Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (33184)	10/16/2001 8:16:24 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

E, I think that was J.C. (male) handing over to his wife J. (female)... in the same post... As far as outing the dead goes... well, I get annoyed by the vocal-but-tedious lobby (over here) which keeps claiming that such-and-such a talented historical figure was gay - both without obvious proof or reason, and as though the gayness were the cause of his (rarely her) talent. If the facts could be separated from this tabloid-style PR, then I'd see less problems. My main demur comes when descendants fear or resent the stigma they perceive from the outing of their ancestor: should their feelings be respected here, or should the truth be brought out regardless? The issue, of course, is mixed in whether their sexuality has any being on what made their life important or interesting to others - or is included simply for prurience or extra publicity. And, of course, if homosexuality were accepted as a variety of normal, then it would probably not be concealed in the first place, would not cause publicity or shame, and no one would bother outing the dead in the first place... Looking at it from a personal view, of course, my sexuality is mine and mine alone. I'd certainly never give any biographer (should I ever have one <g>) any information, assistance or details about anything I regard as my private life, if anything I'd take pains to stop any such nosiness. It's none of anyone else's business what I do, with whom, or how. Only as it affects other actions in my life is it even relevant. And I'm generally uninterested in personal biography, per se, for the above reasons... I guess that shows...

To: E who wrote (33184)	10/16/2001 10:45:12 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Did you stop at all to wonder ... How does he know I am gay? How does he know I am a man? How does he know how I would answer "Who Am I?" The above masculine personal pronouns indicate that you are male. But in this post, you mentioned a husband. ITs possible the he or she (I think she according to an early post) was using "he" in a generic sense. The "How does he know" was an imagined thought that Constant Reader (I think) would have had. If CR did not know the sex of JC traditional English usage would use "he" as the pronoun. More people are starting to use "he or she" but JC might have thought of CR as using the conventional usage. Most people would put in the correct pronoun for themselves instinctually but this wouldn't happen with all people, all of the time. Tim

To: E who wrote (33184)	10/16/2001 12:33:44 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 82486

Hi, E. Those are a lot of questions !!! I think you are using the question style to suggest views of your own, so I won't attempt to answer them one by one. I will instead, chat with you on the spirit (as I perceive it, of course) of your point of view. Do you think that if the gayness of a deceased public figure is known, it should be kept secret from those of us who find it interesting... I take this particular question to capture a lot of your view. You perceive that not mentioning sexual preference is the equivalent of keeping it a secret. I, on the other hand, perceive it as simply a matter of good taste and respect for privacy. I believe that sexual orientation is an aspect of our humanity that should be revealed only by our choice, and not by another's choice. To say very much more would only make me repeat myself. Ironically (given all that has been discussed here recently and the labels that have pinned on me), the reason I feel the way I do is that I do not regard sexual preference in terms of good or bad. Thus, by definition (for me), that characteristic is incapable of illuminating anything about a person other than ... sexual preference. So it becomes gratuitous for me to see it mentioned. To use very poor analogies, it would be like a biographer telling me that someone had bad breath. Why is that being mentioned? Or that a man liked to wear a woman's dress occasionally. Why I am being told that? You seem to be arguing, E, that if a biographer does not tell me these things, he is withholding secrets. I say, no, he is exercising good taste and judgment. No matter how much further we were to discuss this subject, I think we would just keep bumping into the very same difference in perceptions. Digressing slightly, I think that when there was insistence that FDR be portrayed in his monument as having been wheelchair bound, I think that was inappropriate. For the reason that FDR strived all his life to conceal that reality. I don't think it is for us to retroactively decide that he was wrong in doing this. He did it, and that was his choice. I think that should have been respected. The monument does not portray FDR as he truly appeared, which was standing tall, accomplished with heavy concealed braces and herculean effort. Most people hardly knew at the time that he was paralyzed, and that was as he wished. I view it as a reproach to him, and his memory, that he now be forced to appear for eternity differently than he appeared at the time, simply to insist on making a point.You might just as well say that if he wore a toupee, he must now be portrayed as bald ... because otherwise we are keeping secrets. Just don't see it that way, E. JC