I'm openly heterosexual.

To be fair to OP, I see she has clarified what she meant, which was as to the implication in "openly" that being gay is something that should be hidden. Still, the thread took some unfortunate turns.

Does anyone remember that thread I started a while ago about how FWR doesn't feel like a great place for lesbians. And making the point that people here sometimes say they have just heard enough from gay people - on the basis that we're fine now, it's boring, you've heard enough from us. This thread seems relevant to that.
Why did the OP think this thread would go down well in FWR, I wonder?

24gin?

In real life?

Which is overwhelmingly heterosexual.

On that. Not just overwhelmingly heterosexual but v much overwhelmingly about the male het gaze being the norm. Everywhere there is imagery of young women in skimpy clothes. Who is that for? Not for lesbians, and not for straight women. I remember page 3, the peanut things in pubs where a woman was revealed. Watched calamity Jane yest. Woman in tiny clothes doing sexy song. Skip to later, the way on us cop stuff they always seemed to have meetings in strip clubs for no apparent reason. I'm sure there's stuff now but I tend to stick to the news but again the women are v dressed up and the clothes often tight while man after man in a suit...

Homosexuality was only legalised in the UK in the 60s. Not long ago, plenty of men from them still around.

It is still seen as unusual and default is straight. Out role models are still important, visibility is important.

At work a lot of men were in the why go on about it camp. Fact is it just made them uncomfortable- they'd rather not know.

I think many on this thread will have to agree to disagree!

'he's not a gay actor, he's an actor who's gay, and I think there is an important difference there.'

Have you checked to see how he describes himself? I mean I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either.

'From that perspective, in something like a wikipedia article, I would tend to treat it like anyone else, which is to say the opening paragraphs are not going to talk about the individuals sex life'

It's not about sex life

It's about sexual orientation. Irrespective of who you're shagging, how you're shagging. You aren't not gay if you're a virgin!

Yes that is old fashioned. The idea that saying I'm gay is all about sexual intercourse.

'From that perspective, in something like a wikipedia article, I would tend to treat it like anyone else, which is to say the opening paragraphs are not going to talk about the individuals sex life'

Because if it's not mentioned the vast majority of readers will assume default IE heterosexual.

Apparently being straight makes you a basic bitch now anyway.

Oh, and yes, in his case you'd see it in the careers section as well.

In some cases you might see something about it in the summary at the beginning, but I think that should be unusual.

Yes, I would expect to see something about that in Everett's bio, but even with him, probably in the personal life section.

If people are interested, they can read down three paragraphs, but he's not a gay actor, he's an actor who's gay, and I think there is an important difference there.

The private lives of many actors are apparently of great interest to many readers - witness the sleb magazine industry.

More generally, and not just with this but some other issues, I think there is some benefit in keeping your eye on the prize. Which for me, being old fashioned, is that certain things which were either notable, or needed to be silenced, are now just not really something to write home about. It's fine if they come up but not something particularly important in passing. Because I think there is a trade off to making certain things notable even if we see that as a positive.

From that perspective, in something like a wikipedia article, I would tend to treat it like anyone else, which is to say the opening paragraphs are not going to talk about the individuals sex life. They will talk about what they are notable for, be it acting, or physics, or philosophy. In the personal life section there might be some information on their marriage or partners or something else.

Now - if this person was famous as an activist, or being the first out gay actor, or whatever, that would be different, but as a matter of course I think the best approach is to make identity issues secondary to whatever people are famous for. After all, it's not a wiki about identity issues.

My sister came out in the 80s. I was bullied all through secondary school as a result (never told her though).

So no, not bored - I just remember when it really did mean a kicking. These days there isn’t a day where some pop star or actor doesn’t announce a sexuality or pronoun.

Sometimes visibility does require shoehorning it in a bit where you could leave it out, and therefore can sound a little random, IMO. Obvs good writing can make the difference to how well it does or doesn’t flow, but even on an everyday basis I know sometimes I have to come out a little bit gratuitously at a half-opportunity because not doing so then starts to feel like I’m complicit in hiding my sexual orientation. (Eg it’s somewhat relevant when I talk about my children being donor-conceived, although they actually don’t have another mother.)

I’d still drop the ‘openly’ (and replace with ‘out’ if clarifying this really felt necessary).

Yes, it does sound random, but not less so than "openly gay" in the same context.

I read the OP as why do they keep going on about it.

Having famous people who are openly gay/ lesbian (and bisexuality seems not to be stated much at all) is important for visibility.

Out and proud has been a thing for ages.

Wouldn't be be weirder to say so and so who is gay? Makes it sound really random.

It's bad writing, that is part of the irritation. Wiki is hardly going to say "So and so is a secretly gay actor" so it's superfluous.

Pota, I agree. I know prejudice exists. I don't have homophobic friends for obvious reasons, but see it enough in casual comments in the media. I was commenting on it being less obvious there's a need to say 'openly' gay as though that is a different type of being gay. I don't live in a particularly progressive area, it's a small mining village in the arse end of nowhere, but we have gay couples on our street and several same sex parents at the small school.

It's shameful it still necessary anywhere. It sickens me that people don't come to church because of an assumption they will be unwelcome. It sickens me the church hasn't done better.

I misunderstood as well.

I am a bit miffed at being called homophobic for questioning something that read as though people shouldn't be allowed to talk publically about their sexuality though! The original posts really were not clear.

I have seen people post homophpbic resources on this section before under the guise of being GC so made incorrect assumptions about why the OP posted in this section. My apologies @PermanentTemporary as I understand you were not trying to do that.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood your original post. Hope my reply was useful anyway! Yes I totally agree that the phrase itself sounds homophobic

@PermanentTemporary I got your meaning and thank you for your solidarity. As an out lesbian myself, I agree "openly gay" sounds homophobic for reasons mentioned above, that it can be read as insinuating there is something shameful to hide. It's shitty phrasing - use out instead.

And to those moaning why this is on the feminism board... Ummm because some women are lesbian? And frequent this board? And our issues are feminist issues too? Never thought I'd be minded to chastise feminist women on here to "be more intersectional" but seriously... have a word with yourselves. This is why FWR and so-called white feminism are criticised all the time. I didn't want to believe it of this space, but clearly there are some only happy here when the topic of lesbian women are brought up to in relation to trans activism and you're all tripping over yourselves to support our rights to define as same-sex attracted. The phoniness of your solidarity is glaring.

Anyway, thanks again OP - don't let the narkiness of these PPs stop you from speaking up again about subtle homophobia in feminist spaces.

Yeah, as an ‘openly lesbian’ woman I don’t love it, although it is context-dependent.

“There are no openly gay players in top flight football”, absolutely fine (although you could substitute ‘out’ for ‘openly’ without any loss of meaning).

“He is openly gay” does sound uncomfortably close to “he is openly cheating at Monopoly” “he is openly sharing his dubious political views on Facebook” or whatever. There is a hint that this flagrancy might be better hidden, or subtle, or that there is good reason to keep it under wraps. And of course contextually there have always been and still often are times where homophobic reality bears that out, but if we’re talking about modern day people in eg the UK I would personally prefer the term ‘out’ which does the same job without any of the connotations of shame or shamelessness. And sometimes actually neither are necessary because the context means the outness isn’t in question.

I am openly gay and can assure you it's still not an easy thing to be in 2021.

Plenty of people are not openly gay until they are forced / blackmailed out of the closet (Philip Schofield I'm looking at you).

I'm a bit offended that an openly heterosexual person doesn't get this, but not really surprised.