There is nothing necessarily prejudiced or closed minded about making assumptions that those who adopt mannerisms and clothing or hairstyle choices that generally denote a specific orientation (whether to crime or homosexuality), are likely to be associated with that orientation. In many cases, the external behavior and manner of dress helps individuals communicate information (such as their sexual orientation) about themselves to the world. But the converse is not true. Specifically, when we make assumptions about people knowing nothing else about them other than their sexual orientation, it is inappropriate. First, sexual orientation is not necessarily associated with any other behaviors; if anything, the mannerisms and style of dress generally associated with homosexuality are matters of preference,...
Second, to the extent any other behaviors are more often evident in homosexuals, many individuals are exceptions to those generalizations. In other words, most baseball players chew tobacco, but that does not mean that all tobacco chewers play baseball or that all baseball players chew. Second, to the extent that other mannerisms and preferences are statistically linked to sexual identity biologically, their
appearance does not necessarily mean that the individual is even aware of his or her sexual identity already. Meagan, is confronted with accusations at a time when she is not yet even fully aware of what her preferences are.
Ultimately, the film is a reminder not to make generalizations about people and not to allow any single aspect of other people define your entire impression (or expectations) of them. The message seems most directed to the
audience within ten years of Meagan's age and helps promote the relative insignificance that sexual identity and preference should have on our opinions about and expectations from other people.
