#terrible queer rep

[samijey]

#looks like toxic yuri is back on the menu boys!!!

[jupitermelichios]

my favourite sexuality for comic book characters to be is "we made this other character canonically queer because of their relationship with them but for some reason they are still canonically straight"

like wade wilson? mostly canonically queer because of the period where he was married to cable. he was in a queer relationship, so we have to just make him canonically queer. (Yes I know it's not the only reason, I have read all his extremely camp early 00s comics, but lets be real they'd have kept insisting that was all just a joke if it wasn't for Cable and Deadpool).

cable? definitely straight. 100% straight. obviously cable is straight. his relationship with wade is only gay during the & Deadpool, in the Cable part of the book it's very straight. He stands next to a woman sometimes, that's how you can tell it's not gay.

Kitty has, finally, been allowed to come out, but for like a decade, Illyana was canon queer because she dated Kitty, but Kitty was definitely straight and would never date a woman, and no one at marvel thought there was anything weird about that.

[Image Description: a very straight character, interacting with another straight character, in a very believably straight way]

Marvel has way more of these, mostly by virtue of having more queer characters and also chris clairmont (you can never understate the impact of chris clairmont in these matters) but Tim Drake and Kon Kent spring to mind from DC.

I think you could even make a solid argument that 616 Tony and Steve are that, given Tony is out now and Steve, somehow, still isn't.

anyway you don't really get these in any other medium, because they require multiple writers who all wildly disagree with one another to all write the same characters to happen, but i love them, and as much as I want Cable and Kon to come out, I kind of hope this never stops happening in comics, it's just never not funny.

[unnecessarybeltbuckles]

I like the new Shang Tsung but there's several downgrades from his MK11 version:

-no braids

-no painted nails

-no tit windows

[littlestarxmilkyway]

The saddest thing about the election results is seeing very tangibly how things link back together, while watching people be obtuse over them. People are acting like the potential censorship of AO3 is going to be the worst to come when PoC and especially queers of color are horribly censored already, and it's only going to get worse. Fandom crowds swore up and down that fandom being censored is ~oh so serious~ only to turn around and talk like this now that it's more real.

All of the dark romance and taboo kink/fetish people would get on one about being able to enjoy what they like and "fiction doesn't affect reality!", except White, Booktok women voted exactly like the media they consume. Which is very conservative-leaning!

We can't have conversation about real, world issues because people turn it into "yucking their yum" and an attack on their "safe fandom space," but their safe space and their yum is real people's worst nightmare.

[eleionomarea]

gay/bi mike wheeler discourse is so hilarious from my pov. I'm here sitting on my bench watching you all going at each other's troaths virtually, eating popcorn and knowing that Mike is straight, that the Duffer Brothers are lazy and they wrote Will to be in love with Mike because they wanted to take the safer route : sad gay kid pining over his straight best friend. They didn't add a new character for Will in season four because it wasn't suitable for Will and Mike storyline. If Argyle wouldn't have existed and in his place there would have been the new Will's love interest, what the fuck would Mike have done for eight episodes ? Will's storyline would have been different, he couldn't be Mike's counselor. Will and Mike's storylines in season four are attached not because there is this big plot twist around the corner and by*ler will be endgame, it's because of cheap, lazy writing. They didn't know what to do with both of them. So it's really funny reading this whole online discourse "Mike is clearly gay" "Mike is perfect bi representation" when i am here with a bitter taste in my mouth thinking that in good hands, in hands that really cared about queer identity and queer representation Will Byers would have been treated differently.

[exitpursuedbyasloth]

Did anyone else notice the tonal change this season in how the writers, and by extension the characters, treat Jaskier now that he’s written as explicitly bisexual/pansexual?

Does anyone else think that the main reason that Jaskier got a more active role in the narrative beyond comic relief this season, that Geralt and Ciri are now written as being kind and friendly with him, appreciating Jaskier and showing love/affection for their friend, that the narrative isn’t constantly mocking him or showing everyone not give a shit about him for laughs, is that the writers didn’t want themselves or the characters to come off like they’re treating the one major gay character as a joke or nuisance, being shitty and cold to him for no reason, just relentlessly beating up the queer guy (who just wants to be their friend and shows concern for them)? I mean, previously the showrunner specifically mentioned that they chose to turn the their friendship into a joke, that Jaskier was kind of deluded idiot thinking they’re friends. Think of how badly the writers and characters treated Jaskier especially towards the end of S2 (being ignored, brushed aside, regarded as useless, and the absolute stupid shit with Yenn’s magic rock that went nowhere), especially in light of him being tortured and losing his lute because of his connection with Geralt in that very same season? There was really no reason to add all the animosity and derision that the characters/writers seemed to view Jaskier with in previous seasons, so I’m not sad it’s gone, I just have to wonder...why now?

Were they worried about what the status quo of how the narrative treats Jaskier would look in light of his sexuality?

[highfantasy-soul]

So I'm going to poke my toe into BookTok drama for a second here, so if you're not interested in a bunch of queer people denying queer book bans, ignorance of screen readers for blind people, and assuming that a queer author saying he's experiencing the effects of homophobia as he's trying to sell his books is actually just lying for publicity....keep scrolling

This issue is layered, so I'll go through some of them.

