“Only queer people should tell queer stories!”
The assumption of normative heterosexuality this rule rests upon reinforces the very social forces that create the metaphorical “closet” in the first place.
The only reason you—a stranger—would know whether they’re queer is if they are broadly, publicly out. This “rule” you’ve created is, realistically, “Only OUT queer people should tell queer stories.” This rule will always force closeted queer people to out themselves.
This rule that only OUT queer people should tell queer stories would hamper new queer talent from emerging. “Outness” is an ongoing process; not everyone is Jonathan Bailey, so there will always be a new audience to “come out to.” To avoid speculation publicity, companies will choose bigger names with more established careers.
Holding this energy forces someone to out themselves despite the risk this poses to nascent careers. Or it forces someone to constantly reinscribe themselves in the dramas of heterosexuality, cissexism, and patriarchalism to avoid “speculation.” Your rule essentially forces someone to live within a panopticon to maintain any semblance of privacy. Or, again, it forces closeted queer people to out themselves.
This rule discourages straight people from expressing creative solidarity with queer stories and voices.
If only queer people can tell queer stories, you create a reality that pigeonholes queer people into certain niches. It keeps companies from seeing queer people outside queer stories, and queer people being seen as broadly capable people, not just queers, is essential for our career mobility.
You do not know these people, you are not entitled to personal details of their life; It’s none of your fucking business. Consider something new and radical: privacy.
The answer to a question of queerness may change over a person’s lifetime.
This sort of rule also discourages exploration of identity. If the story resonates with them, why not let them tell it?
The metric should always be whether the story is told faithfully and without prejudice; having a protected class behind a story is not guaranteed to ensure this (there are plenty of homophobic gay people, for example).
You are not asking about queerness in good faith.
.
