I don't wanna get in the way of your bicharacters post but one iffy thing in establishing a character as gay or lesbian or implying that they are gold-star anything is that there is a tradition in popular culture to use any other type of relationship that could be seen as heterosexual as "redeeming" of their gayness (which is sick, totally and completely) and that tradition not only tends to erase being bi, but goes on to try and erase anything non-het about that character...
… and so confronting biphobia and bi erasure in popular culture is essentially about tearing down an entire system and tradition of presenting non-het story lines and characters as negative or alternative, and then actually and fully realizing and sustaining that a character is non-het, is not in a phase or a weird time in their life, and that in the case of being bi/pan/not gay or straight they are that orientation no matter what their situation.
This is an oooooold ask, but Pride Month seems like as good a time as any to answer it!
So first off, let me just say that the so-called gold star is some bullshit that has some seriously biphobic, transphobic, cissexist, sex-negative/slut-shaming, closet shaming overtones to it. So right off the bat, if the goal of any writer is to establish their characters as "gold star" queers of any stripe, I'm going to be disinclined to engage with their work (unless of course they are explicitly addressing and critiquing the whole gold star concept).
This ask was, if I remember correctly, in relation to a post I made a long-ass time ago about characters that could arguably have been canonically bisexual if not for the writers’ misunderstanding of bisexuality, ingrained heteronormativity, or outright biphobia. Granted, one or two of the characters on that list have since been more or less confirmed bisexual (which is great!), while others still languish in the land of queerbaiting (not great).
But this also reads kinda like it was in response to my particular issues with Joss Whedon’s depiction of Willow Rosenberg in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and possibly Ryan Murphy’s depiction of Blaine Anderson in Glee.
The first is an example where the (straight) writer responsible specifically justified their decision not to represent bisexuality with this notion that it’s “too tricky” or that they felt they might be muddying the waters by doing so, and so opted for the “simpler” task of lesbian representation. Which IMO is insulting to lesbians and bisexuals alike, and indicates just how little thought and care went into that aspect of Willow’s character. Bisexuals are not too complicated to represent, and lesbians are not your fallback "easy mode” representation just because you’re not a good enough writer to do some other sexuality justice.
The second is an example where the (gay) writer dismissed bisexuality as a valid identity and option out of hand in both the text and in interviews about the text. In the text, he basically uses Kurt as a mouthpiece to say that bisexuality is being half-closeted. In interviews, he implied that he chose to write the character of Blaine as gay because his being bisexual would somehow undermine the power of the show’s representation. This, of course, is just extremely biphobic to the core, to the extent that I’m not even going to argue the point beyond that. It’s self-evidently gross.
But…now, I could be wrong, but to me this ask reads like maybe not an outright defense of some of this “preserving the representation” thinking, but at the very least positing that it’s a plausibly well-intentioned explanation for some writers’ tendency to opt for bi erasure. I…disagree, to put it very mildly, and I’ll tell you why.
1. Bisexuality Is Not Gay Lite
The tendency to think of bisexuality as “half gay,” “gay lite,” or “half closeted” is biphobic. Any writer who uses this defense is immediately suspect to me, because they clearly haven’t done the most basic reading. This is not new information. It wasn’t new information when Buffy was airing, and it certainly wasn’t by the time Glee came along.
You cannot combat or alter problematic thinking by buying the underlying logic of that thinking and playing into it. You can’t combat the notion that heterosexuality is the default by refusing to show bisexual characters because heterosexuality is seen as the default. You can’t combat the notion that being gay or a lesbian is a phase or deviation from the “norm” by refusing to depict bisexual characters because some of their relationships might be perceived as het. You can’t combat the notion that being gay is curable or can be undone by telling people you couldn’t depict bisexuality for fear of implying that.
If anything, writers defending their choices not to depict bisexuals with “well if they dated someone of the opposite gender again it’d be like we went back on them being gay” reinforces the narrative that straight is the default and gay is deviation from the default, that straight is the origin and it’s possible to “deviate” and then “return to normal.”
