Are these stories progress?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Could not care less about a person’s orientation, but kinda miss the days it wasn’t the lede. Announcing orientation as a descriptor for a Jeopardy player doesn’t feel like progress. Simply respecting the person without concern for their orientation was once the indication of enlightenment. If she chooses to thank her partner for support or feels free to mention any causes she cares about that indicates orientation, that’s no different than anyone else. If we want to “normalize” same-sex relationships, doesn’t treating them as normal make more sense?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Why does this trigger you?  It is of no real consequence.

If she proudly defines herself as a lesbian, why does that matter?  Do you want her to feel shame?

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

58 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why does this trigger you?  It is of no real consequence.

If she proudly defines herself as a lesbian, why does that matter?  Do you want her to feel shame?

I don't think he was "triggered."  I think his point was that it's an unnecessary lede and feels more performative than anything.  She set a record for winnings on Jeopardy in Canada.  Let that stand on its own.  And he's right - counterintuitively, the more you treat this as unusual and noteworthy, the less you're "normalizing" it, which ostensibly is the goal of pointing it out in the first place.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Why does this trigger you?  It is of no real consequence.

If she proudly defines herself as a lesbian, why does that matter?  Do you want her to feel shame?

 

No one would reasonably conclude that from what I actually wrote. You’re working from such a strong narrative it really impedes your ability to comprehend fairly straightforward concepts and instead ascribe negative motivations to others. It’s the same kind of dogmatic aggressiveness I usually get from right wingers on certain topics.

If you read what I wrote it had nothing to do with her identity or her pride in it. She’s free to present herself however she chooses as strongly as she chooses. As I said, “ If she chooses to thank her partner for support or feels free to mention any causes she cares about that indicates orientation, that’s no different than anyone else.”  If she does so, stories about her & her partner or causes can reasonably and organically flow from that.  My question is about the journalistic approach to framing this story— do we really think she’s the first lesbian on Jeopardy? Shouldn’t it be perfectly normal for lesbians to be on Jeopardy?I’m surprised that in 2022 we act as if it’s unusual for a lesbian to be on Jeopardy. It should be seen as a normal thing. Years ago, I would have thought it would be seen as such by now. That’s what I once assumed progress would look like.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

What does her orientation have to do with her winning on Jeopardy? 
 

Can’t they just say 23 Y/O tutor? 
 

I agree with the OP. 
 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Were there no history of persecuting homosexuals, I might agree with you all. 

I still contend, the concept is triggering an emotional response.  Sorry, I just do not understand.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Were there no history of persecuting homosexuals, I might agree with you all. 

I still contend, the concept is triggering an emotional response.  Sorry, I just do not understand.

Perhaps it’s triggering an emotional response for you?

My preferred candidate for the Dem nomination early on was Buttigieg. I think he’s the best communicator in the Dem party. I agree his candidacy was ground breaking and warranted some early stories of him doing, publicly at least, what no other major party candidate had done. He neither shied away from it nor focused on it — the best candidates focus on the voters. 

I would hope next time he runs his orientation is much less of an issue. Of course, if he wins, that will be a story— largely because elections tend to tell us more about voters than candidates.

I suspect there have been dozens if not hundreds of lesbians on Jeopardy. At some point, I hope that’s seen as nothing unusual. I had hoped that point would have been sooner.

[GoAU 1,600]

All people should be respected equally.  I think attaching labels to people just stigmatizes them and makes accomplishments seem less than what they are.  Agree with the OP.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Perhaps it’s triggering an emotional response for you?

My preferred candidate for the Dem nomination early on was Buttigieg. I think he’s the best communicator in the Dem party. I agree his candidacy was ground breaking and warranted some early stories of him doing, publicly at least, what no other major party candidate had done. He neither shied away from it nor focused on it — the best candidates focus on the voters. 

I would hope next time he runs his orientation is much less of an issue. Of course, if he wins, that will be a story— largely because elections tend to tell us more about voters than candidates.

I suspect there have been dozens if not hundreds of lesbians on Jeopardy. At some point, I hope that’s seen as nothing unusual. I had hoped that point would have been sooner.

Can you understand why homosexuals want to proclaim pride in their sexuality?  Can you empathize with people who only now feel relatively free?

