Labels: Who Cares?

[Beast]

As most of you might know, Tom Daley has apparently ‘outed himself’ on YouTube (even though I don’t really think he has but that’s another argument altogether). Anyway, this has made the front page on a couple of papers, there’s been mixed views about it and people on Twitter have either supported him, put nasty comments about him or have got it mixed up in saying he’s gay. My question to you lot is: Who cares?

 

It sounds pretty insensitive and harsh in some ways, which I can understand, but it’s not my intention. My intention is that I don't care if anyone's straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transexual, [enter meaningless label here], etc, so why does everyone else? Why do people feel the need to label others? What difference does it make? We live in the twenty-first century where people are accepted as they are and yeah, loads of people still don’t accept homosexuality or bisexuality or any other kinds but people don't accept different races or gender roles or whatnot. It doesn’t affect their life so why are they bothered?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy that he’s happy and he’s in a relationship with another dude and he’s comfortable with that, each to their own and all that but why is such a big deal being made out of this? I also get that it's an inspiring story but it's horrible to think that courage is needed to be yourself when it should be the most natural thing in your life. I’d like to think we live in a world where being yourself isn’t really so shocking or bothering anyone whatsoever and that we can all just accept that we’re different. I know that a lot of people don’t accept difference in others but I’d like to think that most of us can be more adult, more understanding and more accepting. Love is love and it makes me angry how there are some people out there that just don’t understand it.

 

I also don’t understand how girls say “He’s gay! This makes him much more cuter/better”. HOW?! He’s the same person but just has a boyfriend. Nothing has changed!

 

There was a point to this thread, haha. Do you think that people have become more accepting? Do you think that ‘coming out’ should be front-page news? I did have more questions but I can’t think right now, I’m too tired! haha.

[Iun]

but why is such a big deal being made out of this?

 

 

See Justin Fashanu for why this is a good thing and also a big deal.

[The Peeps]

For anyone with common sense it's no big deal if people come out. It's not news and I don't see why it should be so publicised even if it's a celebrity. Unfortunately a lot of people don't have common sense or basic human decency so 'coming out' isn't always so easy. Some people feel the need to hide it because of their upbringing or friends or whatever. I don't think the media helps at all when they take a story like this and stick it on the front page. It really shouldn't matter so much.

 

On the other hand, if people out there are in the situation where they feel they have to keep their sexuality hidden, seeing that someone famous has 'come out' could encourage them and show that they're not alone. Although there are plenty of famous people who are already publicly 'out'.

[Josh64]

It's good to have a positive young role-model for gay/bi people when the typical bad stereotypes are always thrown down everyone's throats or used for comedy purposes. This will no doubt help a lot of younger people out who feel ashamed/scared to come out, especially given that, in his words, many fans have been very supportive.

 

There obviously would have been people that I just didn't know of, but when I was in my teens I didn't know of a single gay person in the public eye with a positive image who wasn't a crazy party animal/drunk or... Alan Carr. It can make you feel a bit isolated.

[Ramar]

See Justin Fashanu for why this is a good thing and also a big deal.

 

Don't even start me on that one, the way John treated his brother is utterly disgusting.

[Beast]

See Justin Fashanu for why this is a good thing and also a big deal.

 

I get that it's a good thing but what I mean is why is it important to put people like Tom Daley in a category? He said he fancies women but likes this one guy so he must be bisexual? But then others say he is gay because he likes a dude? I disagree. I just think that he likes women but is dating a dude. Does a label really matter?

 

That's what I meant by a big deal. Sorry, I was half-asleep when typing this, haha. But what I mean is, why is it a big deal that people have to label him as something? Like me, for instance. I like women but why do people feel the need to find out if I do or don't (which I've had a few times)? Does it matter?

 

For anyone with common sense it's no big deal if people come out. It's not news and I don't see why it should be so publicised even if it's a celebrity. Unfortunately a lot of people don't have common sense or basic human decency so 'coming out' isn't always so easy. Some people feel the need to hide it because of their upbringing or friends or whatever. I don't think the media helps at all when they take a story like this and stick it on the front page. It really shouldn't matter so much.

