'American Idol's' David Archuleta comes out as being part of the LGBTQ+

[DelusionalGaga 29,205]

26 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

It just doesn't sound right to me that someone will look at someone and deduce their sexuality, sorry. Sexuality is extremely intimate and doesn't have any ties to how we choose to present ourselves. All of it's physical manifestations are purely based on social constructs.

I definitely agree with you that stereotypes is mostly unhelpful and assuming other people's sexuality etc. can be very harmful. However, I think it's very naive to say that things like sex, gender and expression have nothing to do with each other. They don't have to determine each other but they certainly are interrelated. There is a reason why a lot of gay men are presenting in a certain way. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

14 minutes ago, DelusionalGaga said:

I definitely agree with you that stereotypes is mostly unhelpful and assuming other people's sexuality etc. can be very harmful. However, I think it's very naive to say that things like sex, gender and expression have nothing to do with each other. They don't have to determine each other but they certainly are interrelated. There is a reason why a lot of gay men are presenting in a certain way. 

Its obviously a huge debate but I just don’t believe that sexuality would express itself behaviourally if people developed in a vacuum? Sure its impossible to conceive of but I think the way we’re brought up contributes way more to our expressions than our inherent sexualities. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

31 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Oh Lord. The condescension is epic in this post and the reach is even more epic. 

Don't quote me again with your opinions stated as facts.

 

Where did I state anything as a fact? The only thing I said was that the gaydar has no scientific basis and that it is judgmental - by definition - to make assumptions about someone’s sexuality. You’re the one being condescending by acting like you’re above a discussion. 

[RichAssPiss 4,110]

58 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

What is it exactly that makes you "tell"? Surely those are social markers rooted in some sort of misogynistic, and by extension homophobic, ideas. Either that or you're suggesting some sort of "6th sense" that gay people have which is just not scientifically accurate. I'm so over the "gaydar" thing. It's so judgmental.

You really need to read queer history and theory. You're completely confusing queer kinship with homophobia. And the idea that you think anything about queer culture can be measured as "scientifically accurate" is really discomforting. Science called us deviants. Homophobia and the pre-judging of queer people as a species that "gives itself away" comes from science. Read Foucault's History of Sexuality and educate yourself about Psychopathia Sexualis. 

[DelusionalGaga 29,205]

Just now, HausOfAntonio said:

Its obviously a huge debate but I just don’t believe that sexuality would express itself behaviourally if people developed in a vacuum? Sure its impossible to conceive of but I think the way we’re brought up contributes way more to our expressions than our inherent sexualities. 

True. Something being a social construct may mean that there's no biological cause for it but it doesn't make it not "real". If we lived in a vacuum then we wouldn't have to worry about it. But we do live in a society that is defined by its social constructs. Having experienced life as a gay man in our society means I have been conditioned to certain things, as has David Archuleta. So it's not that crazy that a gay man can tell certain things about another gay man. Doesn't mean that we have to say anything publicly to him, of course. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

14 minutes ago, RichAssPiss said:

You really need to read queer history and theory. You're completely confusing queer kinship with homophobia. And the idea that you think anything about queer culture can be measured as "scientifically accurate" is really discomforting. Science called us deviants. Homophobia and the pre-judging of queer people as a species that "gives itself away" comes from science. Read Foucault's History of Sexuality and educate yourself about Psychopathia Sexualis. 

No way you’re telling a queer person who actively reads queer theory to read queer theory I-

Sis get a grip the amount of delusion. I’m not talking about queer kinship. If you’re as educated as you’re trying to come across please you would know you’re deliberately trying to twist my words. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

7 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Where did I state anything as a fact? The only thing I said was that the gaydar has no scientific basis and that it is judgmental - by definition - to make assumptions about someone’s sexuality. You’re the one being condescending by acting like you’re above a discussion. 

No. When you are inside the same community it's about acceptance. It's isn't about being judgmental. That applies to people outside the community that will never suffer the injustices in our community.  

 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

14 minutes ago, DelusionalGaga said:

True. Something being a social construct may mean that there's no biological cause for it but it doesn't make it not "real". If we lived in a vacuum then we wouldn't have to worry about it. But we do live in a society that is defined by its social constructs. Having experienced life as a gay man in our society means I have been conditioned to certain things, as has David Archuleta. So it's not that crazy that a gay man can tell certain things about another gay man. Doesn't mean that we have to say anything publicly to him, of course. 

