Olivia Colman: “I’ve always described myself to my husband as a gay man.” 🙄

But also, re the co-star:

Holy heck, how to make everything anyone ever does all about you and your transness!

From the article:

Earlier in February, Colman’s Jimpa co-star Mason-Hyde called Lithgow’s decision to star in the new Harry Potter series hurtful” and “difficult”. Lithgow is set to play Albus Dumbledore in HBO’s adaptation of the hit novels.

While Mason-Hyde hailed their co-star as “a beautiful human”, they said that they found his casting as Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore to be confusing due to JK Rowling’s comments about the transgender community.

“I never felt invalidated or questioned or doubted in my identity or in my transness by him,” they told OUT. “I consistently felt that he was a very loving and a very guiding co-star, and so there’s an element of this that feels vaguely hurtful.”

Sounds like Coleman was desperate not to be put in the same boat as Lithgow.

@Lovelyview My next door neighbours are two gay men who live in the countryside, don't like Eurovision and at least one of them supports Reform. Basically Olivia could like virtually anything and you could find a gay man who enjoys it.

This comment is important, because far too many people still think gay people are a big homogenous blob of people with a unified system of sociopolitical beliefs, which of course is nonsense.

Social and political opinions are every bit as diverse among gay men as they are among straight men.

Olivia Colman criticised by Scottish lesbian group after describing herself as ‘gay man’
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/olivia-colman-gay-man-the-fantastic-lesbians-non-binary-b2923387.html

Have never heard of this group but calling yourself the Fantastic Lesbians deserves an acknowledgement alone!
https://fantastic-lesbians.com/

Disney childrens tv tick the box stereotypical Main Lead : Gay "camp" white male

I am trying to think of a ML lesbian or non-white LGB character on any of the popular shows (may have changed in the newer shows) because its hard to say look "LGB individual here" without stereotypical being sold as part of the package.

The thing about the stereotypes that are embraced by the subset of gay men who are really into being part of "the community" is that they're so narrow. There are huge swathes of gay culture and history that those guys are completely ignorant of.

I probably know more Polari than your median gay activist, because my dad (who I'm absolutely certain isn't gay) was a big fan of Julian and Sandy and played the tapes in the car, not as a political statement but just because he thought they were hilarious.

I can remember at school, boys sometimes came out to me because they knew I didn't care, and if I was friendly with a boy because he was into sci-fi novels or heavy metal music or whatever, learning that he was attracted to boys rather than girls was probably one of the less interesting things about him. I've never heard that being really into Arthur C Clarke or Isaac Asimov was a gay stereotype. (Clarke was gay, as it happens, and made no secret about it, but you'd never know it from his novels and "gay culture" has never embraced him.)

It wasn't until well into adulthood that I met gay men who made "being gay" their whole personality, and really leaned into every stereotype they could discover. Many of them were nice, but I always found them a bit boring, and it turned out they all had exactly the same politics. Those were the guys who went on to get jobs at Stonewall, or if they weren't quite that bright, became alphabet community officers in trade unions or local councils.

I always felt that gay liberation had a logical end point of making itself redundant, because nobody would care any more. But I suppose every liberation movement becomes a grift in the end. You end up with the Owen Jones types who can't seriously mean it when they talk about how horribly oppressed gay men are in the current year UK, but it's really important for them that "the community" continues to exist for reasons of political clout.

Of course there's also the subset of straight women who love stereotypical gay men the same way they love purse puppies, but that's another story.

Are you sure they're gay? They don't sound it. *

*heavy sarcasm.

My next door neighbours are two gay men who live in the countryside, don't like Eurovision and at least one of them supports Reform. Basically Olivia could like virtually anything and you could find a gay man who enjoys it.

she doesn't feel she fits in with being a woman in some way.

In what way, that isn't just a nonsense sexist stereotype that's probably being disproven by 95% of the women reading this this moment?

It's not something to "fit into". She's a woman, she just is. Doesn't matter what she does.

But what does 'feels like she fits in with being a woman' actually mean? The only thing we all have in common are XX chromosomes. It's as meaningless as the claims by men who says they live as women.

FWIW, I actually think that what she was really expressing is that she doesn't feel she fits in with being a woman in some way. The "gay man" is almost incidental and just because she happens to in fact be heterosexual.

But you know, when I think about people around me who are really "into" being gay and involved in "the community," they do seem to see being gay as having a certain kind of personality, interests, way of behaving, and especially, a certain kind of politics.

Whereas I know other people who don't seem to be interested in being involved with "the community" but are same sex attracted, and maybe fir into certain of those other stereotypes, but they don't feel wedded to them in any way.

But the former group seems to think they get to represent homosexual people politically and lobby on their behalf and so forth, while the other group does not get involved with that, their politics seem much more independent from their personal identity.

The idea that being a gay man is a sort of personality seems to me to come right out of a lot of the things that go on within the gay community, rather than being imposed from outside.

That was the only reason the ads interviews appeared to begin with

Well, there's short term and long term, though.

Her publicity worked though, brought attention to her and what sounds like a shit film so she isn't as stupid as she comes across.

Hey, dont erase the struggles of those co opting gayness as a lifestyle choice! They are oppressed, too, if only mostly in their own minds.

I'm willing to bet it never crossed her mind that she and her to be husband might have had trouble finding a church that would be willing to marry them had they really been a gay couple.

Gay men have traditionally been vilified for being 'too feminine'.

The stereotypes are generally that gay men adopt femininity and behaviours coded as 'for women'.

So I suppose Olivia is saying that she's feminine? I suppose she is saying that she adopts stereotypes but does so in a more knowing way than other women, who are presumably not as clever as Olivia.

Maybe its pointless to try and make sense of the vapid pish, though.

'gayness is more than just who you have sex with, it is also “something you do”. This “means that you don’t have to be homosexual in order to do it”'

And what does 'gayness' consist of, then?

The Guardian piece is hilariously stupid. This was a stand-out bit for me:

'He goes on to say that gayness is more than just who you have sex with, it is also “something you do”. This “means that you don’t have to be homosexual in order to do it”. It’s an idea that would make so many people furiously protective, but I am keen on an expansive view of identity that isn’t simply reduced to core biological functions and urges.'

There's a lot we could say about this, but I think it at least shows how far gay equality has come. Only a few decades ago, men were sent to prison for having sex with other men: to be same-sex attracted meant spending a life in the shadows, unable openly to form loving sexual relationships, to get married, to have a family. It meant risking losing your job or going to prison or being on the receiving end of psychological bullying and physical assault. Gay wasn't about liking musicals or interior design, it was about wanting to have sex with other people the same sex as you. A lot of those people would have given anything not to be same-sex attracted, but to have the joy of an ordinary life.

Believing that gayness is just an identity you can choose rather than a 'core biological urge' is the epitome of a luxury belief.

Now, now @ThatCyanCat #BeKind

I don't know. but I don't know how people pretend to be women either.

I honestly think that one reason why this absolutely ridiculous ideology took such hold is because it gave sexist homophobes a chance to express their sexism and homophobia and, for once, be told how progressive and kind and inclusive it made them.

How do these people not hear themselves?

I mean I've never thought of describing myself as a gay man, because I'm not, but I own several Pet Shop Boys albums and a copy of the criminally underrated Live and Sleazy by the Village People, so by Olivia Colman's standards maybe I am.