This chapter's exercise is about doing some personal reflection. There are no right or wrong answers here, instead this is an opportunity for you to take some time and think about your ethical values and beliefs.
A letter to the past (10 mins.)
This exercise asks you to explore what it would take to change your mind about something important.
Imagine someone from the past who held views characteristic of that time. Also imagine, for the sake of the exercise, that this person is not too different from you - perhaps you would have been friends. Unfortunately, many people in the past were complicit in horrible things, such as slavery, sexism, racism, and homophobia, which were even more prevalent in the past than they are now. And, sadly, this historical counterpart is also complicit in some moral tragedy common to their time, perhaps not out of malevolence or ill-will, but merely through indifference or ignorance.
This exercise is to write a short letter to this historical friend arguing that they should care about a specific group that your present self values. Imagine that they are complicit in owning slaves, or in the oppression of women, people of other races, or sexual minorities.
For the sake of this exercise, imagine your historical counterpart is not malevolent or selfish, they think they are living a normal moral life, but are unaware of where they are going wrong. What could you say to them to make them realize that they’re doing wrong? What evidence are they overlooking that allows them to hold their discriminatory views? You might want to write a few paragraphs or just bullet points, and spend time reflecting on what you write.
Dear 21st Century Guy (that seems to be from the past),
I understand that you don’t see yourself as someone who discriminates, and I appreciate that we can have honest conversations about this. That said, I’d like to challenge some of your beliefs with facts that might offer a different perspective.
You mentioned that “if everyone were gay, the human race wouldn’t survive.” While this may have been a concern in the past, technological advances like artificial insemination and surrogacy have made biological reproduction independent of sexual orientation. More importantly, homosexuality has always existed in human societies and nature, yet populations have continued to grow. Additionally, if homosexuality were unnatural, why would two men or two women be capable of experiencing natural physical pleasure together?
You also argue that people are “influenced” into being LGBTQ+ by media and trends. If that were true, then by the same logic, wouldn’t a lifetime of exposure to heterosexual culture have made every gay person straight? Historically, LGBTQ+ representation has been scarce, and even today, the overwhelming majority of movies, music, and media still portray straight relationships. If visibility alone determined sexuality, we wouldn’t have had openly gay figures like Alan Turing—who, despite contributing immensely to computer science, was chemically castrated for being gay—or Bayard Rustin, a key advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., who was marginalized due to his sexuality. Why would anyone choose to face such persecution if being straight were an option?
Finally, you say that LGBTQ+ people should live their lives privately, without the need for parades or activism. But the reality is that, throughout history and even today, people are denied basic rights, employment, safety, and even their lives just for being who they are. Pride events exist because, for most of history, LGBTQ+ people were forced to hide. And protection laws aren’t about special treatment—they’re about ensuring people aren’t attacked simply for existing. Take the case of Roberta da Silva, who was set on fire and killed just because she was a trans woman. These are not isolated incidents; violence against LGBTQ+ people is a documented reality.
I’m sharing this not to argue, but because I believe you care about fairness and human dignity. I hope this gives you something to think about.
Best,
Gabriel Barboza