I'm not trying to argue with you.  I want to understand why some of you believe the declaration of sexuality is still a political issue?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think he was "triggered."  I think his point was that it's an unnecessary lede and feels more performative than anything.  She set a record for winnings on Jeopardy in Canada.  Let that stand on its own.  And he's right - counterintuitively, the more you treat this as unusual and noteworthy, the less you're "normalizing" it, which ostensibly is the goal of pointing it out in the first place.

I agree in principle but, let them decide for themselves.  Your argument sounds too much like those who tell black Americans to get over the racism.  Sounds as though you would like for them to just shut up. 

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree in principle but, let them decide for themselves.  Your argument sounds too much like those who tell black Americans to get over the racism.  Sounds as though you would like for them to just shut up. 

 

 

If that's how they choose to present themselves, that makes sense - I just hate seeing people being labeled by others.  So many accomplishments stand on their own.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

If that's how they choose to present themselves, that makes sense - I just hate seeing people being labeled by others.  So many accomplishments stand on their own.

I would agree but, I still say their wounds are fresh.  Allow them to enjoy the new found freedom.  Treat them with love and respect.  Now is not the time to criticize.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Can you understand why homosexuals want to proclaim pride in their sexuality?  Can you empathize with people who only now feel relatively free?

I'm not trying to argue with you.  I want to understand why some of you believe the declaration of sexuality is still a political issue?

You keep arguing positions I’ve never taken. Please read again. No matter how hard I try to clarify my position to you, you argue something else. I said I have no problem with this person or any other contestant discussing their orientation if they choose.  I certainly don’t want anyone to feel they need to hide it, or not feel like they can have a significant other publicly cheering them on. Or feel they can’t discuss who they are and what their causes or volunteer efforts might be, especially if those things suggest orientation. That’s normal to me. Let’s normalize it. I don’t want them to feel any restrictions a straight person wouldn’t feel.

It seems like you insist on casting yourself as taking the virtuous position in stark contrast to others so you misstate what I’ve actually said— repeatedly.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You keep arguing positions I’ve never taken. Please read again. No matter how hard I try to clarify my position to you, you argue something else. I said I have no problem with this person or any other contestant discussing their orientation if they choose.  I certainly don’t want anyone to feel they need to hide it, or not feel like they can have a significant other publicly cheering them on. Or feel they can’t discuss who they are and what their causes or volunteer efforts might be, especially if those things suggest orientation. That’s normal to me. Let’s normalize it.

It seems like you insist on casting yourself as taking the virtuous position in stark contrast to others so you misstate what I’ve actually said— repeatedly.

I am very, very sorry if you feel that I have misrepresented your words.  Not at all my intention.  I am just trying to understand what it is that motivated you to create the topic.

I have tried asking you questions but, you simply ignore most of them.

No matter, I will not ask you for any further explanation.

Again, I apologize if you feel I have been unfair.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

33 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I am very, very sorry if you feel that I have misrepresented your words.  Not at all my intention.  I am just trying to understand what it is that motivated you to create the topic.

I have tried asking you questions but, you simply ignore most of them.

No matter, I will not ask you for any further explanation.

Again, I apologize if you feel I have been unfair.

I don’t think my point has proven confusing for many. It’s not about the person or how they choose to express or present themselves. A major network describes the champion as a “lesbian tutor”— do we qualify tutors by sexual orientation now? Is that now true for other jobs as well? “Lesbian doctor”? “Lesbian lawyer”? That doesn’t strike you as odd? In supposedly less progressive times, folks who referred to the “lesbian tutor” likely saw a lesbian first, a human being second, if at all.
 

And the linked story doesn’t involve the actual person talking about it all. None of quotes attributed to her reference her sexual orientation, just her accomplishments. That’s her focus. But the writer wanted it to be the story and relied solely on her Twitter account for confirmation. It’s not at all apparent that the subject of the story discussed her sexual orientation at all with the writer—it was taken from her social media bio. Perhaps she doesn’t mind that. But it’s not a story that tells you much about the individual who happens to be a lesbian— it tells you precious little else about her. I’m not sure that’s progress. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t think my point has proven confusing for many. It’s not about the person or how they choose to express or present themselves. A major network describes the champion as a “lesbian tutor”— do we qualify tutors by sexual orientation now? Is that now true for other jobs as well? “Lesbian doctor.” “Lesbian lawyer.” That doesn’t strike you as odd?
 