 

On the other hand, if people out there are in the situation where they feel they have to keep their sexuality hidden, seeing that someone famous has 'come out' could encourage them and show that they're not alone. Although there are plenty of famous people who are already publicly 'out'.

 

I'm happy the story is out there, don't get me wrong. I'm all for people inspired to be their true selves and to face it and stuff but I just think it must be sad for them that they need that inspiration in the first place, if that makes sense. People at this day and age should be more accepting of others but Peeps kind of gets what I mean with the whole front-page thing. We slap it on the front-page like it's ground-breaking news when it shouldn't really be but for all the right reasons. I get it's brave and everything and yeah, it takes a lot of guts but the way I'm thinking was that if it wasn't made such a big deal out of and it was just like another story in the paper, wouldn't that be better in some ways in your opinion?

 

It's good to have a positive young role-model for gay/bi people when the typical bad stereotypes are always thrown down everyone's throats or used for comedy purposes. This will no doubt help a lot of younger people out who feel ashamed/scared to come out, especially given that, in his words, many fans have been very supportive.

 

There obviously would have been people that I just didn't know of, but when I was in my teens I didn't know of a single gay person in the public eye with a positive image who wasn't a crazy party animal/drunk or... Alan Carr. It can make you feel a bit isolated.

 

Yeah, I can see why you would. It's not just a positive role model for gays and bi folk but for everyone, I think. There are people out there scared of just being who they are because of living in fear of being judged so I think it's positive for them as well. I don't know, I guess it just upsets me a bit when stuff like this happens because it should be just natural.

 

But it's like the papers print "HE'S GAY, READ INSIDE" and it's like "What's the big deal?". I've seen quite a few papers do this in the past and it irks me a little. It's like when a report is being made about someone, they say something like "Gay teacher, Blah Blah, has made this school a better place" instead of "Teacher, Blah Blah, has made this school a better place". You'd hardly say "Straight teacher, Blah Blah,...." would you?

 

===

 

Me and my friend had this discussion last night and it was an awesome discussion so I thought I'd bring it to the table here! I'm a little more awake now but I'm still a tad asleep so I'll post back in the evening but hopefully you guys get what I mean with my ramblings. Sorry if it didn't make sense before (or doesn't make sense now :p)

[pratty]

Labels can be useful though, it's like names, why I can't just be me? Why do I have to defined by a name, a name loads of other people have, a name which might predjuice me? Because it just makes it easier for people to talk about you, refer to you, call you by name to get your attention specifically, etc.

 

Similarly labels like straight, gay, bisexual are useful as short cuts. Yeah someone could say they're currently dating a man but fancy women too, but it's much easier to describe their sexuality by just saying they're bi.

 

Maybe a person's sexuality is more complex than that, and just saying straight, gay or bi pigeon holes them a bit, but generally speaking I don't think it does much too much harm to call a gay person gay.

 

Perhaps people don't want their entire identity to be defined by their sexuality and that's a different matter, I'm sure a gay actor would prefer to be known as an actor, there's no need to make a point of their sexuality. But when we're specifically discussiung a person's sexuality I don't see the harm in using the aforementioned labels.

 

As for Daley, good for him, he shouldn't have to hide his sexuality, but I really don't care.

[Rummy]

I kinda thought the same at first @Animal - to me I thought 'So? Why does it matter?'. I wasn't fussed about it being in or out of the press, but then thinking about it and someone linking to this article and it's second comment(quoted below), I decided that sure, it's a good thing!

 

There's a lot of stigma still left in the world, whether we see it or experience it. Being gay when you're a male sportsman? It's just not...done. So it's good for more and more people to come out and show others that they can too and that it doesn't matter - that's why it needs exposure.

 

insomniac506

 

02 December 2013 4:57pm

This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate

Recommend

80

 

I've been gritting my teeth all morning at the number of people (quite a lot of them straight men, but not all of them - I wouldn't want to be guilty of lazy sexual stereotyping) falling over each other to tell us how Daley's announcement "isn't important" or "shouldn't be news". I'm never sure whether this is a self-congratulatory (and naive) kind of liberalism, or just good old fashioned homophobia hiding behind a polite veneer of old-school English introversion. In my experience, the people who'd rather not talk about celebrities coming out are motivated less by an interest in individual privacy and more out of a deep-seated discomfort or dislike of homosexuality, so I tend to want to ignore the "let's not talk about it" naysayers and plough on regardless.

