What he’s trying to say is that pink is a specific form of red, just as homosexuals are a specific form of males (just as heterosexuals are a specific form of males.) He’s trying to point out that the argument “pink is a form of red” is a red herring (NPI) because yes, pink is a (real) form of red, but this isn’t relevant to his views on who should wear pink. In the same way he’s saying that whilst a homosexual man is a (real) man, that’s just as irrelevant to the current argument as pink being a (real) form of red.

A color is just a color. It has no gender. There is nothing wrong with men (gay or straight) wearing pink. Obviously pink sells (just take a quick tour of the mens section in any department store). Anyone who thinks their gender forbids them from wearing a certain color is clearly a sheep who has been socially brainwashed and can’t think outside the box. One word – baaaaa.

A REAL MAN who is secure enough in his sexuality can wear any color. Only a pussified coward like McFadden would fear that a color might turn him gay. Actually, looking at the above photos, looks like McFadden likes pink very much! Must be a closet homo.

Damn. If I saw this uneducated fool on the street, I’d smack its ugly face to a pulp.

eh, NEXT!

John — What I got out of the comparison isn’t that McFadden thinks pink isn’t a form of red or that homosexuals aren’t males at all, but rather that he thinks they are *lesser.* His statement — and your “defense” of it — make it seem like he thinks homosexuals aren’t REAL men.

Brian is responding to a caller who says that red used to be a masculine colour, pink is a form of red, therefore wearing pink is just as masculine as wearing red. Brian’s counter argument is that while pink is a form of red, that doesn’t change the associations with pink that lead him to make his original statement regarding who should wear it. If this is what he meant then it leads to the interpretation that “homosexuals *are* males.” But that being male doesn’t mean a gay man isn’t gay, in the same way that pink being a form of red doesn’t stop it being pink.

We can use this interpretation and add it into the statement above to see if it makes sense. “Saying pink is a form of red *doesn’t mean it isn’t pink* in the same way that saying a homosexual is a form of male *doesn’t mean they’re not a homosexual.*” This appears to make sense and I believe this is what he was trying to say. He could have used “heterosexual” instead which would have meant the same thing, but would have caused a lot less controversy!

And why is this person famous?

A member of a boyband making a disparaging comment about gay men. Oh, the irony.