In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.
--------
Question: Comment: I am a gay man, chaste & celibate, with "tendencies" rather than just an orientation or supposed "disorder", and a former priest. The dearth of celibate integrated fellow priests was largely why I left active ministry. My experience is that gay priests tend to be more sexually active than straight priests, although both (forgive the binary constructs) are at least periodically active and to a staggering extent. Solid accounts by rare seminary or chancery personnel underline this reality. Yes, concupiscence is a function of humanity, so let's start such conversations by being compassionate and, where required, forgiving. But we must also acknowledge that the sideways living of enough priests, and the bishops who manage them and who themselves live less than integrated lives, give cover to those in their ranks who engage in criminal, and not merely immoral, behavior. You're only as sick as your secrets; an elite hierarchy calling out this phenomenon as a disorder is more than ironic.

Answer: Identity-attack


Question: Comment: Nobody every had a "blessing", cut a ribbon or held a groundbreaking for maintenance project.

The elected elites love photo-ops and they never, ever get their shoes dirty.

Answer: Non-identity-attack


Question: Comment: A show of unity? No. It was treating white players and military veterans like crap to appease racist black players that aren't capable of professionalism if it hit them in the skull. 

This was nothing less than racial pandering to keep black players from causing problems.

Answer:
Identity-attack