I find Gabbana’s comments to be incredibly privileged and lacking intersectional awareness or analysis. Maybe he can “choose” to be seen simply as a “man” because his racial and economic privilege and celebrity status blunt his experience of oppression based on sexuality. He fails to realize that most people do not possess the same level of access and privilege; therefore, identity labels can serve as powerful and affirming political tools.

My understanding is that queer people adopted the term “gay” post-Stonewall not solely because they wanted a label, but because they wanted to claim a more affirmative, activist identity. “Homosexual” is a medicalized identity that queer people did not necessarily choose to define themselves.

Labels and identities are not inherently bad, just as an absence of labels and identities are not inherently good. Labels become problematic when we use them to create a hierarchy of superior/inferior or when we use them to exclude others who do not occupy the same categories we do. And we do not need to abolish labels to work for universal human rights — the two are not mutually exclusive. We can recognize differences while simultaneously working across those differences for the good of all.

I also wonder if there is some femmephobia involved in Gabbana wanting to be seen only as a “man” — that he sees being gay as an inherently feminized identity? If so, then he needs to examine his misogyny and realize that a) there is nothing wrong or inferior with being feminine; and b) gay men embody a range of gender expressions.

Thank you for bringing attention to this interview, which speaks to larger issues surrounding identity labels and activism.