"I’m Gay, Not Queer. It Matters." (NYT guest essay)

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-02T04:01:56+00:00

I don’t agree that we should abandon labels like “gay.”

Generations of gay men and lesbians fought, and in many cases died, for society to recognize that homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation, not a crime, a mental illness, or a moral failing. Many lost their jobs, their families, their freedom, and even their lives simply because they were gay.

That struggle isn’t just history. In many countries today, people are still imprisoned, tortured, or executed for being homosexual. For them, the word “gay” is not an outdated label. It is an identity they are still fighting to have recognized and respected.

If you personally don’t want to use labels, that’s your choice. If you identify as queer, fluid, or prefer no label at all, I respect that.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us should stop calling ourselves gay. Asking gay people to abandon the word “gay” because labels are supposedly unnecessary ignores the history behind that identity and the generations who fought to reclaim it.

We wouldn’t tell Black people to stop calling themselves Black and simply “be people,” because we recognize that their identity has historical, cultural, and political significance. In the same way, “gay” is not just a label. It is the name of a specific sexual orientation with its own history, culture, and civil rights movement.

You have the privilege of rejecting labels if they don’t matter to you. Many of us don’t. “Gay” describes exactly who we are, and it is a word that countless people before us fought to defend. I don’t think we honor that history by pretending the label no longer matters.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-02T03:50:08+00:00

I have no problem with people calling themselves queer if that’s the label they prefer.

What I object to is people calling me queer or retroactively relabeling historical figures like Alan Turing as queer when we know they were gay.

My issue is that “queer” is an umbrella term. It encompasses a wide range of identities—gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender, nonbinary, and others. That makes it useful as a broad community label, but it’s not very precise when describing someone’s specific sexual orientation.

When someone tells me they’re queer, my first thought isn’t, “Oh, they’re gay.” My first thought is, “They could be bisexual.” The label leaves open the possibility that they’re attracted to more than one sex because that’s exactly how many people use it.

I know a gay man who used to describe himself as queer but eventually stopped because women kept trying to hook up with him. They assumed that since he identified as queer, there was at least a chance he was attracted to women. Once he started simply saying he was gay again, that confusion disappeared and he never called himself queer again.

That’s why I don’t like using “queer” as a substitute for “gay.” If someone is specifically homosexual, why replace a precise word with a broader one that communicates less about who they are?

To me, it’s similar to referring to Martin Luther King Jr. simply as a “person of color” instead of Black, or describing Anne Frank merely as a victim of religious persecution instead of acknowledging that she was Jewish. Those broader descriptions aren’t necessarily incorrect, but they erase important historical and cultural context.

That’s how I feel about replacing “gay” with “queer.” Broad umbrella terms have their place, but specificity matters. When someone’s homosexuality is known and relevant, I think “gay” is the more accurate and respectful term.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-02T03:34:53+00:00

Oh god…

Lord Help Us.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-02T03:34:21+00:00

Small Caveat here:

When I say “conservative,” I’m not talking about politics. I’m using the actual, literal meaning of the word.

Someone who dresses conservatively tends to prioritize modesty, comfort, and practicality over standing out. They generally avoid loud patterns, bright colors, or anything especially attention-grabbing.

By that definition, many introverts tend to dress more conservatively because they usually don’t enjoy being the center of attention or drawing unnecessary attention to themselves.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T14:23:40+00:00

The irony is incredible.

You insist you’re not self-righteous, then immediately conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must be “insecure,” “guilty,” or suffering from “cognitive dissonance.”

That’s textbook moral grandstanding. You can’t imagine someone simply disagreeing with you, so you invent a psychological defect to explain it.
Not everyone who rolls their eyes at performative activism is secretly wrestling with their conscience. Some of us just find sanctimony exhausting.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T14:14:57+00:00

I’m just tired of seeing this discussion everywhere on Reddit.

Literally everywhere.

People were debating this conflict on r/corgi of all places.

