Pete Buttigieg attacks LGBT media.

Prompted by my son John at Facebook, I'm reading "Buttigieg: 'I can't even read the LGBT media anymore'" (at NBC):
During a radio interview on Wednesday, SiriusXM host Clay Cane of “The Clay Cane Show” asked Buttigieg, who would be the first openly gay president if elected, about criticisms in “LGBT circles” that “more masculine-presenting men have more access,” posing the question, “How different would it be if you were quote unquote ‘more effeminate?’”

“It’s tough for me to know, right, because I just am what I am, and you know, there’s going to be a lot of that,” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, responded. “That’s why I can’t even read the LGBT media anymore, because it’s all, ‘he's too gay,’ ‘not gay enough,’ ‘wrong kind of gay.’”

“All I know is life became a lot easier when I just started allowing myself to be myself, and I’ll let other people write up whether I’m ‘too this’ or ‘too that,’” he continued.
ADDED: That really was a fantastic question from Clay Cane. And, really, there is a larger question here. Masculinity and femininity are always being monitored and reacted to. That's always going on when we look at the various candidates, whether we admit it or not. It's impossible to know what really works best — i.e., who has the most "access" — but it's obviously not that the most masculine man or the most feminine woman has the greatest advantage. It's more of a mystery. Remember this scientific inquiry into the mystery?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

“2020 Democratic candidate Sen. Kamala Harris asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in a Tuesday letter to consider suspending President Trump's account...”

“According to an excerpt, the president privately suggested to aides that soldiers shoot migrants in the legs, but he was told it would be illegal.”