Hmm, I have to disagree a bit here. We're all defined by the societies we live in to some extent or another even if we don't explicitly take on certain labels. Humans are social creatures so its only natural.
In the case of the queer identity its something that was thrust upon them by wider society. Its an identity that was constructed as an example of a deviant personality. So the identity and the stigma around it necessarily predates the reaction from the LGBT community which is to form their own counter culture and work towards reshaping the way society interacts with them.
I do think that perhaps some allow this one identity marker to define them too strongly and that can be obnoxious but I can understand why that is the case.
Sure, things happen in the societies that we belong to that forces us to react in some fashion. What I was getting at is that it is possible, and in my mind preferable, to cognitively free yourself of precisely whatever identities society may force upon you. We're talking about LGBT here, but I'll illustrate with being a nerd:
Approach 1: People say I'm a nerd. Well, then I'm going to fully embrace being a nerd and be as nerdy as I can and find others that are as nerdy as can be and then we'll force them to accept our nerdiness!
Approach 2: People say I'm a nerd. Well, then I'm going to pursue whatever I find worthwhile in life to the best of my abilities, be successful and carve out my own place in this world so that if people ever take a look at me again, they'll find that the constraints they placed on me were never enough to contain me.
As I've hopefully been able to illustrate, the two approaches are both essentially ways of coping but 1 forces the group identity aspect, whereas 2 encourages individuality despite the label of a collective (nerdhood) being forced onto you by society: it's precisely the latter that I'd argue is more well-founded in reason than the former.
I'd wager a fair amount of people would agree with me in this with respect to group identities that are the majority: for instance, the alt-right have been championing white nationalism and heteronormativity, and by most people they are viewed with disbelief or disgust.
It's only in the particular case of a group identity being a minority that approach 1 is considered an acceptable line of reasoning, which I think is incongruent. It's rooted in the idea of strength in numbers, but I always thought that the strength of democracy was that it pragmatically admits that the majority will generally have their way while doing its best to ensure an array of essential individual liberties.
The ultimate point I want to make relates to Thiel and the 'verdict' on his gay status, which is where the group identity line of reasoning really shits its pants in my mind. The idea that if a person makes a single action that they believe is to their benefit, but that the group believes is not to their benefit gives the group the 'right' to strip the person of the group identity they previously were though to belong to is downright cultism in my mind.
This is why I don't think I can ever support LGBT-ism: not because I think their sexuality is deviant but because I think their reasoning, or lack thereof, is deficient. If that makes me a homophobe, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
I guess the real kicker is that if you accept the reasoning behind the revocation of Thiel's gayness, then I can be a homophobe but have no problem with men having sex with men, which brings us full circle back to your Afghanistan and dancer boys example. Guess I'll have to write an introspective autobiography entitled "How I championed individuality and accidentally ended up supporting the Taliban".
I'm dizzy.