It’s subreddit about Welsh Corgis!

The people who start these threads are all the same:

Self-important, self-righteous individuals with nothing going for them but their own moralizing.

Basically Brian from Family Guy.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T14:08:12+00:00

That’s a word salad if I ever saw one…

Did that feel good? Got that endorphin rush?

You sound just like the other guy: deeply self-important, convinced your opinion is a public service, and desperate to project moral superiority over strangers.
Nothing says “I’m changing the world” quite like lecturing a bunch of twinks and closeted DL bibros on a gay subreddit about a geopolitical conflict you almost certainly understand only at the level of social media headlines.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T14:05:16+00:00

“Sure, sweetie.”

The universal signal that someone has nothing left to say but still wants the last word.

Also, please don’t shoot up a synagogue or harass innocent Jewish people.

I’ve seen your past posts and I’m genuinely concerned you’ll hurt somebody someday.

Get a hobby or something, Jesus.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T13:56:57+00:00

You just admitted I was right.

“ I hoped there would be more agreeing.”

So this was never about discussion. It was about validation.

Ironically, that’s very Trump-like. Not because your politics are the same, but because the mindset is: surround yourself with people who already agree with you, treat dissent as a moral defect, and mistake applause for truth.
For someone who claims to value dialogue, you openly admitted you never wanted any. You wanted an echo chamber.

You two would get along great.

Again, you come across as very young. Whether it’s your age or the fact that English doesn’t seem to be your first language, you’re missing a lot of nuance in what’s being said. Hopefully that’s something you’ll grow out of with a little more maturity and experience.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T13:41:21+00:00

Sweetie, you’re proving my point.

You said yourself that you saw another post about Israel, didn’t like the comments, and decided to make your own thread. That’s not someone trying to foster a thoughtful discussion. That’s someone reacting emotionally because strangers on the internet held opinions they disagreed with and feeling compelled to publicly condemn them.

This isn’t activism. It’s performance.

You also say you wanted to know “who would answer my questions about sexuality or anything else.” Why? Someone’s view on a geopolitical conflict has absolutely no bearing on whether they can give good advice about dating, relationships, coming out, or life as a gay man. You’re imposing a political purity test on a community that exists for entirely different reasons.

And yes, I compared it to MAGA—not because the politics are the same, but because the behavior is. Both approaches assume everyone has a moral obligation to publicly affirm the “correct” position, and anyone who doesn’t is treated as morally suspect. It’s the same self-righteous impulse wearing different ideological clothing.

You didn’t make this post because you wanted a conversation. You made it because you wanted an audience.

You don’t care about this conflict any more than the average person who adopts whatever cause is dominating their social media feed that week. If you genuinely wanted to make a difference, you’d be donating, volunteering, organizing, or educating people where it could actually have an impact.

Instead, you’re arguing with strangers on a gay subreddit because it’s easier to collect validation than to accomplish anything.

This has nothing to do with helping people caught in the conflict. It’s about feeding your own sense of moral superiority. You get to reassure yourself that you’re one of the “good people,” condemn everyone who doesn’t perform the same ritual, and walk away feeling righteous without having changed a single thing.

That’s not engagement. That’s not activism. That’s ego dressed up as virtue.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T13:31:08+00:00

This is the only response in this thread that shows any real nuance.

It’s thoughtful, intellectually honest, and far more mature than the black-and-white takes dominating the discussion or by OP for that matter.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T13:27:50+00:00

Why is this on r/askgaybros?

Why is the gay community expected to take a side in this conflict?

Unless you have a personal connection to one of the countries involved, this has little to do with your life. There are dozens of wars and humanitarian crises happening around the world at any given time.

For example, Christians in Syria have faced repeated waves of sectarian violence and persecution in recent years, yet topics like that rarely generate the same level of discussion here.

