#a ship trend which I have no knowledge of because I don't really pay attention to that part of fandom

[redstarfish-art]

Fanart: *Kidd and Law in a sweet and happy relationship with an acutely heteronormative dynamic* Me: No.

[itsclydebitches]

Wait what was the mess with Ilia/queer representation? I don't usually look into these things so I probably didn't hear or see people talking about it

Happy to explain! First, the obligatory disclaimer: Ilia is a complicated case and, like anything else in RWBY, her place in the show is very much up to interpretation. I think her character arc, particularly in relation to her status as a queer character, is an absolute mess but I know others are of the opposite opinion. Many of the “flaws” I point out are perceived as her greatest strengths. So it’s subjective.

That being said, I wrote a little bit about this during Volume 5 when it was all going down. A simplified list of the primary issues includes:

Introducing your first, long-awaited queer character as a villain (even a sympathetic one)

“Redeeming” her in the span of one episode in a way that provides no punishment/responsibility/growth in the face of the horrific acts she committed

This character is left behind by the story at the end of the volume, presumably never to be seen again outside of, perhaps, a final battle that includes the whole cast

Tying her queerness directly to her villainy

It’s this last point that I take the most issue with. See, the fandom is right to point out that Ilia has motivations for her actions established throughout the volume, namely the death of her parents and the general racism that is still pervading Remnant. Ilia says multiple times throughout Volume 5 that this is why she’s going after Blake and her family. Because she honestly believes that they are a threat to the faunus’ progress. However, just because a character says something doesn’t make it true. Take Yang in the same season. She says she doesn’t want/care if Blake ever comes back to the group, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the show knows is BS. Rather, Yang’s emotions are functioning on multiple levels. A part of her really doesn’t want Blake to return because she’s still furious with her, whereas a larger part of her wants them to reconcile. Now, apply that logic to Ilia. It’s absolutely true to say that she’s motivated by activism and the death of her parents, however, her confrontation with Blake reveals that this isn’t the only reason for her attack. It is, arguably, not even the primary reason. Ilia gives a speech about how they need to be doing more for the faunus, how she doesn’t like to hurt people but she can’t deny that it has gotten them results. Yet when Blake challenges this part of her identity - you’re not a killer - the conversation unexpectedly takes a turn. When pushed to explain how she became this way Ilia does not reiterate her thoughts on racism or the trauma of her parents’ deaths. Instead, she starts talking about her unrequited feelings for Blake: 

Suddenly, Ilia’s motivations have changed. Or rather, they’ve become more complicated. Both sets of motivations exists, but this is the one she admits to under duress, framing it as more “true” than what she’s been saying prior to this conversation. Now, Ilia shows personal motivations rather than just the generically good rhetoric of I Want To End Racism Because It’s Bad. Having Blake down on her knees, shipping her off to Adam, and killing her parents is explicitly connected to the (perceived) problem of, “You didn’t love me.”  Blake is positioned as responsible for who Ilia became: You want to know why I’m like this? You were too busy looking at Adam. I wanted you to look at me that way but you didn’t. That’s how I learned that we can’t always get what we want. So now you don’t get to have what you want (your parents’ safety, distance from Adam). You get to feel what I felt when you didn’t love me back. When Blake poses the question of, “Why are you like this?” Ilia’s answer is “Because I’m queer, have unrequited feelings, and that taught me that life sucks. Now I’m returning the favor.” 

Suddenly, Ilia’s actions are removed from the (already ethically dubious) logic of treating Blake this way because she believes it will help the faunus in the long run and instead are implied to stem from a desire to punish her for not reciprocating those feelings. In this moment Ilia moves from a misguided activist-turned-terrorist and instead becomes a misguided lesbian seeking revenge. She might not admit it - she never explicitly says that she’s punishing Blake for not loving her - but that’s the implication by taking the conversation in this direction; by having Ilia answer with her sexuality rather than her activist views. By drawing such an overt connection between these actions and Ilia’s admission, these things - the impending death of Blake’s parents, kidnapping her, sending her back to her abuser - are framed as things that she “deserves” according to Ilia. If you’d just looked at me with love from the start we never would have ended up here. This falls into a number of horrible tropes including, but not limited to, The Predatory Gay, The Psycho Lesbian, and The Queer Character Falling For Their (Presumably) Straight Friend.

