The inconsequential case of Empire State shooter Jeffrey Johnson's sexuality
I usually like Queerty. They update their site frequently and have easy-to-read, fun and sometimes thought-provoking posts (even if their spelling and grammar is embarrassing). That said, I really don't know what they were thinking with the post "What if it turns out Empire State Building shooter Jeffrey Johnson was gay?"
The piece starts with a warning: "What you’re about to read is (mostly) conjecture and traffics in stereotypes. If you’re offended or confused by that, well, we have a slideshow of boys frolicking poolside you can check out."
Even though I was warned, I was still a little mortified by what I read -- mostly because it was totally unnecessary. The entire story relies on gay stereotypes, which are regressive at best (their reasons for thinking that Johnson was gay are that he worked in fashion, had no wife, was described in the media as "slight framed" and owned a cat). But my biggest problem is that there really isn't any reason for asking the question "What if Jeffrey Johnson was gay?" in the first place.
Here's a question for you, Queerty: Who gives a shit What does it matter? In the fight for equal rights and acceptance, many gays have tried to convey to the world that there's nothing truly different about us. We are people, just like anyone else. So Jeffrey Johnson's sexuality is irrelevant. He was a disturbed man who committed an awful crime that his sexuality had nothing to do with. Period.
The post concludes by asking, "If Johnson was indeed a friend of Dorothy, will that give fuel to the FRC and their ilk, who can now brand us as violent in addition to crazy and evil? Or might it make them think twice about pissing off an angry queen?"
The answer to the question is simple: neither. If Johnson was indeed a friend of Dorothy, it just makes gay people even more human. Sad, overwrought and irrevocably human.