[QUOTE=9thFloor] #15 and #20 struck me as seeming to come from that kind of thinking. It seems to me that often when people find it to be an unreasonable leap to speak of someone being gay based partly on something they said (her speech), it comes across like it’s implied that the conclusion being considered (that she’s gay) is somewhere you wouldn’t necessarily want to arrive at unlike, say, making a leap to conclude someone is a great person based on something they said. Just how it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]
Woah, #20 was mine, and I didn’t mean that at all! I’ve known for years Foster was gay and I’m perfectly cool with it. In fact, I think my thinking is more along the lines of yours than not.
I said:
specifically in response to:
Partially because it really wasn’t an announcement that she was gay, just by thanking someone (who happens to be her lover) and it was wrong to call what she said “an announcement,” and partially because I took Poysyn’s post to mean ‘it’s ok to be gay, if you must, but I don’t want to hear about it’ the way some people complain when there’s “too much gay talk.” Now, maybe I misunderstood Poysyn’s meaning the same way you misunderstood my meaning, which was very much defending Foster from the ‘charge’ that she “announced” herself to be gay, and had nothing to do with her actually being gay.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Actually, as an aside, this was the first I heard about Foster’s sexuality one way or the other, though I went and looked her up on Wiki before I posted so I knew about the context before I wrote anything.
It’s silly because: what do you say if someone suggests something as evidence for a persons homosexuality and you actually honestly think that that evidence is weak? By your argument to say so would be to suggest you think homosexuality is wrong, but surely its not totally crazy impossible to think that maybe you just think a certain piece of evidence for suggesting so is flimsy. As an example, a while ago someone mentioned they thought Ira Glass (NPR host) was gay based on his voice and mannerisms. I’m pretty sure he’s not (turns out I was right), and said so. Was I showing some deep subconcious homophobia, or was I just, well, being right?
[/QUOTE]
Could be either, right?
I don’t know you so I couldn’t say but the comment would make me suspicious yes but I’d also judge how it seemed expressed to me…in other words if its said in an outraged tone that’s one thing and I’d be watching. Here, I cannot know and only speculate that its also been said when people were just, you know, really bigoted.
[QUOTE=Equipoise]
Woah, #20 was mine, and I didn’t mean that at all! I’ve known for years Foster was gay and I’m perfectly cool with it. In fact, I think my thinking is more along the lines of yours than not.
I said:
specifically in response to:
Partially because it really wasn’t an announcement that she was gay, just by thanking someone (who happens to be her lover) and it was wrong to call what she said “an announcement,” and partially because I took Poysyn’s post to mean ‘it’s ok to be gay, if you must, but I don’t want to hear about it’ the way some people complain when there’s “too much gay talk.” Now, maybe I misunderstood Poysyn’s meaning the same way you misunderstood my meaning, which was very much defending Foster from the ‘charge’ that she “announced” herself to be gay, and had nothing to do with her actually being gay.
Did that make sense?
[/QUOTE]
Yup, that makes sense thanks.
My larger point though is that there is a point of view out there like the one posited; I mentioned your post only cuz I was asked where it seemed to play out in this thread. So, if yours isn’t an example of that then that’s cool but I stand by my point about that sensibility (which apparently is **not **yours) in the larger culture.
