Update: Queerty is reporting that some of these beautiful people are gay. None, at least, are women. And where in the Hill’s story does it say they’re gay? What proof is Queerty offering? I just left this comment over there:
But wait – does it say in the story they’re gay? Shouldn’t it? Couldn’t it? I mean, for all the straight ones, it’s not as if their relationships (this one’s “girlfriend,” that one’s “boyfriend,” this one is “engaged,” that one is “married”) are exactly being hidden. Why is it that we have to intuit who the beautiful gay people are?
Meanwhile, back to the original post:
As editor of The Clyde Fitch Report, I submitted the following letter to the editor today — to Hugh Gurdon, editor of The Hill, which published yesterday its list of the 50 Most Beautiful People in politics, 2010.
None are gay. Or at least that’s what we may conclude:
Dear Mr. Gurdon:
I read with enthusiasm (and envy) The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful People feature. A smart, interesting balance of genders, races, political persuasions and, delightfully, even ages. Why, though, are none of them gay? Are some gay and choosing to self-identify otherwise? If so, shouldn’t that be reported? And really, there are no people in politics who are out and beautiful and gay?
Seems to me the beautiful people in your feature who are engaged, married or in a relationship are all defined as heterosexual. With all due respect to The Hill, disenfranchising or overlooking the LGBTQ community when it comes to beauty in politics is hard to fathom.
Editor, The Clyde Fitch Report
The nexus of arts and politics.