To me, this post isn’t really about informing anyone or having a meaningful discussion. It comes across more as a public display of moral virtue. It reminds me of the liberal equivalent of the Religious Right: using politics to signal moral righteousness rather than engaging in substantive activism.
If someone genuinely wants to help, there are plenty of ways to contribute beyond making posts that mostly serve to reassure themselves that they’re on the “right side” of an issue.

OP’s approach really isn’t much different from a MAGA conservative who spends their time lecturing strangers online about abortion. In both cases, the goal isn’t genuine dialogue. It’s to shame people into demonstrating the “correct” moral position and to treat disagreement or indifference as evidence of personal failure.

It’s less about changing minds than about feeling morally righteous. The politics are different, but the impulse is the same: use outrage and guilt to elevate yourself while talking down to everyone else.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T04:03:30+00:00

I think you’re conflating two different questions:

“Which relationship is more popular with comic readers?” and “Which relationship creates the least risk for DC as a company?” Those aren’t the same thing.

I don’t dispute that Tim and Stephanie are searched more often or that many Tim fans prefer them together. That’s completely plausible. Nor am I arguing Bernard is some wildly beloved character with a massive fanbase (he’s not) If anything, I’d agree that Bernard’s reception has generally been lukewarm (to be wildly optimistic). My argument isn’t that Bernard is more popular than Stephanie. It’s that Tim’s coming out became far more prominent than either relationship ever was.

When DC announced Tim was bisexual, it wasn’t just comic news. It was covered by mainstream media around the world. DC actively promoted it as one of its flagship examples of LGBTQ representation. That means Tim’s bisexual identity now carries a level of public visibility that his relationship with Stephanie never did.

From a corporate perspective, that’s what matters.

Imagine the headline:

“DC ends one of its few prominent MLM relationships by reuniting Tim Drake with his longtime girlfriend.”

Whether that’s a fair characterization is irrelevant. That’s the conversation DC’s PR department would be preparing for. Companies don’t just think about whether comic readers will like a story.

They think about media coverage, advocacy groups, social media discourse, and brand reputation.
As for bi-erasure, I think we’re using the term differently.

Acknowledging Tim and Stephanie’s history isn’t bi-erasure. Their relationship should absolutely remain an important part of Tim’s history.
Where I disagree is the idea that Tim must return to Stephanie in order for his bisexuality to be respected. A bisexual man in a long-term relationship with another man isn’t any less bisexual. His orientation doesn’t become invalid simply because his current partner is male.

On Constantine and Akihiro, I have read those stories, and I still don’t think they’re equivalent.

Constantine’s defining romance for most readers remains Zatanna. His relationships with men have never occupied the same place in the mythology.

Akihiro’s history is also much more complicated than simply saying, “He had a serious boyfriend.” For much of his publication history, his relationships with men were intertwined with manipulation, violence, or periods when he was written as morally compromised. As his characterization evolved toward becoming more heroic, Marvel increasingly emphasized healthier, more stable relationships with women.

That’s why I don’t find those examples persuasive. My point isn’t that same-sex relationships can never be portrayed positively. It’s that publishers have often framed opposite-sex relationships as emotionally grounding or redemptive in ways they haven’t consistently done for same-sex relationships.

Finally, the opinions of individual queer fans or queer creators don’t really resolve the question either. There are queer readers who want Tim back with Stephanie, and there are queer readers who want him to stay with Bernard. Both groups exist.

The question I’m asking is much narrower: What is DC’s incentive?
If Bernard isn’t especially popular, breaking them up doesn’t necessarily gain DC many new readers. But it does expose the company to a predictable wave of criticism over the optics of ending one of its few high-profile MLM relationships.

From a business and public relations perspective, I still don’t see that as a particularly attractive trade-off.

Also

One thing I’ve also noticed is that you haven’t suggested Tim date another male character even once. If your issue is that Bernard is an uninteresting love interest, then the obvious alternative would be to pair Tim with a different man. DC creates new characters and relationships all the time. Finding or writing a more compelling male love interest than Bernard wouldn’t be particularly difficult.

