I assume the mechanism on which it depends is "whether I engage in it or not"?

That's putting the cart before the horse, Alex. Obviously if one considers a stereotype to be accurate and harmless, one is apt to use it* - while if one considers a different stereotype to be faulty and harmful, one is apt to avoid it.








* or at least not studiously avoid using it.

No, I am not that egotistical.

I did however do a quick google search and found this to be interesting:

Just interesting food for thought.

Ok, let's use that. The situation we're talking about here violated almost every one of those bullet points for making a stereotype useful. A) Because it isn't being applied pre-emptively to a group but post hoc to an individual, and B) I'm not sure how there's much value in a "swishy men are gay" stereotype (and thought that one was considered bad).

And if this were an isolated case I probably wouldn't care much. But I'd say at least 90% of the time that some man (gay bashing women don't ever seem to get pre-emptively labeled as self-loathing lesbians) comes to prominence for anti-gay remarks or actions, someone is out there adding "and he's obviously a closeted self-loathing homo."

Only now it seems you're the one applying your observations about a group to a single individual. People aren't stereotyping Shirvell as gay simply because so many extreme gay-bashers turn out to be self-loathers, but primarily on observation of him as an individual who acts and speaks in a stereotypically gay manner. So whether it's applied to gay-bashers "90% of the time" is irrelevant to how it's being applied in this particular case.

It still using his sexual identity as an attack. It's not a friendly, "What up my fag homie!" It's pointedly, "You're a fvcking pathetic closet case." And all that says is, "Yup, sexuality is fair game when trying to publicly shame someone" which I find pretty distasteful, no matter the orientation of the person it's coming from.

Just my two cents... To me, it's not attacking his sexuality, but his hypocrisy.

Exactly. If he were on a crusade about anti-gang violence, I would not approve of anyone calling him a queer.

When someone is practicing hypocrisy, one has no choice but to point out the state of the individual that gives rise to it. In this case, the observation that Shirvell is gay himself is absolutely necessary to the case against him.

Except to get to the point of hypocrisy you first have to make an armchair call about his sexuality.

Plus, the hypocrisy is irrelevant. What he's done is no more or less offensive if he's straight or gay. He's a bigoted asshole and a bully either way.

I guess the disconnect here is in "I think he's gay therefore it is ok to judge him for being gay and anti-gay."

To me (and presumably to others) whether you think he's gay has little to do with he actually is gay and conforming to a stereotype is not evidence.

But whatever, it is enlightening to learn that it is ok to just take as fact that a swishy man (whatever that may mean to the individual observer) is gay and then treat him accordingly.