks a sea change in the conservative valuation of human life. Perhaps this change would mark a step towards alignment with actual Christian values as opposed to the virtue signaling that has infiltrated all levels of government.

The Heterosexual Alternative Reality

Conservative conversations entirely exclude the existence of LGBTQ people. They seem to operate in an alternative reality in which queer issues are not “real” issues. They presume, when it comes to foreign policy discussions, that other countries have the right to exterminate people on the basis of their sexuality. Never once do they raise concerns with it, nor consider it a “relevant factor” in the human rights realm unless they weaponize it for the purposes of advancing it as part of their anti-Islam propaganda agenda. This is demonstrated in the fact that gay rights are never brought up in countries like Uganda (that has the death penalty) but are a routine talking point when referring to freedom in Middle Eastern countries.

The manner in which heterosexual people talk about going to the Middle East for vacation as if it is safe, modern, and free (for them) is a further indication of them existing in an alternative reality, neatly sheltered by their straight privilege. In fact, a similar privilege is found when traveling to the vast majority of countries in the world, even in places as close by as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. Yet LGBTQ human rights abuses are not ever criticized. Moreover, they are not even a cause for concern. They can go there to laugh, giggle, attend a wedding, or go on a honeymoon without a care in the world. Meanwhile, LGBTQ people are living through an entirely different version of reality, realizing more intimately how the entire world is largely hostile to them.

This alternative reality is further upheld by the ease with which the LGBTQ community can be suppressed. The relatively small LGBTQ population makes it easier to just pretend that they don’t actually exist and their lives aren’t that important. However, it is un-Christlike to allege that because they are small in numbers they are by default not important. Christ taught to cherish the people who are disenfranchised—not discard groups like the homeless just because they are small in numbers. Additionally, the Bible prohibits the judging of others: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged… why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1–5).

To disregard these teachings is to say certain groups of people are superior merely because of their numbers and disproportionate influence and power. These acts can only be executed due to the immense privilege they hold as the majority.

Some examples illustrating these points reference several anti-LGBTQ laws that still exist today: discriminatory firing, gay marriage bans, and the gay panic defense have been used for decades. If someone was fired for being too conservative, was not allowed to visit or make decisions for their spouse in the ICU, or got away with murder by invoking the “straight panic” defense, there would be outrage amongst conservatives. One clear message is sent—our lives just don’t matter as much.

Inequality and the depravity of freedom for one group hurt not just that group. These kinds of authoritarian restrictions dictate how everyone has to behave at all times—such as dictating how people have to dress or what people are allowed to censor. Before you know it, bow ties will be considered cross-dressing and hair extensions will be considered gender-affirming care. Plainly put, it is intellectually dishonest and it erases historical facts. For example, men were the ones who used to wear wigs and high heels, and pink was associated with boys. Restrictive policies that deny historical facts more closely mirror an authoritarian regime than any loose construction of “tradition.”

There is also a sharp divide in how Eastern and Western cultures view the world. Western philosophy tends to promote situational morality—that is, different guidelines for different people. Utilitarianism, productivity, level of personal relation, and quantitative valuation compose the majority of how the West evaluates morality. The value of a person changes depending upon the quantity of harm, who is inflicting harm, and who and where the victims of the harm are and their locations. This kind of situational morality does not see all humans as equal. In fact, it breeds a cesspool of hypocrisy.

Other branches of philosophy that proliferate in regions like India emphasize acting according to the adherence to a set of principles. There is a fundamental recognition that we are all one and the same. There is no need to “earn” value or “deserve” rights. Everyone inherently possesses equal value. The European model tirelessly attempts to segregate the untouchable, infallible heterosexuals who stand on “holy ground” from LGBTQ persons who are inherently excluded.

Traditional Values

One argument for someone being anti-LGBTQ is that it does not reflect “traditional values.” Firstly, what is the definition of traditional values? I argue that traditional values are just another mirage constructed in order to attempt to say that they had a platform that differed from the controlled opposition, otherwise known as the “Democrats.” This is because, in reality, we do not live in a two-party system—merely two different factions of a business party. At the end of the day, the goals are pretty much the same. But, I digress…

The public often conflates “freedom” with conservative ideals. They often juxtapose conservative with liberal, almost as if the more conservative you are, the more you believe in “freedom.” However, the real debate is between “authoritarian” and “libertarian.” The difference between conservatism and liberalism is more based on who gets freedom and control.

Right-libertarians believe that “freedom” means private industry has free reign to do whatever it wants, regardless of the costs to anyone else’s freedoms. For example, we can continue polluting the river upstream even if you depend on the fish for your food supply. Likewise, right-libertarians view private property as the pinnacle of “freedom.” They hold this to be true even if having property excludes others and involves coercive, authoritarian government interventionism to effectively enforce it. It is not based on the actual availability and presence of freedom; rather, it is about control and exclusion. It tends to focus on negative freedom—freedom from interference. Yet one’s freedom from interference implicitly interferes with someone else’s freedoms. In essence, it is a denial of reality.

Left-libertarians believe that freedom belongs to everyone equally. It acknowledges the realities that right-libertarians blindly accept, even though it is logically and ideologically incoherent. It tends to also focus on positive freedom—the rights to self-determination and free will. One cannot act in one’s own free will when the alternatives are restricted.

So traditional values really mean a group of people making a collective choice to believe that one way of viewing the world is the “traditional” and correct way, even though at its core it is just one choice to be made amongst many alternatives.

Often, conservatives will point to the post-WWII period as being the postcard for traditional values. However, there has not been a time before, nor a time since, in history that has honorably reflected what society was at that time. Families have been living together in non-traditional households, multi-generational households, and mixed households for thousands of years. The esteemed nuclear family is simply something that only exists in the faded memories of a few.

In many ancient civilizations, including many that are indigenous to the Americas, LGBTQ people were an accepted part of society. The first “Americans” often accepted two-spirit people and sexual divergences. Even in the Middle East, prior to Islam, LGBTQ people were commonplace. America, on the other hand, has adopted colonial European legal frameworks which have been anti-LGBTQ from their inception. These laws have been grandfathered in and have nothing to do with “American” values. Because of the reality of LGBTQ peoples’ inherent existence, it would therefore be more “traditional” for LGBTQ people to be accepted rather than falsely designating the group as being the product of a modern-day “woke” lifestyle choice.

Another argument that follows is that LGBTQ lifestyles are non-traditional and wrong because they go against their religious beliefs and America is a “Christian nation.” This position asserts that LGBTQ people are “sinners.” It presumes that none of them are included under similar—or far worse—umbrellas of sins. This holds even though many conservatives commit dozens of sins that are punished equally, if not more severely, in the Bible.

They pretend they are sitting on superior, more pious, sacred ground. They relish in their church-worthiness, attending services with a congregation of close-knit sinners. Yet, if a member’s child comes out as gay, the entire congregation would suddenly cut those people off. Why not do the same if any of them get divorced? If any of them have ever had sex outside of marriage? Amongst many other sins which, according to the Bible, destine a person to eternal damnation.

The Current Media Dialogue

Many podcasters and persons with platforms enjoy talking about human rights. They say they value freedom. I would argue that they do not truly value freedom. No one is free until everyone is free. Why can one group be their free selves and be accepted by default while others are not? Why do they get to make the rules defining how free that other group is allowed to be?

Conservatives often selectively flip between authoritarianism and alleged “personal liberty.” On issues such as abortion and gay rights, conservatives have instituted authoritarian policies to regulate people. This kind of tyranny directly infringes upon personal liberties, which is at odds with their widely purported ideology of personal liberty. As it pertains to the topic of abortion, the government is allowed to regulate your body, even if it threatens your own life. When it comes to gay rights, up until 2004, the government made it illegal to have same-sexual relations even while in the privacy of your own home and between two consenting adults.

Now, things are walking backward yet again. In many states, employers are still allowed to fire you for being gay. There are no real protections against discrimination. And the intent is to erode more and more rights (such as the right to marry). All of these policies reflect an authoritarian government that wants to get increasingly involved in restricting personal freedoms.

The anti-LGBTQ “tradition” conservatives defend is neither ancient nor moral—it is a postwar political invention propped up by selective morality, historical amnesia, and an authoritarian streak that undermines the very liberty they claim to protect. At its core, it is a distraction tactic. It has a strong emotional appeal—as hatred for a group tends to have. It is an attempt to control the population by taking the attention away from much more important issues like inflation, government corruption, and the exceedingly high costs of living. The global elite prey on these kinds of emotional appeals, using the distraction to get rich off of the misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund endless illegitimate wars and provide cover for child-molesting politicians.

What is most troubling is the deafening silence from podcasters and commentators who brand themselves as champions of “reality,” “truth,” “liberty,” and “human rights.” They speak with passion on censorship, authoritarianism, and oppression—unless the topic is LGBTQ rights. Then, nothing. That silence is not neutral; it’s a roar of indifference that signals to their audience which lives they consider expendable. If your morality only applies when it’s convenient, you aren’t principled—you are performative.