Don't Let Anyone Think for You

There is an important question students should learn to ask:

How do I know that what I am being told is actually true?

This question applies to every subject—including sexuality, gender, religion, politics, science, education and social issues.

People sometimes make sweeping claims about LGBTQ+ people and explain their identities entirely through family circumstances, childhood experiences or social conditioning. But the scientific evidence does not support such a simple explanation. Research indicates that sexual orientation is not something most people consciously choose, and that human sexuality develops through a complex combination of biological and developmental factors. Gender identity is a separate question and also cannot be reduced to one simple cause.

At the same time, family environment, social experiences and cultural surroundings can influence how people understand themselves, express themselves and experience the world. That is different from saying that a particular family structure causes someone to become LGBTQ+.

This distinction matters.

If we want students to think critically, we should not replace one form of unquestioning belief with another.

A famous director says something.

A famous doctor says something.

A senior government officer says something.

A politician says something.

A religious leader says something.

A social-media influencer says something.

None of these facts automatically make the statement true.

Authority is not evidence.

Popularity is not evidence.

Majority opinion is not evidence.

And disagreement is not evidence either.

The right response is:

What is the claim?
What is the evidence?
Who conducted the research?
How was it measured?
What do other researchers find?
What are the limitations?
Is the conclusion actually supported by the evidence?

That is critical thinking.

We should also be careful with the language we use. Calling an entire group of human beings "conditioned," "unstable," or easily controlled turns a complicated human subject into a political stereotype. There is no scientific basis for treating LGBTQ+ people as a single psychologically unstable category.

There is, however, a broader lesson here that applies to everyone.

People can be influenced by propaganda.

People can be influenced by fear.

People can be influenced by identity.

People can be influenced by social pressure.

People can be influenced by politicians.

People can be influenced by celebrities.

People can even be influenced by their own assumptions.

And that is precisely why education should teach people how to examine claims rather than simply telling them what conclusion to reach.

A student should be able to say:

"I respect you, but show me the evidence."

That sentence should be acceptable whether the person making the claim is a politician, professor, doctor, director, bureaucrat, religious leader—or anyone else.

The objective is not to tell students what to think about LGBTQ+ issues.

The objective is to teach them how to think about claims concerning LGBTQ+ issues.

Because when people stop examining evidence and simply inherit conclusions from powerful people, they become vulnerable to manipulation.

The answer is not another ideology.

The answer is better thinking.

Question. Investigate. Compare evidence. Understand uncertainty. Then make your own informed judgment.