The way the LW dresses may or may not be significant. I am personally inclined to trust her when she says that it is not, if only because people do not tend to take it well when I try to explain to them that I understand them better than they do ... funny how that works. The LW was quite articulate, I thought, about exactly how annoying that is.

What the LW has identified as a problem, however, is significant. First, she doesn't know how to assert some good boundaries with her boss. She wants the assertiveness skills to say "I would appreciate it if you would stop talking about my sexual orientation" but currently does not have them (one way in which she conforms to her gender's stereotype). She wants to be able to set limits on how people behave towards her but is afraid of being judged because of it. She's not sure where her opinion of herself leaves off ("I am a strong LGBTQ ally") and where others' judgments start (her fear that she will be seen as homophobic, perhaps even just for writing this letter). There's plenty to talk about there. Why focus on the "androgynous" clothing instead? That seems like a red herring to me.

I'm reminded of a recent study that showed the less women conform to gender stereotypes the more likely they are to be sexually harassed (see Jennifer Berdahl's recent article in the Journal of Applied Psychology.) That harassment can come from men and from women. We are all complicit in enforcing gender-based oppression on one another. Being gay unfortunately does not exempt someone from being boneheaded and thoughtless and rude about gender, about sexuality, or about anything else. And being bothered by someone who is harassing you who happens to be gay does not make you homophobic.

Also, I do think there is a place for uncertainty in the way we represent ourselves to the world. For instance, when I call my husband my partner, I do so in part because of a political sense of solidarity with those who are in same sex relationships and are not accorded the same rights. At the same time, my political commitment masks a deeper truth:I'm bisexual, and in some contexts I keep it to myself (it's tough sometimes to be a bisexual in the gay activist community). So my publicly stated reasons are both true and untrue. I think this dynamioc is what Cary was getting at, and something like this might be the case for the LW (though again, I'm inclined to let her define herself for herself). But even if it is true, what does that have to do, exactly, with her workplace? She's not going there for psychoanalysis, nor did she seem to be asking us for it either. She seemed instead to be asking a very practical question about how to respond to someone else's inappropriate behavior. I don't think the answer Cary gave is going to help her much with that.

Here's an example of Cary doing something very similar to what bothered me yesterday, but doing it exactly right. When people come to you with problems, sometimes the question they are asking is not the question that most needs answering (or even that they most want answered). Often, you have to identify an unspoken underlying issue and address that (while also addressing the articulated question, or else you come off like a pretentious jerk). This involves some inherent value judgments: e.g. What constitutes a serious problem? Who gets to define the problem? It also involves some assumptions about cause and effect. In a face-to-face situation you can have a back-and-forth process in which the person asking for help gets to take an equal role in this, but in an advice column you have such an artificial separation of questioner and answerer that it is easy for things to get out of whack. Which is just to say, Cary, that I sympathize with how difficult it must be to really answer these questions in a deep and meaningful way without letting your own biases take over.

Yesterday, Cary's value judgments seemed to interfere with his ability to provide a sensitive and meaningful answer to the LW. Today he's done something very similar to what he did yesterday, in that he spent most of his time answering a question the LW didn't ask. However, today it seems spot on. This was a question screaming out for an answer. Good work.

I'm curious, though, about why this answer felt "right" while the other one came off all wrong. Thoughts folks?

Do any of the children in the film express what their feelings about religion are now? I'd love to see some film depictions of gay people who are also religious. I was baptized by a gay priest, and I am active in a congregation that is very popular with gay couples. At the same time, I hear people suggest casually all the time that being gay and being Christian is incompatible (including other gay people, and heck, I used to think that too). I don't blame people who don't want to have anything remotely to do with a religion whose name has been used to relentlessly persecute us. At the same time, the theology of inclusion and affirmation is profound, has significant roots in other liberation theologies, and I wish more people knew that there was a type of Christianity that teaches us to love our own and one another's differences instead of fearing them.

We've had "tv personalities" running for office for years. The only differene is that with Colbert we can all admit that he's fake (and that being fake is his job) and with the rest of the pack we have to pretend that they mean what they say and are who they present themselves to be.