And the linked story doesn’t involve the actual person talking about it all. None of quotes attributed to her reference her sexual orientation, just her accomplishments. That’s her focus. But the writer wanted it to be the story and relied solely on her Twitter account for confirmation. It’s not at all apparent that the subject of the story discussed her sexual orientation at all with the writer—it was taken from her social media bio. Perhaps she doesn’t mind that. But it’s not a story that tells you much about the individual who happens to be a lesbian— it tells you precious little else about her. I’m not sure that’s progress. 

I don't know anything about the linked story.  Perhaps NBC has some homosexual agenda.  I don't know.  Honestly, I don't know why any of this matters at all.  Hence, the reason for my questioning.

All I know is,,,  I'm sorry I asked and, I am sorry if I offended you.  Honestly, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.  I don't really mind being the only one who just doesn't get it.  I do appreciate your effort to clarify.

[AU9377 5,035]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Why does this trigger you?  It is of no real consequence.

If she proudly defines herself as a lesbian, why does that matter?  Do you want her to feel shame?

 

I think he is right about this though.  It isn't progress to be defined by someone's sexuality.  They don't announce someone as the heterosexual winner. An attorney friend of mine doesn't tell others that he is gay simply because, as he told me, that would define him as the gay attorney that works at _________.  He just wants to be the guy that is good at what he does.  The rest is what it is.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

16 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I think he is right about this though.  It isn't progress to be defined by someone's sexuality.  They don't announce someone as the heterosexual winner. An attorney friend of mine doesn't tell others that he is gay simply because, as he told me, that would define him as the gay attorney that works at _________.  He just wants to be the guy that is good at what he does.  The rest is what it is.

But some folks may want to be seen as the gay attorney who focuses on gay rights issues and that’s fine, too. But it’s up to the individual. Not the rest of us, even if we’re journalists.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

14 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I think he is right about this though.  It isn't progress to be defined by someone's sexuality.  They don't announce someone as the heterosexual winner. An attorney friend of mine doesn't tell others that he is gay simply because, as he told me, that would define him as the gay attorney that works at _________.  He just wants to be the guy that is good at what he does.  The rest is what it is.

I can understand that much.  But, I can also understand why someone who is gay would feel as though they have been recently liberated and, want to proclaim pride in their sexuality.

If the woman in the OP wanted to be defined this way, I see no problem.  If NBC wanted her to be defined that way, then yes that is not what real news is about.  Then again, I gave up the idea that news without some agenda is even available other than PBS News Hour.

I will concede that I seem to be the only one who doesn't understand.  Not the first time, not the last.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree in principle but, let them decide for themselves.  Your argument sounds too much like those who tell black Americans to get over the racism.  Sounds as though you would like for them to just shut up. 

But again that’s sort of what he was arguing for. Let the person’s sexuality come up organically in the article if they choose. This wasn’t them saying it. It was a headline writer at NBC trying to virtue signal. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But again that’s sort of what he was arguing for. Let the person’s sexuality come up organically in the article if they choose. This wasn’t them saying it. It was a headline writer at NBC trying to virtue signal. 

And the writer employed another common tactic that’s making the profession increasingly suspect— quoting tweets of random people that plug into her narrative. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

  I agree with the OP as well.  Im not so sure the extent that she went out of her way to make a big deal out of her orientation, but NBC news did.  Understanding our differences are good, but when there is such a focus on labeling or categorizing people ....such as Gay/straight, Black/white, he/she etc.....it starts to erode whatever unity we have left, and sends us further down the path of division.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But again that’s sort of what he was arguing for. Let the person’s sexuality come up organically in the article if they choose. This wasn’t them saying it. It was a headline writer at NBC trying to virtue signal. 

I agree.  I just am not sure that is what happened.  Do you have proof or, are you making an assumption?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  I just am not sure that is what happened.  Do you have proof or, are you making an assumption?

Read the article & the tweet.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Read the article & the tweet.

Do you have a link?