I would like to comment on the article titled “Laydon comes out as aesthete.” I find it interesting that Mr. Laydon’s definition is different than the dictionary’s which is “one having or affecting sensitivity to the beautiful especially in art.” There is no mention of gender or sexuality in this definition.

In the article, it mentions that Garrett Royer, a representative for One Colorado, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, was unfamiliar with the term that Laydon identifies with. I think there are enough terms or labels being used currently by the LGBTQ+ community to describe one’s status and we don’t need to change or add to the definitions of words that are not specifically related to gender.

Noel M. Schulze

Highlands Ranch