Sir, – On March 1st, you headlined a thought-provoking report of a debate in the Seanad: “Few role models for gays, warns Power”.
Today your subeditors headlined an excellent column by Fintan O’Toole with the phrase “Church’s two-faced attitude to gays cruel” (Opinion, March 5th).
Perhaps it’s just me, but isn’t describing people by making a singular noun of one of the many adjectives that apply to them a bit reductive? I don’t know many gay people outside of the sitcom Little Britain who would refer to themselves as “a gay”.
I’m trying to imagine it. “Hello, I’m a gay”. For some reason, I’m finding it difficult. “This is Pat and Seamus. They’re gays. So is Mary”. Perhaps there is a universe in which such an introduction could be uttered, but, if so, it is surreal indeed.
It would seem odd if, for example, your listings pages referred to “a play by Oscar Wilde, the Dublin-born gay” or if you quoted in a series on homophobic bullying in schools the testimony of “a young Irish gay”.
Equally I don’t think I’d be alone in finding it off-putting if, say, the late Philip Lynott were to be described in your pages as “a black”, or Stevie Wonder as “a blind”. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not “a religious”. The Taoiseach is not “a Mayo”.
Since gay people, like other people, are people first, it might be more respectful as well as more accurate to use the term “gay people”. Forgive me for nitpicking. It’s probably ridiculous. And in a country where the word “gay” is openly used as insult by schoolchildren and others every day of the week, there are far more serious issues facing all of us. In that context, I thought both pieces very interesting and commendable. They should be read by everyone, including straights. – Yours, etc,