Here's another piece on why presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg might be the wrong kind of gay

You’d think that the LGBT community would be excited to have a viable gay presidential candidate running in 2020, but … it’s complicated. As Slate first noticed last month, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is gay, but is he queer enough?

Slate noted that he’s white, male, upper-class, Midwestern, married, Ivy League–educated, and a man of faith. But did he ever experience true oppression as a gay man?

Christina Cauterucci, a self-described queer woman, expressed her concerns:

So, is Buttigieg a run-of-the-mill white male candidate, or does his sexuality set him apart? That mammoth question can be broken down into smaller ones that get at why diversity matters: Has Buttigieg faced setbacks or barriers to success because he’s gay? Does he have an identity-specific worldview that would inform his work as much as, say, Harris’ experience as a black woman would inform hers? Would a win for Buttigieg be as historically significant and culturally meaningful as a win for a member of an underrepresented race or gender?

As we said, it’s complicated. He’s gay, but is he just another guy enjoying white privilege?

Slate’s not the only one asking questions. The Outline has a piece entitled, “Why Pete Buttigieg is bad for gays: Mayor Pete might be the most palatable gay man in America. That’s precisely the problem.” Like, does Buttigieg even trawl for gay hookups on Grindr?

Jacob Bacharach explains:

…hooking up is a major constitutive component of a type of unthreatening, socially acceptable, vaguely conservative gay identity that folks like Mayor Pete are aggressively selling to the squares. I have increasingly come to believe that, though perhaps not intentionally, they do so to the detriment of many other gay folk and queer folk and trans folk and folks who just do not — when you put yourself in the mind of a voter with an NPR mug and maybe even an equality sticker on the back of the Volvo — quite look the part.

…

…in defining himself against it, he sets down some very particular parameters about how he wants to be seen. He wants to define himself as a very specific kind of family man: a veteran, a Christian, and a fierce, married monogamist, in stark moral opposition to the gross, philandering current occupant of the White House. This is probably good politics. I’m not so sure it’s good for the gays.

Ideas that are actually bad; stop writing these takes –>

"If Pete Buttigieg could just act a little more oppressed, that would be helpful."

"People might get the wrong idea about gays from Mayor Pete."

"It could be that Buttigieg is just too fucking wholesome."

— Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) April 9, 2019

"Pete and Chasten appear to have the perfect marriage, but he is actually unpersoning spouses who struggle."

— Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) April 9, 2019

I’ve grown weary with my dem friends need to compete for oppression status. That’s not a platform. That’s not an idea.

— Miklo the clout escaper (@aztlanwanderer) April 9, 2019

Some of it also seems to be weirdly upset that he doesn’t “flaunt” his sexuality in stereotypical way. Like he should end every stump speech with “and God bless the United States of America. . . . yassss queen.”

— Micah Coffee (@jewcoffee) April 9, 2019

I guess he is supposed to be like Jonathan Van Ness in order to be gay enough? I really don't get it.

— Elizabeth R. (@JackRottie) April 9, 2019

Heaven forbid a normal person who happens to be gay acts normal.

— Micah Coffee (@jewcoffee) April 9, 2019

Oh, FFS.

— Christina Jeffrey (@Consummatemom) April 9, 2019

Keep those hot takes coming right up to the primaries, guys.

Related:

'This is super gross': Slate writer torched for her 'offensively terrible' take on Pete Buttigieg's white male gayness https://t.co/tZl3qD0MYs

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 29, 2019