How exactly is the sexual orientation of the person in question relevant?
Edit: So the article linked in the post is from a news website about LGBTQ+ people and subjects, so it is relevant to them that this is happening to a queer person (at the very least it justifies them writing about it), hence why that person’s sexual orientation is in the title.
Since this forum has the rule that posts pointing to news articles should have the title of the article, that’s how here - were there is no reason to care about a person’s sexual orientation if what happened to them has no relation to it - we ended up with a post that mentions characteristics of a person which in this context (not an LGBTQ+ news website) are wholly irrelevant for that piece of news.
I think it is relevant given that the authoritarians running the government have made their stance on the LGBTQ community pretty clear. Perhaps this person would have still been arrested had they not been queer, and because we have no way to check whether that would be the case, it is important to keep that possibility in mind. However, it’s definitely relevant when we are considering the kinds of people who tend to be targeted when authoritarianism creeps forward.
It’s also relevant because I would expect that a queer person may face worse treatment in the justice system. The same could be said for other people who this administration is targeting. For example, if the person was a US citizen who was descended from Mexican immigrants, then I would definitely consider that relevant to their arrest, even if it had nothing to do with their “crime”
That’s purely speculative and just fishing for connections (plus this Administration’s overt hate is for Transexuals rather than the entire LGBTQ community - I believe there even are overtly Queer people amongst the Republicans - so you’re having to reach out to overbroad classifications to try and make it fit your speculation).
If there was an indication that this person had been targeted due to their sexual orientation, then absolutely pointing it out is relevant, otherwise it’s just pure, unadulterated speculation (as there is no evidence of it whatsoever) to claim this one detail about this person is what makes all the difference.
It could be it, but then again it could be a lot of other things:
Does this person have immigrant friends? Maybe better point it out.
Brown eyes? Oh, shit, this administration has attacked lots of people who have brown eyes.
How about romantic history? Maybe they shun the romantic approaches of somebody who worked or ended up working with the Feds.
Do they speak Spanish? Have they wrote articles criticizing this administration? Do they loudly support Zohran Mamdani?
All those things are coulds, so why is “sexual orientation” a more relevant “could” than the others?
Sexual Orientation is somewhere in the second or third line amongst all the other “maybe this could have had some influence” things and thus is no more relevant by itself than any of the other hundreds of possibilities unless there are actual indications (not just “it feels like it might to me”) that it was important in the decision to charge this person.
It’s here in the title because it’s in the title of the original news piece, and it’s there because that article is in an LGBTQ+ Community news website, were it absolutely is relevant to point out that this person is Queer since it shows a news piece about what’s happening to this person might be of special interest for that community because of being a members of said community.
How exactly is the sexual orientation of the person in question relevant?
Edit: So the article linked in the post is from a news website about LGBTQ+ people and subjects, so it is relevant to them that this is happening to a queer person (at the very least it justifies them writing about it), hence why that person’s sexual orientation is in the title.
Since this forum has the rule that posts pointing to news articles should have the title of the article, that’s how here - were there is no reason to care about a person’s sexual orientation if what happened to them has no relation to it - we ended up with a post that mentions characteristics of a person which in this context (not an LGBTQ+ news website) are wholly irrelevant for that piece of news.
I think it is relevant given that the authoritarians running the government have made their stance on the LGBTQ community pretty clear. Perhaps this person would have still been arrested had they not been queer, and because we have no way to check whether that would be the case, it is important to keep that possibility in mind. However, it’s definitely relevant when we are considering the kinds of people who tend to be targeted when authoritarianism creeps forward.
It’s also relevant because I would expect that a queer person may face worse treatment in the justice system. The same could be said for other people who this administration is targeting. For example, if the person was a US citizen who was descended from Mexican immigrants, then I would definitely consider that relevant to their arrest, even if it had nothing to do with their “crime”
That’s purely speculative and just fishing for connections (plus this Administration’s overt hate is for Transexuals rather than the entire LGBTQ community - I believe there even are overtly Queer people amongst the Republicans - so you’re having to reach out to overbroad classifications to try and make it fit your speculation).
If there was an indication that this person had been targeted due to their sexual orientation, then absolutely pointing it out is relevant, otherwise it’s just pure, unadulterated speculation (as there is no evidence of it whatsoever) to claim this one detail about this person is what makes all the difference.
It could be it, but then again it could be a lot of other things:
Does this person have immigrant friends? Maybe better point it out.
Brown eyes? Oh, shit, this administration has attacked lots of people who have brown eyes.
How about romantic history? Maybe they shun the romantic approaches of somebody who worked or ended up working with the Feds.
Do they speak Spanish? Have they wrote articles criticizing this administration? Do they loudly support Zohran Mamdani?
All those things are coulds, so why is “sexual orientation” a more relevant “could” than the others?
Sexual Orientation is somewhere in the second or third line amongst all the other “maybe this could have had some influence” things and thus is no more relevant by itself than any of the other hundreds of possibilities unless there are actual indications (not just “it feels like it might to me”) that it was important in the decision to charge this person.
It’s here in the title because it’s in the title of the original news piece, and it’s there because that article is in an LGBTQ+ Community news website, were it absolutely is relevant to point out that this person is Queer since it shows a news piece about what’s happening to this person might be of special interest for that community because of being a members of said community.