• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Non-straight here: It would be just as weird to mention heterosexual people being straight when it’s irrelevant to the conversation, IMO. If you’re making a point to mention the person’s sexuality, there should be a reason for it.

    In this case, it did have that. He was known to be gay, but turned out to have a daughter that no one knew about.

    • @reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      But we absolutely see backlash of the type of “why does he have to be gay” in response to something as simple as two men holding hands, or other things that would never be seen as “making a point to mention someone’s sexuality” if that sexuality is straight. I’m generalizing away from this particular example and addressing the idea that anything that isn’t cishet is abnormal and requires justification.

      • @ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        They’re agreeing with you by saying that no one’s sexuality should be forced to be disclosed, much less should it require justification unless absolutely necessary.

        • @reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          This isn’t about forcing people to disclose their sexuality. “Why does he have to be gay?” Is almost always an effort to force people not to disclose their sexuality, but it’s only ever used when the sexuality being disclosed is non-straight. You have never seen and will never see any reaction at all to a straight cis male character simply using the phrase “my wife” but a cis female character doing exactly the same will elicit a backlash. They’ll dress it up as being against unnecessary sexualization, but the only sexualization that’s ever unnecessary is queer sexualization. Straight sexualization is never a problem.