Gabriel Attal, 34, replaces Élisabeth Borne in a cabinet shuffle that President Emmanuel Macron hopes can reinvigorate a term marked by drift and division.
Really wish we could stop with the “openly gay”. If you know somebody is gay, then they are out. If they aren’t out, you shouldn’t call them gay - with an exception for anti-gay bigots who should be called “probably gay bigot”. It’s minor thing, but I feel like this terminology fuels the right wing propaganda that gay people could just not exist if we weren’t so stubborn.
Here’s something you may not know: When you are gay, you have to come out constantly. That’s why famous people “announce” that they are gay. And let me assure you, gay people do not want to be the constant subject of public debate. We are the constant subject of public debate because people hate us and want us to die. And because people who maybe don’t hate us or want us to die are really obsessed with making sure that those people have platforms on social media and other mainstream media platforms. So, if it’s really wearing you down to hear about all these different kinds of people, maybe go yell at some bigots and the people who platform them?
Yeah, that’s gotta suck and I’m 100% not against people talking about who they are if they WANT to. What irritates me is the labels people are forced carry.
Like “wow a woman was finally able to achieve what men can achieve” or “wow this gay man was finally able to acheive what straight men can achieve” and that’s the part that annoys me
Eta: I think it’s meant well, but it implies that there’s something “special” about these people that allows them to climb the ranks previously reserved for a select group of people
So to truly be inclusive, things like “race” and gender and sexuality should be looked at as variations of normal, the same way hair color or height is looked at
2nd edit: Ok, sorry, but just to clarify I’m not harping on straight, white, males here. Swinging the pendulum the exact opposite way doesn’t help, either. I’m seeing this more as a societal thing that I’d liked to see changed
My issue with this is: why does their sexuality even matter? It’s their GD business
With an historical background of certain groups of people being excluded on the basis of discrimination, it makes sense for these things to be newsworthy, as they serve as a “Look, this group of people can rise through the ranks too, and there’s nothing wrong with it” general announce.
I want to live in a world where a mixed-heritage lesbian woman is elected and no-one bats an eye, or mentions anything about it unless it comes up organically by the person elected.
I agree with the sentiment, but that works better as an end goal than as a stage we should or could immediately switch into. There’s still plenty of bigotry nowadays, and celebrating how it’s slowly fading away helps to clean up the bastions where it remains.
Eventually the world will come to a point where sexuality, race and such isn’t called out, it becomes irrelevant to mention, as all is accepted. I hope anyway.
I wish. Currently it seems like were going to the exact opposite direction and special focus is being put on people’s race and sexuality. This headline is a great example; highlighting his sexuality and young age. I bet he’d rather be recognized for something he can actually take credit for.
I think, if the person in question is comfortable with such, it’s okay to mention like ‘first X as Y’ as it shows some progression and awareness that anybody can now achieve anything and can encourage other people with the same or similar traits.
But yeah, hopefully once we get past that, we can get back to people being recognised for what they do, rather than what they look like or who they would prefer to fuck.
And I really wish people would stop being so self-centered as to request that news reporters use phrasing that be so imprecise as to be potentially untrue just to suit their whiny whims. You sound like you’re so eager to introduce this little speech code of yoyrd that you’re asking the world to act and talk like non-outed gay people don’t exist and never did. How more backwards can you get?
It is no one’s responsibility to help you stay in the closet, and “openly gay” is useful and relevant to distinguishing whether or not someone is in the closet, which is pertinent to this topic.
No it’s not? Either it’s common knowledge someone is homosexual or they’re not, “openly” really adds nothing to the conversation. “openly” implies they should be ashamed of it, hence the comment you were answering to.
Really wish we could stop with the “openly gay”. If you know somebody is gay, then they are out. If they aren’t out, you shouldn’t call them gay - with an exception for anti-gay bigots who should be called “probably gay bigot”. It’s minor thing, but I feel like this terminology fuels the right wing propaganda that gay people could just not exist if we weren’t so stubborn.
My guess is that it’s to avoid something like finding records of a past leader who is gay, and them then being the first
My issue with this is: why does their sexuality even matter? It’s their GD business
Here’s something you may not know: When you are gay, you have to come out constantly. That’s why famous people “announce” that they are gay. And let me assure you, gay people do not want to be the constant subject of public debate. We are the constant subject of public debate because people hate us and want us to die. And because people who maybe don’t hate us or want us to die are really obsessed with making sure that those people have platforms on social media and other mainstream media platforms. So, if it’s really wearing you down to hear about all these different kinds of people, maybe go yell at some bigots and the people who platform them?
Yeah, that’s gotta suck and I’m 100% not against people talking about who they are if they WANT to. What irritates me is the labels people are forced carry.
Like “wow a woman was finally able to achieve what men can achieve” or “wow this gay man was finally able to acheive what straight men can achieve” and that’s the part that annoys me
Eta: I think it’s meant well, but it implies that there’s something “special” about these people that allows them to climb the ranks previously reserved for a select group of people
So to truly be inclusive, things like “race” and gender and sexuality should be looked at as variations of normal, the same way hair color or height is looked at
2nd edit: Ok, sorry, but just to clarify I’m not harping on straight, white, males here. Swinging the pendulum the exact opposite way doesn’t help, either. I’m seeing this more as a societal thing that I’d liked to see changed
With an historical background of certain groups of people being excluded on the basis of discrimination, it makes sense for these things to be newsworthy, as they serve as a “Look, this group of people can rise through the ranks too, and there’s nothing wrong with it” general announce.
I agree with the sentiment, but that works better as an end goal than as a stage we should or could immediately switch into. There’s still plenty of bigotry nowadays, and celebrating how it’s slowly fading away helps to clean up the bastions where it remains.
Eventually the world will come to a point where sexuality, race and such isn’t called out, it becomes irrelevant to mention, as all is accepted. I hope anyway.
I wish. Currently it seems like were going to the exact opposite direction and special focus is being put on people’s race and sexuality. This headline is a great example; highlighting his sexuality and young age. I bet he’d rather be recognized for something he can actually take credit for.
I think, if the person in question is comfortable with such, it’s okay to mention like ‘first X as Y’ as it shows some progression and awareness that anybody can now achieve anything and can encourage other people with the same or similar traits.
But yeah, hopefully once we get past that, we can get back to people being recognised for what they do, rather than what they look like or who they would prefer to fuck.
And I really wish people would stop being so self-centered as to request that news reporters use phrasing that be so imprecise as to be potentially untrue just to suit their whiny whims. You sound like you’re so eager to introduce this little speech code of yoyrd that you’re asking the world to act and talk like non-outed gay people don’t exist and never did. How more backwards can you get?
It is no one’s responsibility to help you stay in the closet, and “openly gay” is useful and relevant to distinguishing whether or not someone is in the closet, which is pertinent to this topic.
No it’s not? Either it’s common knowledge someone is homosexual or they’re not, “openly” really adds nothing to the conversation. “openly” implies they should be ashamed of it, hence the comment you were answering to.