More
32

Why on some social medias is an individual's sexual orientation mentioned as if it were a credential for trustworthiness, when it's completely irrelevant to whatever it is they are famous for or being cited for?

Case in point (Takes you to tumblr). It says,

"For those who don't know, this is Joe Lycett. He's a British comedian who's also bisexual/pansexual (he uses both labels interchangeably afaik), and this isn't an isolated thing.

He has a show called Joe Lycett's Got Your Back which explains consumer rights, exposes dodgy businesses and actually fights on behalf of people who have been scammed by those businesses, often successfully."

I don't care about Joe Lycett's sexuality. I am not planning to have sex with him and I'm pretty damn sure he isn't hoping to have sex with me. I've listened to and enjoyed his radio shows. But what does his sexual orientation have to do with the reliability of the information he provides on consumer affairs?

People's "gender", by which I mean sex, is likewise irrelevant 99% of the time; it's just that one's sex is so immediately obvious there is no need to mention it.

Why on some social medias is an individual's sexual orientation mentioned as if it were a credential for trustworthiness, when it's completely irrelevant to whatever it is they are famous for or being cited for? [Case in point](https://www.tumblr.com/fishonthetree/712116199979466752?source=share) (Takes you to tumblr). It says, > "For those who don't know, this is Joe Lycett. He's a British comedian who's also bisexual/pansexual (he uses both labels interchangeably afaik), and this isn't an isolated thing. > He has a show called Joe Lycett's Got Your Back which explains consumer rights, exposes dodgy businesses and actually fights on behalf of people who have been scammed by those businesses, often successfully." I don't care about Joe Lycett's sexuality. I am not planning to have sex with him and I'm pretty damn sure he isn't hoping to have sex with me. I've listened to and enjoyed his radio shows. But what does his sexual orientation have to do with the reliability of the information he provides on consumer affairs? People's "gender", by which I mean sex, is likewise irrelevant 99% of the time; it's just that one's sex is so immediately obvious there is no need to mention it.

15 comments

[–] Redmage 27 points

This is what gets me about the argument that not talking about "LGBTQIA+" (really they mean trans) is homophobia in elementary schools.

You shouldn't talk about heterosexual sex or homosexual sex with children.

You shouldn't talk about sex with children.

At some age, you need to talk about human biology, aka, what the functions of the body parts are for and how they work. This is not the same as talking about heterosexual sex.

You should never be talking about what YOU like. You should never be talking about what feels good or "technique".

They act like heterosexuals have been talking about how good sex feels to 7 year olds for ages now, and now it's their turn.
[–] 99bottles 2+2=4 10 points

They act like heterosexuals have been talking about how good sex feels to 7 year olds for ages now, and now it's their turn.

Right? This has never been a thing, heterosexuality wasn't discussed as a topic like they're trying to push LGBTQIAB2BQ++++m÷≤k topics. The only time I ever learned about heterosexual sex was in my 10th grade Sex Eduation course, where we learned about how PIV sex gets women pregnant, and STIs/STDs. That's it. Likewise with teachers - the most I knew about their personal lives was that some of them were married. It wasn't this glorified thing like the woke activists are making it out to be.
[–] fiery_chandelier 18 points

I'd say that the author is reinforcing group-membership.

tumblr socjus logic: there are two groups, oppressed and oppressor, Us and Them. You must demonstrate how you belong to oppressed class if you want to speak, or you can be assumed to belong to the oppressor class, in which you are oppressing others by speaking. If someone belongs to an oppressed class, that is a reason to support them, to show solidarity and redistribute power.

So mentioning his sexuality says "supporting/listening to him is a political action that aids the oppressed" and also hints to the reader that the author themselves is bi/pan. It's a not-so-subtle way of reminding the reader that the author is one of Us, not Them, and that author's group is one of Us, not Them. It's not really about Lycett; it's about grouping the author in with Lycett at a moment when Lycett is getting positive attention.
[–] BellaBlue 4 points

My favorite part of SocJus logic is when they want interracial relationships, but also hate white people appropriating other cultures by diluting their non-whiteness.

Here's a fun example from my own existence:

My mother is descended from 3 Mayflower families, making my mom and I evil Colonizers. We have family records that tell us some of our Mayflower ancestors married local Wampanoags and had babies that grew up to be our ancestors.

My dad's mother is Native American, belonging to the Abenaki nation.

SJWs taught me the Englishness from 400 years ago supercedes my grandmother's Nativeness.
[–] Mintie 14 points

It's so they can pride themselves on only listening to non-cis white heterosexual men. It's pathetic, because without his fancy sexuality, he's at the top of the food chain.
[–] cyrus 5 points

I kind of understand why some people on social media do this. I'm a lesbian so I'd like to find lesbian artists, actresses, and creators so doing this helps lesbians find other lesbians.

[–] dontdoxxmepal 4 points

I feel the exact same. When I was a kid I didn’t even know lesbians existed, it was like some kind of dirty secret that was stumbled upon when I was a teenager. I remember vividly the first time I saw a famous woman described as a lesbian in a news article and it genuinely blew my mind… that she could be public and open about it, and that she was a cool, normal and functioning adult who lived an aspirational life, while being a lesbian. I get why straight people think “it’s not relevant”, but they have no idea what it’s like to grow up gay.

[–] cyrus 0 points Edited

Yeah I think straight people (idk of the OP is straight or not) have a hard time understanding how isolating it is to be LGB. Not all of us live in Los Angeles or in huge cities. Some of us live in homophobic areas or areas that don't have an open LGB community.

And being LGB isn't just "a sex thing" it's a part of us like our hair color and eye color, and we aren't just constantly having sex or thinking about sex.

It kind or worries me that GCs get so upset at any public mention of being LGB, it's just going to push us back in the closet.

[–] Ptarmagant 6 points

It's all part of the magical truth wand men carry in their pants.
[–] hard_headed_woman 3 points

I think these days that would be his bona fides. He's trustworthy.
[–] Mandy [OP] 3 points

I kind of get that's the logic, but why? How does anybody's sexuality make them trustworthy? Or untrustworthy? Or anything other than gay, straight, or bi? Sexuality isn't a personality trait.

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 0 points

And claiming “would fuck anyone” is the opposite of trustworthy …
© Ovarit LLC
About Ovarit | Rules | Guidelines | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Bugs | License

“All space becomes male space unless females maintain a concerted effort to mark a space for themselves.” –Sheila Jeffreys