Is Spencer Klavan Gay?

The Daily Wire's zany cinematic offering, Lady Ballers, is set to debut this evening. I've landed a minor role within it; Ben Shapiro and I portray officials overseeing a basketball competition where five past-their-prime gentlemen assume female identities to recapture their youthful triumphs by out-dunking young ladies. It's my firm conviction that Ben and I both perceive this as the zenith of our professional journeys thus far. Pray tell, what other motivation would have compelled us to dedicate years to attaining our advanced academic credentials?

This particular release has been the catalyst for considerable anticipation, alongside a substantial measure of disapproval, as was entirely foreseeable. The reception from LGBTQ+ periodicals has been characterized by pronounced displeasure concerning this rather unkind send-up of a subject that is profoundly serious and, in no way, amusing: the dominance of men over women's sporting events. A modest portion of the collective ire has been directed my way, primarily because I identify as gay and, consequently, by participating in this film, I am apparently failing in a solemn obligation to champion and support every solitary element of the wonderfully diverse alphabet soup of identities. I was genuinely unaware of any such commitment I had undertaken.

Among the communications I've received addressing this matter, one persistent sentiment has proven to be the most captivating. Time and again, I have encountered variations of the contention that Lady Ballers represents a contemporary parallel to the mockery directed at homosexual individuals during the 1980s and 1990s for their desire to marry. The underlying rationale suggests that had I been alive during that era, I myself would have been the target of derision—thus, how can I reconcile my present complicity in similar damaging rhetoric?

To begin with, I must firmly dispute the assertion that advocating for striking female MMA fighters or excelling in women's swimming competitions is equivalent to desiring marital union with a person of the same gender. Curiously, this is a viewpoint that fervent proponents from both the Right and the Left now seem to share: they concur that endorsing same-sex marriage invariably paves the way for championing transgender maximalism. Their primary divergence lies in whether this progression is deemed advantageous or detrimental.

I can comprehend why one might posit that the LGB acronym inherently implies the inclusion of T. I do not concur with this perspective, as I have previously articulated. However, for the sake of exploring this argument presently, permit me to embrace the proposition: let us, for a moment, hypothetically concede that my involvement in this particular movie is synonymous with participating in a satirical depiction of gay existence around 1990.

Even if such a comparison held any validity, what truly strikes me about the criticism is the underlying sentiment that ridiculing gay people back then would have constituted an unforgivable transgression, or that homosexual individuals themselves approached their societal struggle with excessive solemnity, precluding any attempt at humorous portrayal. It is astonishingly difficult to accept this notion now, but the gay community of the 1980s and 1990s were, in fact, veritable monarchs—or rather, queens—of self-deprecating humor.

My goodness, have any of you actually watchedThe Birdcage (1996)? Allow me to reveal the news that will undoubtedly stop all other conversations: Nathan Lane is not a heterosexual man. Nevertheless, he possessed a keen sense of humor regarding himself, and it was evident he did not object to sharing in the amusement with heterosexual individuals. Consider that particular scene where Robin Williams endeavors to instruct him on adopting a macho demeanor and discussing football; it was simply brilliant. The theatrical production upon which this film is based debuted way back in 1973. We used to possess a capacity for humor, don't you recall?

Share

The reason for this wasn't a decline in the fervor of Americans' convictions regarding their social viewpoints during that period. Rather, it was because a lesser number of individuals had succumbed to the utterly absurd notion that humor inherently constitutes aggression. This is an extraordinarily dismal and rather uninspired way of perceiving the world, a fact that becomes abundantly clear as soon as one begins interacting with individuals who maintain an older outlook—those who still believe that it's perfectly harmless to indulge in laughter.

I dedicated a week to filming my contribution to Lady Ballers, finding myself in the company of numerous cast and crew members. Not a single one of them displayed even the slightest hint of animosity toward individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, nor did they utter even a single disparaging syllable to me concerning my sexual orientation. They hold a spectrum of convictions on these subjects, arrived at through rational deliberation and maintained with steadfast principle, including a notable number who oppose same-sex marriage. Many among them also find it quite preposterous that we are expected to behave as though it is entirely unremarkable, or even commendable, when male athletes dominate female competitors in sports. As it happens, I share that sentiment.

Consequently, we united and created a motion picture addressing this very theme. It's highly improbable that any viewer anywhere will wholeheartedly endorse every single moment within it; indeed, almost every individual who experiences the film will likely find certain aspects scandalous and others quite amusing. This is precisely because, as you might expect, it is intended as a comedy. The intention is to elicit laughter. You ought to give it a viewing. And for goodness sake, try to relax a little.

Rejoice evermore,
Spencer

P.S. The perspectives presented herein are exclusively my own. I do not represent the Daily Wire, nor have I ever done so.

Tune in to the most recent broadcast from Young Heretics: