There's a common reaction when somebody says
that not all people are suited for certain roles or institutions—marriage, monogamy,
traditional gender roles, or religion, to name a few. When you say that not
everyone can be fairly expected to engage in those practices/adopt those
identities, somebody always responds by assuming you believe that all of those
things are entirely wrong and that nobody should partake in them, even by choice. But
pointing out that certain traditional expectations don't suit every person is
not saying they should be abolished; it's saying they shouldn't be compulsory.
People who equate lifting a mandate to instilling a ban are revealing that they
themselves are the ones who promote compulsory standards.
Someone might argue, "Well, if it's all up
to each person how they want to live, then it's okay if somebody is racist,
right? Or if they don't support equal rights?" I disagree, and this is
why: personal choices and identity affect yourself, but oppressive attitudes
cause harm to others—and on an institutional scale, no less. People are free to
espouse those beliefs, but they shouldn't be encouraged. Therein lies the
difference.