 

Daley's own reluctance to announce his news until now demonstrates that identifying your non-heterosexual identity is still difficult, and publicly identifying your sexuality comes with risks of criticism, rejection and abuse. Such is the lot of most people who identify as LGBTQ (that's "lesbian gay bisexual transgender or queer", for the un-acronymed), who don't have Daley's legions or supporters or celebrity status. While Guardian readers might imagine that we're living in an enlightened age where sexuality is no longer "an issue", this is an incredibly naive and dangerous perception. Identifying as LGBTQ is still incredibly difficult, especially for young people, and the risks are huge. Hence why stories like Daley's become so important for the LGBTQ community, and for younger people who may be in a similar dilemma to him.

 

It's true that there may be a bit of co-opting of Daley's story, some smoothing down of the edges and an attempt to make him "gay" when he hasn't identified as such. That's unfortunate for him, but it seems inevitable in a society where there are so few LGBTQ people of any profession out and proud, and very very few professional sportsmen. Personally I don't see that there's anything very much the matter with organisations wanting to claim Daley for their own - it's no different from the way straight society "claims" every bride and groom or every pregnant woman who waddles by as public property and yet another affirmation of the social order. So for that reason I'm happy for the LGBTQ community to "claim" Daley - he can choose his own level of involvement, if any, at a later date.

 

I'm also rather disappointed to read so many comments along the lines of "We knew already, Tom, you big poofter", once again underscoring some tired old cliches about men of Daley's boyish and non-aggressive public persona making it much more likely that he would be gay, or sports like diving being some form of cultural shorthand for homosexuality. A stereotype is still a stereotype, and as limiting and damaging even if it's "positive" or kindly intentioned. No one tends to say "Blacks have great rhythm" anymore (well at least not in the Guardian), so why are we letting commentators get away with the same kind of lazy stereotyping about sex and sexuality?

 

I know many people aren't saying it behind a veneer of homophobia so please don't get het up on that point. I'm sure there's some that are, though.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Rummy

[jayseven]

Personally I feel sorry for the dude he's dating. Daley's stated "at the moment I'm dating him," which doesn't sound like he has high hopes for it lasting!

[nightwolf]

For anyone with common sense it's no big deal if people come out. It's not news and I don't see why it should be so publicised even if it's a celebrity. Unfortunately a lot of people don't have common sense or basic human decency so 'coming out' isn't always so easy. Some people feel the need to hide it because of their upbringing or friends or whatever. I don't think the media helps at all when they take a story like this and stick it on the front page. It really shouldn't matter so much.

 

On the other side of things, because it is difficult to 'come out'. Those who are very supportive of being homosexual, feel the need to celebrate it.

 

Which, isn't a bad thing, but that's the sort of thing I'm seeing. Because it's celebrated, it makes it a big deal to 'come out' to people, which for some could be just as bad as the other side.

 

Obviously it is great that he felt the need to share this news about his boyfriend with the news/media, but there's no need to have to share or have such a public display about him being gay.

 

It's great that you're gay, let's move on. :awesome:

[Guy]

I think modern society needs to move beyond caring about sexual preference. It really isn't a big deal at all.

[rizz]

Having children depends upon your sexual orientation, I think that's a pretty big deal myself.

 

There are the people who say things like gays are just the same, and then have things like gay pride to celebrate their differences. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but they are different (in a very important way) and that's why they are labelled as such.

 

And just to clarify: I am not saying anything is right or wrong; I think he should keep his private life private.

[Grazza]

Having children depends upon your sexual orientation, I think that's a pretty big deal myself.

 

Does it really though? I know several gay people who have fathered children, then embraced their "real" self afterwards. I don't think the desire to breed (or not) is linked to your sexual orientation. It's just something that's important to some people, whatever their sexual preference.

 

Anyway, I agree with you @Animal. It's not like you're saying "Don't talk about it". I actually think it's fantastic that being gay is not a big deal any more. I'm from the '70s, so I've been through the '80s where gay pop stars were seen as a bit strange (although I suppose some of them were, regardless of their sexuality!), through the more accepting '90s, then the thoroughly accepting '00s and onwards. I actually think the "cause" had a big help when Graham Norton started his Channel 4 chat show. When that started, a lot of people thought it was just for gay people, but through sheer hard work and talent, he's made it the main chat show on TV.

