>but then you'll also have to concede that democracy is pointless and you shouldn't partake in it either, given how little impact you have.
That would be a very wise conclusion too, given the sham that modern "represenative" democracy has been...
That would be a very wise conclusion too, given the sham that modern "represenative" democracy has been...
There have been entire eras without democracy when being gay was acceptable or even consider just fine (at different city-states in ancient Greece for one). And there have been democracies were gays have been repressed.
All the examples you gave are about small minorities too, which is not the thing that democracy focuses on in the first place. Those more about changing cultural norms and morals, which can then be encoded into policy, with or without a democratic vote. The same things can happen under any sham democracy or even dictatorship. In the latter it can also just be a official decree. For example, as for "access to gender reassignment surgery" you know that has been a thing in Iran for decades, for example, right?
A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
I agree with you here. But do you really want to reach for the economy and police systems to justify how ineffective representative democracies have been since their mass adoption over a century ago?
And in many ways we're in a more police-heavy system today than over a century ago.