"I'm not a member of the LGBT community because it doesn't exist. It's just a useless label," says singer and educator Nathaniel Filip de Aras
I'm intrigued that you have a religious background. You studied religious education at university, and even today you are involved in theology. Does your relationship with the LGBTQ+ community have anything to do with religion, or is it purely in defiance of what is happening today?
I don't bring religion into it at all, and if I do, it's really only minimal. Because if you approach it in the right way, you will find it very tolerant. As a result, you can find answers to anything in the Bible, it's like Google. If you are interested in something, you will find a thousand things for it, but also a thousand things against it. All I'm saying is that it hasn't fundamentally shaped me in any way on the LGBT issue.
Is there a religious movement that you're currently sympathetic to? And if the Bible didn't inform you, what was it?
It was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons. I even served a two-year mission with them in England. But right now I have a close relationship with the Catholic Church, so I sometimes refer to myself as a Catholic Mormon or a Mormon Catholic. It sounds strange, but I'm a man full of contradictions. For the record, I am also both a homosexual and a conservative. It goes against the grain, but it doesn't bother me in any way. But as I say, religion has never shaped my view of, for example, homosexuality, inherent in other people as well. Quite the contrary, without it I might be even more critical.
So what is the particular thing that bothers you about the queer environment?
It's the excessive activism and the creation of a kind of virtual community that doesn't exist. It's still a form of pigeonholing. I'm not a member of any LGBT community, I haven't come out anywhere. Nor is there any heterosexual community. It's said all the time, maybe to simplify things, but I don't get it.
Yes, the counter-argument may be that it is indeed a simplification. The term " LGBTQ+ community" simply refers in a clear and memorable way to a specific part of society where there are many new and often complex words and concepts...
I get it, but I don't like it because it gives a certain label that these people all have the same opinion. Because when you say the LGBT community, everyone immediately thinks mostly only of the noisy activists. Which, like activism itself, I find very damaging. All of my friends who are lesbian or gay have no interest in being in a community so they can be talked about that way.
But activism, by its very nature, is supposed to be unmissable. Granted, some individuals often overdo it, but that happens in any group. However, activism itself is fine, as long as it produces a result for those for whom it is intended in the form of, for example, equal rights. I've heard the argument that there is no need for LGBT activism today because the substantive issues have been resolved. Would you agree with that?
Of course, from a legislative point of view there are still some gaps, nothing is perfect. But as a gay man, I don't strictly need marriage instead of a partnership. But the rights should be equal, we can certainly agree on that as a society. And that there is no longer a need for any great activism in the case of LGBT people, I would agree with that. In countries where it's actually needed, hardly anyone dares to point it out, let alone go demonstrate.
There is a problem in many of those countries because publicly expressing liberal views often gets citizens killed...
That's true, but even here in the Republic there are no demonstrations for the rights of people in Saudi Arabia etc.
Of course, there are such events, but they are not of media or political interest, which is why not many people know about them. However, I am interested in another matter concerning politics. You are a monarchist. So how would you treat queer people in such a political system if you came to power?
It probably wouldn't be any different from what we have today. Again, I would be happy to introduce equal rights in everything. As for gay people, I don't think they bother anyone anymore. Come to think of it, we might as well replace the word marriage with a whole new word to suit everyone, but I wouldn't get hung up on wordsmithing. That's already unnecessary activism that won't make life any better anyway.
I will also ask you about something that keeps coming up in public debate, but I can't say that anyone has given me a clear answer. Is there "LGBT propaganda" according to you? And how does it possibly manifest itself?
I'm sure there is, but I'd be more likely to talk about hypersensitivity. Today's younger generation, which is the largest in terms of LGBT representation, takes everything very personally. When you criticize such people for something, they immediately turn it into an attack on their identity or sexuality, which leads to even louder protests from them. Which is what propaganda is all about - pushing through and making as visible as possible their belief that the whole world is deliberately hurting them. And that the more radical the freedom to choose identities and gender, the better off we will be.
It's not enough to be "just gay" these days. Look at all those movies and TV shows. The stuff that gets crammed into them about, for example, doubting your gender, etc., actually affects an awfully small percentage of people.
Well, it's going to be tens to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, that's not terribly small. And in the US alone, the number of non-binary and trans people is growing slightly...
I think it's mainly because people are bored. We're living in prosperity. I often talk to students about all the things we talk about here, often very openly. There's even a trans man among them. And I can say that all of my 120 or so students can talk about anything like this in a completely normal way without arguing or being aggressive, because they take it seriously. I know that young people don't take topics like this lightly. On the other hand, there are again the hurt and shouting activists who will break up this calm and reasonable debate with something. And I also notice that even those students who are interested in LGBT issues in their free time, or who actually live them firsthand, do not have a very positive attitude towards these activists.
As for trans people specifically, again, I have no problem with someone genuinely feeling that they were born into the wrong body and then working for years to completely change it. But once a law like in Germany, for example, comes into it, i.e. that you can freely change your gender officially as you please, it becomes a complete farce.
I will just add here that in Germany it is actually much easier to change your gender in official documents, but it doesn't happen overnight. First there is a three-month period when one can change one's mind, and after the change there is a one-year period when one cannot change one's gender. Plus there are some age limits...
But that doesn't change the fact that if we take this legislatively lightly, which this case is, it's wrong. And on top of that, there's the media debate over the fact that these things should be discussed with young children, which I find appalling. So I can understand the public then completely dismissing such a debate. But it doesn't concern the majority of society anyway.
The whole of society may not be affected, but the whole of society then votes for politicians who pass laws that affect the lives of LGBT people. It's all connected, so you can't simply dismiss it that way. But speaking of laws and education, what do you think about the new RVP (Framework Education Programme), which introduces LGBT topics in education from 2027?
I'll respond to the argument and link it to the RVP right away. I agree with the political level, but I stand by the fact that transition should definitely not be discussed with children. After all, nothing should be done under duress. If the information is supposed to come to the person, it will. Of course, no one can control what a teacher says to his/her students, but let's keep in mind that the parents' opinion or attitude comes first and the teacher must respect that. Under no circumstances can a teacher go against their upbringing. Making it compulsory to introduce something like this in school teaching is, in my opinion, just another consequence of excessive activism, which, as I am sure you can see, only divides society unnecessarily.
What I would introduce across the board, for example, is teaching tolerance and ethical principles. Ethical teaching, by the way, is on the rise now, with hundreds of primary and secondary schools already having it. If one is healthily tolerant, I think that is enough. And it can be taught from kindergarten onwards, which I don't think anyone would mind at all. But as soon as we concretize the debate into the LGBT direction, it's going to get a lot of people unnecessarily angry again.