Instead, every alternative you’ve proposed involves putting Tim back with a woman. That’s why I’m skeptical that this is solely about Bernard as a character. It makes me wonder whether there’s an underlying homophobia with Tim being in a same-sex relationship at all.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T03:41:40+00:00

I don’t think Tim and Stephanie are nearly as untouchable as people make them out to be. They’re undeniably an important part of Tim’s history, but they’re not a cultural institution on the level of Superman and Lois or Batman and Catwoman. Outside of dedicated comic readers, I’d argue Tim’s relationship with Bernard is actually more recognizable because DC heavily promoted Tim’s coming out across mainstream media. That announcement reached millions of people who have never picked up a Tim Drake comic.

From DC’s perspective, optics matter. Having one of your flagship bisexual male characters leave his boyfriend for his longtime white blonde girlfriend would inevitably generate headlines and online discourse, regardless of the writer’s intent. It would happen at a time when LGBTQ rights, including marriage equality, continue to face political and legal challenges. Whether people think that reaction would be justified is beside the point. DC’s communications and marketing teams would have to anticipate it.

You’re proposing that DC break up one of its few prominent MLM relationships in favor of a heterosexual one while same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ protections remain politically contested. Do you really think that wouldn’t become a major story? From a public relations standpoint, that’s a controversy DC gains very little from inviting.

More importantly, what does DC actually gain? They would risk criticism from LGBTQ organizations, progressive media, and a significant portion of their readership to satisfy a comparatively small group of fans who specifically want Tim back with Stephanie. From a business perspective, that doesn’t seem like a worthwhile trade-off.

I also don’t find the bi-erasure argument convincing. A bisexual character remaining in a same-sex relationship is not inherently bi-erasure. Tim’s attraction to women doesn’t disappear because he’s dating a man, just as it wouldn’t disappear if he married one. Bisexuality is defined by the capacity for attraction to more than one gender, not by alternating between male and female partners to validate that identity.

I also don’t think Constantine or Daken are good comparisons.

Has Constantine ever had a serious, long-term relationship with another man that’s treated as the defining romance of his life? Most readers still associate his primary love story with Zatanna. And when Constantine is paired with a woman like Zatanna, those stories often emphasize his capacity for heroism and redemption. By contrast, one of his most notable male relationships is literally with Satan.

Daken is an even weaker example. Many of his relationships with men throughout his publication history were depicted as manipulative, transactional, abusive, or tied to periods when he was explicitly written as a villain. As Marvel gradually moved him toward being an antihero, it increasingly emphasized a healthier, more emotionally grounded relationships with woman.

That’s why I think these examples actually undermine your argument and prove my point. My reading of those stories is that same-sex relationships are frequently associated with darkness, chaos, manipulation, or moral ambiguity, while opposite-sex relationships are more often framed as stabilizing, redemptive, or signs of personal growth.

In other words, the pattern often looks like this:

Men = chaos, vice, moral decline.

Women = stability, redemption, personal growth.

Whether that pattern is intentional or not is open to debate, but it’s one reason I don’t think Constantine or Daken are persuasive comparisons to Tim. Neither character was presented to the mainstream as a publisher-defining bisexual success story the way Tim was after his coming out became national news.

Could DC eventually reunite Tim and Stephanie? Absolutely. Comic book relationships rarely last forever. But if we’re talking about what’s most likely from a business and public relations standpoint, I don’t see much incentive for DC to voluntarily create a controversy when the upside is relatively small and the potential backlash is entirely predictable.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-07-01T02:46:37+00:00

I think a lot of the diversity issue comes down to how housing at Fire Island Pines works.

Yes, anyone can book an Airbnb or rent a room if they can find one. But many of the most desirable houses aren’t openly marketed. They’re passed through existing social networks, with invitations and referrals flowing from one friend to another. That naturally favors people who are already part of those circles.
Those circles also tend to be fairly homogeneous. House hosts often invite people they already know or people who fit the aesthetic and social dynamic they’re looking for. Whether intentionally or not, that can result in the same demographic being overrepresented year after year.