 

What I don't like is the idea of a "closet", because it implies gay people have some sort of secret they need to get out. Well, they don't. I never make assumptions about anyone - never assume they're heterosexual, homosexual or sexual at all.

 

So yeah, it's good that it's no longer a big deal. In the meantime, good on ya Tom Daley and others like you.

[MoogleViper]

On the other side of things, because it is difficult to 'come out'. Those who are very supportive of being homosexual, feel the need to celebrate it.

 

Which, isn't a bad thing, but that's the sort of thing I'm seeing. Because it's celebrated, it makes it a big deal to 'come out' to people, which for some could be just as bad as the other side.

 

I agree with the latter. Making it such a big deal, just adds even more pressure and worry to people who want to come out. If everyone were more nonchalant about the whole thing, then it would be much easier to come out.

[rizz]

Does it really though? I know several gay people who have fathered children, then embraced their "real" self afterwards. I don't think the desire to breed (or not) is linked to your sexual orientation.

 

Fair enough. I have my opinions about that, but I think that's a different topic :P

[Daft]

Personally I feel sorry for the dude he's dating. Daley's stated "at the moment I'm dating him," which doesn't sound like he has high hopes for it lasting!

 

And this here is why the story is a big deal. Even now he's 'out', Tom Daley still feels the needs to qualify himself. And I don't blame him. This is structural violence at its most explicit.

[MoogleViper]

And this here is why the story is a big deal. Even now he's 'out', Tom Daley still feels the needs to qualify himself. And I don't blame him. This is structural violence at its most explicit.

 

Perhaps I'm being stupid but I don't see how that relates to Jay's post.

[Ashley]

Presumably the implication that it may not be "permanent" because there's still so much stigma attached to it. He's not saying "I'm with this person for now" but rather "I'm with a man for now" because that's more easily swallowable to the masses.

[MoogleViper]

Presumably the implication that it may not be "permanent" because there's still so much stigma attached to it. He's not saying "I'm with this person for now" but rather "I'm with a man for now" because that's more easily swallowable to the masses.

 

Really? I only read it as "This is the person I'm dating now, but it may not last".

[Dog-amoto]

 

 

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Having children depends upon your sexual orientation, I think that's a pretty big deal myself.

 

There are the people who say things like gays are just the same, and then have things like gay pride to celebrate their differences. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but they are different (in a very important way) and that's why they are labelled as such.

 

And just to clarify: I am not saying anything is right or wrong; I think he should keep his private life private.

 

A lot of straight people can't or just don't want to have children, and both straight and gay people can adopt if they so desire, so in practical terms it's less of a difference than it might seem at first glance.

 

You're right, though, there are differences, and they are certainly important for the individual - but ironically enough, that's exactly why it's so important that we don't make a big deal out of it. As long as we make a huge point of people's sexuality, it will always be a stigmatised topic; I know gay people who have been judged by other gay people for not living up to their stereotypes of gay people.

 

It's true what @pratty says that labels can be useful; they're handy tools that we use to more easily navigate the world, but we have to realise that that's all they are. They have their limitations by virtue of being a tool for categorisation and simplification. We must not make our labels our identity, because identity is far too complex and fluid a concept to be put in boxes. Whatever labels people may have - gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, nerd, hipster etc. etc. - those labels are only what we are; they're not who we are.

[Beast]

Labels can be useful though, it's like names, why I can't just be me? Why do I have to defined by a name, a name loads of other people have, a name which might predjuice me? Because it just makes it easier for people to talk about you, refer to you, call you by name to get your attention specifically, etc.

 

Similarly labels like straight, gay, bisexual are useful as short cuts. Yeah someone could say they're currently dating a man but fancy women too, but it's much easier to describe their sexuality by just saying they're bi.

 

Maybe a person's sexuality is more complex than that, and just saying straight, gay or bi pigeon holes them a bit, but generally speaking I don't think it does much too much harm to call a gay person gay.

