I believe this is the argument I was stating earlier, that the way we talk about sexuality and identity is one in which people "are" something rather than that people "do" something. In the ways in which we talk about identity when you "are" something it's a part of your being, inseparable as much as your brain is. Someone "is" gay. Someone "is" black. Someone "is" Christian, vegetarian, conservative, female, etc. You're not really allowed to stop being something and become something else without getting a lot of negative reactions. This isn't always the case, of course. Some things you can change fairly easily and some things are more accepted, but you can still see how any change even to your political stance can irritate people. Now I see that some categories appear more changeable than others. In addition to one's political stance there are a person's religion and diet which we're pretty okay with people, although any vegetarian or atheist can tell you some people aren't very accepting. One's gender is somewhat accepted as a thing that can change, and I think it's becoming more and more accepted. What I'm getting at here is that there are already a lot of things that people "do" which we think should be protected and supported, and other things which we don't or think can't change. I chalk a lot of resistance to the notion that we have to "be" something in order for it to be respected. If we were really free to be what we felt we should be then you wouldn't see people get angry at atheists and vegetarians and trans people. In some sense or another there is an element of choice in being any of these things. If I haven't gotten too far away from my original point what I mean to say is that we should respect every choice a person makes as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone. If something doesn't happen to be a choice then that should still be respected, but respecting freedom to choose would already cover that.