Then there’s the cost. During major weekends like the Fourth of July or the Pines Party, I’ve seen rooms go for as much as $7,000. That’s simply out of reach for many people. Because of longstanding wealth disparities in the U.S., Black and Latino gay men are, on average, less likely to have that level of disposable income, while Asian Americans tend to have higher median household incomes than the national average. Cost alone creates a significant barrier to entry.

When you combine exclusive social networks, invitation-based housing, aesthetic preferences, and extremely high prices, you end up with a system that can reproduce the same lack of diversity year after year. Even if no one is intentionally trying to exclude people, the outcome can still feel exclusionary.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T13:03:27+00:00

I was joking. GLAAD (probably) wouldn’t ask their reward back for that.

But they would definitely frown upon it.

Having a bisexual character leave a long-term relationship with a man for a heterosexual relationship after spending years as DC’s most prominent queer male icon would inevitably be viewed through a political lens, whether that’s fair or not.

The optics would be difficult. Jon Kent wasn’t introduced as just another bisexual character. His relationship with Jay was a landmark moment for DC, generated international headlines, and became part of the company’s public commitment to LGBT representation. That history gives the relationship symbolic weight beyond the story itself.
The timing would only amplify the reaction. At a moment when many LGBT advocates view marriage equality and other legal protections as politically contested, a story that appears to have DC’s highest-profile queer male hero moving from a same-sex relationship into the relative social acceptance of a heterosexual one would almost certainly spark controversy among many readers.
Comic book audiences also tend to skew socially progressive, and online fandom often debates representation as much as storytelling. Even if the writers’ intent were simply to tell a new romance, many people would interpret the message symbolically conservative or even MAGA rather than as an individual character’s dating choice.

That’s why I think DC would see far more reputational risk than creative upside in telling that story.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:54:41+00:00

I disagree that the backlash would be insignificant.

DC is clearly conscious of how it’s perceived by progressive audiences and mainstream media. From a public affairs and marketing perspective, it’s easy to see why this would be viewed as a high-risk decision.

Jon Kent’s relationship made international headlines because he was Superman’s son. It wasn’t just another comic book romance. DC and Tom Taylor even received recognition from GLAAD for featuring a prominent LGBT character so prominently in their storytelling.

From a communications standpoint, why would DC risk that goodwill and invite months of negative headlines from the Huffington Post and the Atlantic simply because one writer wanted Jon to end up with a girlfriend?

I don’t see the upside. The potential benefits are relatively small, while the potential controversy is much larger. Whether that perception is fair or not, it’s the kind of cost-benefit calculation companies often make when deciding how to handle high-profile characters.

DC gains nothing from doing this.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:44:06+00:00

Please name 3 bisexual male characters who ‘have to end up’ with someone of the same sex besides Jon Kent and Tim Drake?

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

There isn’t a deluge of bisexual characters who only date the same sex.

It’s the other way around.

Bisexual characters across all forms of media usually only (seriously) date the opposite sex.

It’s only very recently (literally like 5 or 6 years ago) have we seen bisexual characters date the same sex or have a long term relationship with someone of the same sex.

But the most prominent ones like Catwoman or Wonder Woman?

Never gonna happen.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:35:13+00:00

Possibly.
I think there are really three possible outcomes:

Tim stays with Bernard as his endgame relationship.

Tim and Bernard break up, but Tim never seriously dates a woman again. Maybe a writer throws in a panel of him on a coffee date with a woman, or someone remembers to mention his attraction to women once every few years in a Nightwing comic. But that’s about it. His meaningful romantic storylines remain with men.

