I'm openly heterosexual.

[PermanentTemporary]

Just read yet another description of a singer as 'openly gay' and thought FFS, still? In 2021?

Maybe gay people dislike this less than I do, given that there are so many countries where it's still illegal to have same sex relationships - maybe it's still worth saying. But I hate it.

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.

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

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).

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I suppose it’s the trend these days to announce your sexuality (or ID).

Rather boring though - and in the arts for goodness sake! When I was a child being ‘musical’ was a euphemism for being gay.

Walk a mile in their shoes... It's neither trendy nor ' musical'. It's borne of an overriding desire to be accepted...even in 2021. Sorry it bores you.

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.

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.

@PermanentTemporary

Just read yet another description of a singer as 'openly gay' and thought FFS, still? In 2021?

Maybe gay people dislike this less than I do, given that there are so many countries where it's still illegal to have same sex relationships - maybe it's still worth saying. But I hate it.

I can't understand why you don't like the idea of being openly anything. You've had hundreds of not more years where being openly heterosexual is just what's considered 'normal'. Move aside, let others speak. Perhaps have a moment where you allow yourself to consider that maybe you are not 'the norm' and the rest of us don't have to justify anything. You're are right that it's illegal to be gay in a number of countries. Please don't minimise my oppression by making light of a new 'openly gay' person in order to stick one to the trans.

@SmokedDuck

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.

I think this really varies from one individual Wikipedia bio to another. In some cases yes sexual orientation and other personal characteristics will be pretty divorced from the "what this person is known for" (typically career). OTOH, homosexuality isn't just what you do in the bedroom, it often massively shapes someone's cultural lived experiences and indeed life chances. Take Rupert Everett as one quick example - do you not agree that his sexual orientation is a significant part of his career, in terms of how he has (and hasn't) been cast?

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

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.

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.

Apparently being straight makes you a basic bitch now anyway.

'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.

'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.

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!

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?

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.