 

Perhaps people don't want their entire identity to be defined by their sexuality and that's a different matter, I'm sure a gay actor would prefer to be known as an actor, there's no need to make a point of their sexuality. But when we're specifically discussiung a person's sexuality I don't see the harm in using the aforementioned labels.

 

As for Daley, good for him, he shouldn't have to hide his sexuality, but I really don't care.

 

But this was my point. People are now calling him gay or bisexual and he might not be. He might not like to be called that. After all, going by his videos, his preference is still girls but likes A guy, that's hardly bisexualism, is it? I mean, he might like other dudes later on but what if it was just that one guy because he loved him as a person?

 

This has happened before with straight people or gay people. One that springs instantly to mind is Marcus in Coronation Street (I know, I know but listen), he's gay and identifies as gay but is currently dating a girl. What if Tom Daley is doing the same? What if he identifies as straight but is dating a man? Nobody knows this. I personally don't think it's even important or relevant to label his sexuality as something.

 

I think modern society needs to move beyond caring about sexual preference. It really isn't a big deal at all.

 

What I don't like is the idea of a "closet", because it implies gay people have some sort of secret they need to get out. Well, they don't. I never make assumptions about anyone - never assume they're heterosexual, homosexual or sexual at all.

 

I agree with the latter. Making it such a big deal, just adds even more pressure and worry to people who want to come out. If everyone were more nonchalant about the whole thing, then it would be much easier to come out.

 

This is PRECISELY what my intentions are. Why do people care about other people's sexual orientation? Does it matter if I'm straight or gay? Do people honestly give that much of a shit whether I like men or women? Will it actually affect their life? Living in the times we live in now, we should have learned that if you look beyond colour, gender, sexuality and whatnot, there is a person and none of that list defines you at all. What does define you are your actions, how you treat other people and your decisions in life.

 

I also hate the idea of someone who is "closeted" just because someone doesn't feel the need to speak out loud about their sexuality and it ties nicely with Moogleviper's quote. What I tried to say with making it front-page is that it could pressure people even more into 'coming out' (I really hate that phrase so much!) because it's been made into such a big deal and made a big spectacle out of it. As I said, if it wasn't mentioned on the front-page and just mentioned inside the paper, I think it'd relieve the stress and pressures of having to come out should they want to.

 

They don't have to say they're gay, bisexual or whatever to other people if they truly don't want to. I don't see a point in labels at all unless you want to identify yourself as something. I don't feel pressured into saying I'm straight and I very rarely ever say "I'm straight" but rather, I say "I'm into women". I actually had this today with a girl at work. She thought I was gay because of my voice and because I was a laugh whereas the straight blokes she knew were moody. I said "Nah, I fancy girls. I get asked or told I'm gay a lot and it don't bother me". Why say you're straight? Why put that label and that added pressure?

 

I'm not saying that ALL people will be like this but it's like straight or gay people might like one person of the opposite or same sex, what label would you be then? Would you still identify yourself as the sexuality you said or would you be an entirely new sexuality?

 

Really? I only read it as "This is the person I'm dating now, but it may not last".

 

That's how I read it too. I think it's a matter of reading too much into it. It's people reading too much into him saying "Of course, I fancy girls".

Edited December 4, 2013 by Animal

[Ashley]

Ninja please. My degree was built upon semiotics and queer studies. If anything, I'm not reading enough into it.

[Diageo]

The fact that coming out is still such a hard thing to do makes it a big deal. Non-chalantly shrugging off someone's coming out can undermine it and make it appear trivial, whereas it's an important realisation, communication of trust. It's like saying "I'm getting married" and getting a "who cares, why do you want to label yourself". It's important for people because it's a large transition. Sure, if the person doesn't want to make a big deal about it, just like if they didn't want a big deal about their wedding, it isn't required, but you shouldn't just ignore it.

 

It was a brave thing for him to do, and it will have an enormous positive impact on other people, and be one of the minute steps towards greater acceptance in society. The fact it made news means it's important to a lot of people, be it for positive or negative reasons. Not only does it create a possible role model, but helps highlight societies opinion, by either hearing the opinions of people around you or from the media.

 

There hopefully will be a day where it doesn't make news, but we're not even close to it yet.