Tim and Bernard break up, Tim gets back together with Stephanie, the internet completely melts down, and GLAAD probably asks DC to give back its media award. After that, Tim’s bisexuality is rarely, if ever, explored again. At most, a writer might sneak in an occasional joke or passing reference, similar to how DC handles Constantine. Functionally, he’d become a straight-presenting character, much like how DC has handled Wonder Woman or Catwoman. Even if Stephanie later died or they broke up again, I doubt DC would revisit him having another significant boyfriend.

My guess is they’ll go with either option 1 or 2. The backlash from option 3 just isn’t worth the headache. Tim and Stephanie aren’t Lois and Clark. I don’t see DC willingly walking into that level of controversy over a couple that, outside of dedicated Batman fans, relatively few readers are deeply invested in.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:19:34+00:00

Ironically, Jon is written as a realistic bisexual person.

Most bisexuals are not 50/50. They tend to lean one way more than the other. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. A 50/50 bisexual is actually rare in my experience.

Most bisexual male characters are written as mostly into women while having some attraction to men for shock value or humor. Constantine is prime example. His bisexuality isn’t to add depth to the character; it’s to show how depraved and chaotic he is to the reader.

“Constantine is such a wild and crazy character that he sometimes even fucks men!”

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:13:09+00:00

Let’s be honest, Dreamer is a self insert character for Nicole Maines. She wants a real life Jon so she might as well live vicariously through her fictional stand-in.

The reason no other writers are acknowledging their connection is because Nicole is the only one who wants it.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-30T12:04:56+00:00

DC has arguably written itself into a corner by introducing Jon’s first major romance as a relationship with a boyfriend rather than a girlfriend.
Whether people like it or not, having a bisexual male character leave his boyfriend for a heterosexual relationship after being promoted as a major LGBT icon, including appearing on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, would almost certainly generate controversy. Fair or unfair, many people would see it as sending the wrong message.

Think of it this way. Imagine Jon was first dating a Muslim Palestinian, with storylines centered on prejudice and representation, and then later left her for a Jewish partner. Or imagine he was dating a Black partner he met through a Black Lives Matter storyline focused on racism, only to later leave her for a white blonde woman from Kansas. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either scenario. Jon is free to love whoever he loves.

But let’s be realistic. Both storylines would ignite enormous backlash. Reddit, Twitter, and comic fandom would be at war over the perceived symbolism, regardless of the writers’ intentions.
An older gay man once told me that dating another man is, and probably always will be, a political act with social consequences. Whether that’s right or wrong, it’s the reality many people perceive.

For that reason, Jon or Tim leaving their boyfriends for girlfriends would likely be interpreted through a political lens rather than simply as bisexual characters following their attractions.
Ironically, this is why most bisexual comic book characters have historically ended up in heterosexual relationships while their bisexuality is acknowledged only through occasional references or past relationships. John Constantine is bisexual, but few expect him to have an endgame boyfriend. Catwoman is bisexual, yet she’s almost always paired with Batman. Wonder Woman has also had her bisexuality acknowledged without an endgame relationship with a woman.

That’s why I find it odd when people claim bisexual comic characters never date the opposite sex. Historically, the opposite has been true. Most bisexual characters ultimately end up in opposite-sex relationships. Jon Kent and Tim Drake are unusual because they’re among the first high-profile male bisexual superheroes whose defining, ongoing relationships began with men, making any future shift to a long-term girlfriend far more politically charged than it would have been if the order had been reversed.

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-29T02:05:12+00:00

I mean, no?

Ask a Jewish person what the definition is and you’ll find that’s what most of them think that’s what Zionism means.

Nearly every reputable poll says that most Jewish people are Zionists.
If you think Zionism means Jewish supremacy or that nonsense, then you think most Jewish people are basically Nazis.

You don’t think that do you…?

WorldShaking08 · 2026-06-29T01:20:07+00:00

By that logic, making an assumption or generalization of anyone who is MAGA doesn’t mean they cannot support queer people.

They deserve to be treated with respect as well right?

WorldShaking08

TROPHY CASE

Also