I think an answer to your observations should be as nuanced as the way Jamie is suggesting queer representation should be. He's not saying (nor am I endorsing) that cis/straight actors should never play queer characters. He's suggesting, and I'm affirming, that art for/about queer people should be produced presumptively by queer artists. That doesn't mean there can't be exceptions.

It's simply true (and I suppose non-controversially so) that queer artists possess insight into queer characters that cis/straight artists can only struggle to achieve.

My observations about Will and Grace are meant to shed light, not to condemn it. As I mentioned, they did a good job demystifying gay men for a straight audience. I don't now many gay men who found a lot of sustenance in it, though. It does not tend to be, believe it or not, one of our favorite vintage television programs.

We never expected it would, as a sitcom, portray queer people or even gay men in our totality, but it would have done a better job, as being what it was, with more queer artists involved.

The whole point of Jamie's original P&P story, which I'm promoting with this fairly lightweight piece, is to raise awareness of the importance of queer voices telling our own stories. That's not the same as saying only queer voices must ever tell queer stories.

But when you have a situation where every actor who won an Oscar for playing gay character was straight, then the artistic balance is clearly off to some extent.

This is especially true when one considers that queer actors and writers are actually overrepresented in Hollywood compared to much of the rest of society. We just aren't well represented in plum roles or projects, which is definitely something we can work to make better.