[DC City Councilman David] Catania, who is openly gay, also complained that the clinic does not have the resources needed to stem the city's HIV/AIDS epidemic.
First of all, is the fact of Catania's sexuality really germane to the story, which is about Catania's belief the clinic is being mismanaged? Yes, HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects the gay community, but this story isn't about that. It's about bookeeping and compliance with Federal laws. If Catania were straight, would the Post have found it necessary to point that out?
And if they need to mention Catania's sexuality, why not just say "gay?" It's not as if they're going to write, "Catania, who is secretly gay..."
The problem I have with "openly" is it implies there is something to hide. As if being "open" is unusual and out of the ordinary. That might have once been the case but hello, Washington Post, they're marrying the gays in Iowa! The closet has vastly shrunk. Worse, the qualifier "openly" makes an important but mundane aspect of Catania's life sound tawdry. It sounds like condemnation. "Catania, who is openly an arsonist..."
Catania. Is. Gay. Not a biggie.
The phrase "openly gay" needs to follow its predecessor "practicing homosexual" to the ash heap of history.
3 comments:
I am not explicitly defending the use of the phrase. I do, however, understand why the Post might still use it. If anyone were to call Barney Frank the first gay member of the US Congress, all thinking people would laugh aloud at the hilarity of the notion that there had been none before. In the same light, though we all agree that the closet is getting smaller thanks to evolution of thought and court rulings, it would still stand to reason that there are enough still closeted members of the gay community that the distinction may still hold relevance for politicians.
Regarding the relevance of this information for the article in question, it argued that among the reasons for Mr. Catania's charges of mismanagement was Whitman Walker was expanding its mission to a broader focus on the community at large. Which would make his sexual orientation as relevant as it would be for an African American elected official criticizing a hypothetical move for the NAACP to change its focus.
I'm planning to be a practicing homosexual for the rest of my life, Scott: I want to keep getting better at it :D
Thank you both for commenting.
Michael: Keep practicing. One day you'll get it right :-)
Rest Refugee: In a historical context it makes sense to use the formulation -- in fact, that just reinforces my point.
But the article does not mention criticism from Catania to the clinic for expanding its mission beyond the gay community -- so it hardly seems to be a justification for mentioning his sexuality in this context.
And by the way, I notice that when mentioning Jim Graham, the Post drops the "openly" and reports merely that he is "also gay." Nothing in the reporting in the article would suggest that he had problems with the clinic's mission. He was upset over firings. It's curious that the Post felt it necessary to point out that Graham is gay, and didn't mention he used to be the head of the Clinic.
Maybe the Post's real subtext here is "look at the gays fighting amongst themselves."
Post a Comment