Now, the takeaway here is not “You can never write villainous queer characters.” More often than not any statement beginning with “You can never write ____” is going to be a bad take. Indeed, there are tons of queer/queer coded villains who I adore. That doesn’t mean I want media to perpetuate that long, stereotyped history though. “But Clyde,” the world says. “That doesn’t make any sense. How can you both want and not want this setup?” To which I respond with the iconic words of Jane Lynch:

People’s identities are made up of multiple parts and those parts can read the same writing choice in different ways. As a queer person who loves the ~drama~ of a flamboyant villain I want that entertainment (like Watts). As a queer person who is disgusted by the implications tied to that trend (you’re evil, you’re unnatural, you’re sick, you deserve to be punished, to be killed) I don’t want to see our only queer character be a villain. Which is what Ilia was at the time of her reveal. She was all we had and we didn’t know if RT would ever going to give us anyone else. That was just awful to watch and worry about. It didn’t make me happy. Which sounds like a shit thing to say - This isn’t your story! It doesn’t cater to you! - but after years of waiting for queer rep it felt like a kick in the teeth to get this character in this way and leave her behind when we had a cast of five main women right there, any of which could have been queer. Ilia’s reading was made worse by the lack of rep surrounding her, but to be frank things haven’t improved much. I adore Saphron and Terra, I think they were really well done as characters, but they’re still very minor characters and we can’t ignore that, like Ilia, they were left behind by the story. Blake and Yang are not canon yet, leaving all the hints at their relationship sitting in the limbo of, “Is this just queer baiting?” If you’re someone who pays attention to queer coding, a lot of queer-coded men have been killed off in this show (Roman, Ozpin, Clover). We supposedly have one trans character… whose identity thus far only exists in a tweet.

Kudos to RT for hiring a trans voice actor - they absolutely deserve recognition for that - but it’s still not enough in this day and age. It’s 2020. Queer coding, queer minor characters quickly shuffled off screen, and queer “rep” in the form of paratextual info simply doesn’t fly. We decided that in the most vocal terms possible during the Harry Potter era, a fandom that took over most of the world and, thus, had one hell of an impact on media going forward. No, it’s not rep if you say Dumbledore is gay in an interview but never work that into the story. It’s not rep if you say May is trans on Twitter but don’t work that into the story. Not unless both characters are supplemental additions to a canon already filled with a variety of queer rep. “It’s so cool that this character is also queer! I get why you didn’t have time to work that in, so it’s a good thing we have those five other characters to identify with.” RT might do that in the future. Blake and Yang might become canon in Volume 8. May might be confirmed in the show. Saphron and Terra might unexpectedly arrive to become a part of the story again. We simply don’t know. But as of right now Ilia is one of only three in-canon queer characters out of a cast of ten bajillion (approximately lol) and out of those three she is the only one who was developed into a well-rounded character. That means nearly the entirely of RWBY’s rep rests on her shoulders. I think her queerness is fine for a cast already full of queer characters. There it functions as good diversity - “Some lesbians do join extremist groups and blame unrequited love for their murder plans!” - rather than representation for lesbians/queer people as a whole - “It’s a good thing we have these three other heroic lesbians in RWBY to balance out the message Ilia sends!” But since we don’t have that the takeaway is just what we’ve seen for decades: Queer characters are villains. Queer characters are violent and predatory. Queer characters are written out of the show.

Historically, Ilia’s characterization has problems on its own, but those problems were very much exacerbated by making her the first and, at that point, only queer rep. I - and no doubt others - would have been far more receptive to her as representation if we’d already gotten queer heroes prior to her introduction. And again, that’s a preference. Some fans want more queer villains as a way to say, “Anyone can be queer.” For me though, I’ve seen enough Ilias throughout my life. I’ve seen enough versions of my identity painted as unwanted and dangerous. I was expecting RWBY to do better and I hope that they will do better in the future.