I used it in the poetic context of a thing 'speaking to' something within the soul of man. Such a usage is timeworn and acceptable.
Had I used the phrase in the sense of 'It speaks to a wider corporate culture' or similar, I would indeed be the Charlie Uniform you describe.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.
I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.
Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.
Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Yes. Gore Vidal (a chap for whom I've always had a huge soft spot despite him being a bit of a lefty) used to say that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' were descriptions of acts, not of people. He had a point, I think. It seems rather a shame that we've lost sight of that in our rush to categorise in order to appease the gods of identity politics.