NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater? — Page 3

John Adams said: "joevitus said: "And, again, the only problem could be someone considering it an insult to be called gay."

...If that were the singular, situation imagined for him by the playwright. It's not, though.

Does Prince George's consideration of whether/not it's an insult matter? As a child, should he even need to?

As George is a minor, shouldn'tTannahill have considered his responsibility to the prince before imagining his future and putting it on public display?

It's one thing to express artistic freedom in reference to a real-world adult. IMO, it's unacceptably crossing a boundary when that expression is applied to a minor child.

I agree with you about my mis-use of the word, "zeitgeist", though."

I appreciate that. As for the rest, I mean, it isn't really about him, a child isn't being sexualized and we're talking about one of the most insulated and pampered people on the planet (by nature of the position he holds). He'll be King of England one day. If this title can have such a negative impact on him, I can't imagine how he'll be able to survive the basic workings of the British press--who will be addressing and attacking his actual self on the regular.

Kad said: "Would it be acceptable to have a speculative piece about a future King George, who is not gay but an incompetent monarch?"

Run-on sentence alert: IMO, public speculation regarding a minor child's future, that paints that future in a negative light (especially because it is based solely on an adult's fantasy/imagination, w/o any factual support) is cruelly demeaning to the child.

Would it be appropriate to imagine 20 years ahead and he is King and in the play he has a Diana/Charles like scandal in his straight marriage? Would that be "cruelly demeaning to a child"?

Updated On: 12/3/25 at 11:55 AM

joevitus said: " [...] a child isn't being sexualized and we're talking about one of the most insulated and pampered people on the planet"

The notion of child sexualization was brought into this thread by ColorTheHours048 in post #48. If there was any discussion of the play being about "sexualizing a child", it didn't happen here. FTR, they also used the phrase, "And again, for the millionth time [...]" as if the concept had been disputed here, repeatedly - which isn't true.

It's my opinion that Tannahill needs the audience to associate the George character of the play with the real-world Prince George in order for the play to have its most effective impact. I base my opinion from info contained in this article that I'm quoting, again... (It's been a thought-provoking article, for me).

"[...] the title is a question: can a prince be a faggot? Or, parsed more broadly, can queerness — filthy, controversial, truly countercultural queerness — ever really co-exist with respectability politics?"

Given that it's been established the play's inspiration was the 2017 photo of Prince George, and the speculation generated by it (see here: Prince George 'gay icon' article branded 'sick', I believe that Tannahill's imaginings would be less impactful had his "George" been replaced with another prince (i.e., Harry or William, or even a completely fictional one). Maybe you disagree?

To be clear, I'm NOT implying that the real-life Prince George is being sexualized. My opinion is that Tannahill is unfairly using the real-life events surrounding a real-life minor child to emphasize the views he wants to express in his play, He's doing this without consideration of the possible consequences of his imagined future to/for the real-life minor.

Updated On: 12/3/25 at 12:25 PM

BJR said: "Would it be appropriate to imagine 20 years ahead and he is King and in the play he has a Diana/Charles like scandal in his straight marriage? Would that be "cruelly demeaning to a child"?"

>ugh.<

IMO, it is inappropriate to project a scandalous future (especially one that is completely fantasized) onto a minor child under ANY circumstance.

When I saw that word—that word—thrown around in the article, my first reaction was the familiar sting it carried through so many years of our history. It’s a slur that was used to keep people small, and it still carries that weight when it’s aimed like a weapon. And yet, something interesting has happened over time within parts of the LGBTQ community. Many of us have pulled that word away from the hands that tried to use it against us.

There’s a kind of alchemy involved in reclaiming language. Communities sometimes take a term meant to wound and reshape it into something defiant, even affectionate. It appears to work almost like emotional judo—the energy flips. When some LGBTQ folks use the word among ourselves, it may signal kinship, a wink, or a reminder that we’ve survived what others thought would break us. It never erases the history, but it shifts who holds the power.

That said, reclamation isn’t universal. Not everyone feels comfortable with the term, and the context absolutely matters. A slur shouted from a sidewalk has a different meaning than the same word used in a queer bar between friends who’ve lived through the same battles. One harms; the other may help someone feel seen.

So when the word shows up in public writing, people may need to think a bit harder about how and why it’s being used. The LGBTQ community has done the work to find new meaning in it, but that doesn’t give an automatic permission slip to everyone else. Respecting that nuance—remembering the pain behind the history and the strength behind the reclamation—is the only way the conversation avoids veering into harm.

John Adams said: "ColorTheHours048 said: "This has actually been discussed quite a bit in the original PF thread from when the show started at Playwrights. It’s just being reiterated again here."

Maybe you should stop proliferating falsehoods??"

Huh? Here’s the thread. Took me 10 seconds to search for.

ColorTheHours048 said: "Huh? Here’s the thread. Took me 10 seconds to search for."

You've mistakenly interpreted the "falsehoods" as referencing the existence of the thread.

joevitus said: "ColorTheHours048 said: "joevitus said: "Kad said: "Would it be acceptable to have a speculative piece about a future King George, who is not gay but an incompetent monarch?"

Yes. How is that even a question?

I don't think they two concepts are equal, though, as one is personal while the other is about job ability. But clearly, yes, it would be totally fine. Has it been wrong all these decades to assume and discuss Charles as an incompetant not fit for his job? Never noticed it stopping anyone."

FWIW, I think Kad is on your side and knows the answer to his question."

Apologies for misreading Kad. Maybe I'm taking all this more seriously than I need to...

Don't really want to argue anymore, so leaving the conversation now, and respect to all the people who come to a different conclusion about this than I do."

No worries. My stance on this is and has been, "I understand concerns over this language and premise but I don't share them."