I agree with everything you said. The last sentence specifically - keep these judgments to yourself, you’re only reinforcing prejudiced stereotypes when people come out and suddenly its all about “called it” or “I always knew”. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

Just now, JusKeepBreathin said:

No. When you are inside the same community it's about acceptance. It's isn't about being judgmental. That applies to people outside the community that will never suffer the injustices in our community.  

 

Most of the time when I hear gay men speculate about someone’s sexuality and they’re not out it sounds FAR from accepting (see any gay twitter page’s comments on Shawn Mendes). I understand where you’re coming from, but in practice these thing rarely have positive outcomes imo. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

3 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Most of the time when I hear gay men speculate about someone’s sexuality and they’re not out it sounds FAR from accepting (see any gay twitter page’s comments on Shawn Mendes). I understand where you’re coming from, but in practice these thing rarely have positive outcomes imo. 

I think I understand what you mean now. I do agree alot of comments are harsh. And even in David's case when the "comments" accused him of being homophobic because he didn't come out. I do agree with you that social markers even within the gay community can be used in a in a way that is destructive to our own community. Especially when trying to force someone out of the closet. But IMO opinion they can also be positive. Even if we see less positivity in social media. 

[RichAssPiss 4,110]

15 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

No way you’re telling a queer person who actively reads queer theory to read queer theory I-

Sis get a grip the amount of delusion. I’m not talking about queer kinship. If you’re as educated as you’re trying to come across please you would know you’re deliberately trying to twist my words. 

I am not deliberately trying to twist your words. Resorting to calling something "scientifically accurate" is discomforting to me and it is specifically a phrase you used. People identifying queer peers is really important and I don't think it is misogynist or something that needs to be eliminated. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

Just now, RichAssPiss said:

I am not deliberately trying to twist your words. Resorting to calling something "scientifically accurate" is discomforting to me and it is specifically a phrase you used. People identifying queer peers is really important and I don't think it is misogynist or something that needs to be eliminated. 

Identifying queerness is not what's going on here. I'm talking about equating gayness in cis men to femininity.

[RichAssPiss 4,110]

Just now, HausOfAntonio said:

Identifying queerness is not what's going on here. I'm talking about equating gayness in cis men to femininity.

But I would argue my own experience with Archuleta was never specifically about him being feminine. It's not even really a fair way to express what we all saw. It's almost impossible to logically explain in words what comes across socially as queer. In most cases, I think it's nuances of the self that we recognize in others but which are too finite to put into words. Which is part of why it's an often unspoken nod or wink or mutual recognition. That other people take that and think they're a part of something by insisting fem cis men are gay is a second thing that can be separately critiqued. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

1 minute ago, RichAssPiss said:

But I would argue my own experience with Archuleta was never specifically about him being feminine. It's not even really a fair way to express what we all saw. It's almost impossible to logically explain in words what comes across socially as queer. In most cases, I think it's nuances of the self that we recognize in others but which are too finite to put into words. Which is part of why it's an often unspoken nod or wink or mutual recognition. That other people take that and think they're a part of something by insisting fem cis men are gay is a second thing that can be separately critiqued. 

Ok that's all fair, but its not what I'm criticising. An example I think of all the time is like when Nikkie Tutorials came out as trans and then suddenly everyone was giving the whole "I called it" thing. I'm just not comfortable with people's responses to other's identities when they're phrased to imply that there's something in their expressions that signify their sexuality. Especially in the cis gay community where oftentimes these comments are phrased in a sexual way or in a way that highlights the parts of a person that are recognised as "gay".

[RichAssPiss 4,110]

6 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Ok that's all fair, but its not what I'm criticising. An example I think of all the time is like when Nikkie Tutorials came out as trans and then suddenly everyone was giving the whole "I called it" thing. I'm just not comfortable with people's responses to other's identities when they're phrased to imply that there's something in their expressions that signify their sexuality. Especially in the cis gay community where oftentimes these comments are phrased in a sexual way or in a way that highlights the parts of a person that are recognised as "gay".

If you haven't yet, I really recommend reading Eve Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet, particularly her explanation of universalizing and minoritizing discourses on queerness. It helps me think about this a lot. There is an element here where queer minority identities also urge people to reflect on themselves and in some way explore their own self-understanding (she uses the gay panic defense to explain this). But I think some of that is what's happening here. People put a premium on being able to recognize and identify queer minorities because if they would accept that they can't it would raise too many questions about themselves and their own genders and sexualities.