You can simply reply with "Primary" or "Secondary". But feel free to elaborate on that.
This question has lingered in my head and has, to some good extent, influenced the music I listened to. As we all know, times have changed. Diversity has been an active discussion in both work and private life. In music, it is manifest in clearer ways. Many music blogs and publications have now "adjusted" themselves to the new norm. Lists and reviews should be diverse. Pitchfork, for instance, re-did their entire Best Albums of the 1980s only for this purpose (Spoiler: Their No.1 was once Daydream Nation by Sonic Youth and now is Purple Rain by Prince).
But should music not come first? Isn't the fact that the artist is black, white, LGBTQ, male, female, Australian, or from Ghana, a secondary aspect? Music, in and of itself, is oblivious to all this. We do not apply these rules to many other things, either. A Football World Cup does not quality its contestants based on color, gender, or creed. Once you are in, you have to fight your way up to the top. You don't get a cultural advantage badge.
Now, I haven't had a clean sheet with regards to this. Up to a certain age looking back, I realized that most of the artists I listen to are men. Because I was into alternative rock and grunge as a teenager. Once I had this "awakening", I started reminding myself that I am missing a big chunk of the world's music due to this stupid limit. So I explored a wider spectrum. Having the filter removed, I no longer think about what metadata the artist has. It is the music that should speak to you. Then you read about it. Then you realize all the rest. "Music is music", Bob Marley once said in an interview. And the man knew what he talked about.
But I really want to know what you think.