This line of thinking is not only rampantly homophobic, it’s also biphobic and bi-erasing as hell. Comments from writers afraid to “water down” their queer representation with bisexuality are only reinforcing this false idea and contributing to heteronormativity across the board.
2. Dating History ≠ Orientation
The second reason I think this is a bullshit explanation for bi erasure is that a character’s romantic/sexual relationships are not a person’s sexuality, and are also not the only way to give the audience information about a character’s sexuality. People talk about their feelings and attraction. Straight people and characters certainly do it all the time! Straight characters will have whole scenes just talking or complaining about their romance-related woes, foibles, and confusion, sometimes without the audience ever meeting the person they’re talking about. Why the hell should queer characters be any different?
Thankfully, some writers in the last fifteen years or so have finally figured this out. It’s becoming more common for writers to simply allow their characters to say “I’m bisexual” or have other characters to note that they’re bisexual, out loud (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Legends of Tomorrow, Grey’s Anatomy, Black Lightning, Shadowhunter Chronicles). Most of these instances have even felt organic and extremely in-character, contrary to the constant refrain from queerphobes of all stripes that this would be awkward or unrealistic to do.
It’s also become more common to allow queer characters the space to just…talk about their queer attraction and how they experience it, as casually as straight characters talk about their straightness all the time (see Roswell, New Mexico, Grey’s Anatomy again, Legends of Tomorrow again, Sense8, and (suprisingly) Game of Thrones). Sometimes this takes the form of commiserating with friends, asking for advice, or simply sharing experiences. Other times, it takes the form of directly correcting another character’s misconceptions about bisexuality (though I will admit, this is something I dislike seeing a ton of; if it starts to feel like the bi character is constantly having to defend their sexuality, I’m out).
Another common way to show a character’s bisexuality is to show them flirting with people of multiple genders. This works better with a more flirty, extroverted character, but it’s definitely another tool that more recent writers have made very effective use of (Legends of Tomorrow’s takes on both Sara Lance and John Constantine are two excellent and prominent recent examples, but an older example is Captain Jack Harkness from Doctor Who and Torchwood, or Magnus Bane from the Shadowhunter Chronicles books and TV show).
All of these are ways that aren’t at all dependent on dating history to show that a character is bisexual. And in some ways, these are preferable over depending on dating history alone or primarily, because they’re more about the character than who they’re dating. Just as in the real world a person’s sexuality is about them, not who they’re with at any given time.
3. What About The Closet?
Now, some people will want to talk about the fact that the closet and heteronormativity exist, and maybe the writers just want to show that in their writing. And sure, there are people who have straight relationships who later realize they are gay. There are people who feel obligated to perform heterosexuality in order to keep themselves safe, who later come out as gay. There are even people who wonder if they may be bisexual before realizing they’re definitely gay.
All of those are valid experiences, and any gay writer saying “I chose to write it this way because this is a thing gay people experience that I wanted to explore” would never hear a peep from me against it. How a gay writer chooses to write about specifically gay experiences is not the issue here. The issue is how writers–gay or straight–write and speak about bisexuality as though it’s somehow threatening to gay identity and representation. Also, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a gay writer who writes about the closet...actually writes about the closet. Instead of writing about bisexual identity from a place of ignorance.
When straight writers try to write queer representation, fuck it up, and then blame homophobia for their failings, I’m calling bullshit. When straight writers commit bi erasure and blame gay fans, I’m calling bullshit. And when gay or straight writers claim it’s just “too hard” to depict bisexuality without undermining gay and lesbian representation somehow, I’m calling bullshit. I’m calling bullshit and biphobia, and so should you.
16 notes
·
View notes
tag people you want to know better!
tagged by: @beetle🪲 again LOVE YOU
last song: everything black - unlike pluto
last movie: mirror mirror 👀
currently reading: i just finished the eli monpress series last night and i haven't started a new book yet! i'm going to soon tho >:3
currently watching: zombieland saga revenge gkfsdjgs
currently craving: sleep..............
tagging: @katelfiredemon @fungis @bicharacter @napshirt @gaybot @kraljevna
8 notes
·
View notes