Pretty much, a blind, gay TikToker got a pretty big following by posting videos of his husband doing harmless pranks on him due to his blindness (think 'how long will it take my husband to notice I'm surrounding him with stuffed penguins', 'how long will it take my husband to notice we're wearing the same outfit', stuff like that). It's super wholesome and shows that partners can still prank and joke with one another - including a disability - rather than having to tip toe around it and pretend the disability is so awful, horrible, they'll never be happy again if they remember they're blind.

The blind partner has a degenerative eye condition where he started out being able to see, but his vision is slowly going completely, but he had a love for art and drew a bunch, so his goal became to 1) find accessibility tools to help him draw (he found iPads with their brightness turned to max and zooming in to work on a tiny square at a time worked well for him), and 2) to publish picture books before he fully lost all vision.

The incident I'm talking about isn't the first time he's spoken out about being treated poorly due to his minority status - usually over his guide dog not being allowed in businesses or people being rude/inconsiderate about his dog. He's even been on the news about such incidents trying to raise awareness, for example, so people know that some blind people do still have enough vision to be able to look at you when you're talking to them but it doesn't mean they're safe to walk about a busy street without a guide dog.

Recently, he's been posting more content about the books that he's published - very cute children's books about a gay penguin couple helping out all their animal friends.

The incident in question was a video he posted where he was devastated because a bookstore bought 100 copies of his book, but then returned them saying 'the content isn't something that aligns with what we want in our bookstore'. He had his screen reader read out the email and only gave the first name of the sender - not naming the bookstore or the manager's full name (the same thing he did with the restaurant who kicked him out because he had his guide dog with him - his reason being that he wasn't looking to shame or punish, but rather bring awareness and hopefully the chance to learn and grow from the event).

He said it was heartbreaking that he lost that sale due to what he believes was homophobia and it's crazy that his book had been banned.

This, of course, started some discourse.

Many started making videos about this claiming that he was lying for attention and publicity (as many people obviously started ordering his book due to that video) and that his story didn't line up with 'how the industry works'. Not to mention the slew of abelist remarks about how the 'voicemail' sounded AI generated even though it's clear in the original video it's his screen reader reading off an email. And who can forget the rows of commenters under those videos claiming 'something always felt off about them', 'I always did get a bad feeling about them', 'the book isn't even that good anyways!' when the 'call out' had no proof, only a bunch of assumptions that they THOUGHT the author was lying.

So I'm seeing a few things that stand out: many indie authors have been coming out 'debunking' the 100 copy order claiming that never in the history of the world has a bookstore ever ordered 100 copies of a book, not even from a well known author. To that point, the OG poster made a follow up video explaining more about the situation in that that order was for a signing on-location. One of the bookstore employees had made the arrangements, ordered the books for the signing, but then someone higher up decided to cancel the event due to 'the content of the books'. As many others in the comments pointed out, it's normal for signing events to have 100 copies of a book purchased, especially a short children's book.

To me, this argument that 'he's lying because bookstores don't buy that many books' is a massive assumption and kinda reeks of jealousy that THEIR debut book didn't do that! No mention of the fact that this guy has a huge TikTok following or that he's been on the news several times for non-book related things. That type of exposure does lead to more people knowing your name and being more likely to put in orders.

Another claim was that 'stores wouldn't order books they hadn't personally read, especially not 100 copies/set up a signing'. This comment tells me they have never worked for a shitty boss before. Shitty bosses delegate - they make their employees do EVERYTHING and rarely look it over until the last minute because they couldn't be bothered. The author's follow-up video also said that he was informed the employee that set up the event was no longer working at the company - no detail about that situation, but a reasonable assumption would be that they were fired due to ordering 100 books about a gay penguin when the store owner was conservative and didn't want to stock gay books. Of course, the only reason for return given was 'the content of your book does not align with what we want on our shelves' so, you do the math.

I think what gets me most are gay people coming after the author claiming 'stop saying your book is banned! That's not how that works!! That's not what that word means! Stop watering it down!'

To me, this reads as so many people thinking 'book bans' are only some nebulous concept - not tangible things that can happen in every-day life. Book bans are only big, scary, Supreme Court cases where every single store in the country will no longer be allowed to carry any queer books at all. So when it happens small scale, a store telling an author they won't stock their book because it 'doesn't align with the content they want to promote', that's not actually banning - that's just a business doing what they are legally allowed to do! (Yes, a queer author literally said a bookstore refusing to shelve a queer book wasn't banning it, it was just the bookstore making a reasonable business decision).

Book bans are whenever an entity - public or private - refuse to shelve a book because it has content they disagree with. That's literally it. No laws required, no big movement by Mom's for Liberty, just a single store owner refusing to carry a product for the express reason they don't want a gay book on their shelves.

Concepts don't stop being real when they become...real. Why scream and cry all day about the US banning queer books, but then when an author comes out and says 'my book was sent back because the bookstore found out it was queer', the immediate response is 'Thatls not how book bans work!! You must be lying for attention!!'. Are book bans really a thing we need to be worried about or not? Sounds like those 'queer authors' don't actually think it could happen to them...it's only the nebulous concept they're worried about, not the every-day reality of discrimination.

Another massive thing I think has come of this discourse is leftist's purity politics. As long as you're quietly weeping in your poorly-lit apartment with shitty video quality and only 50 followers, you're telling the truth, you're down for the cause, you're really facing discrimination. The MOMENT you don't look like you're struggling anymore financially, the MOMENT you get publicity beyond TikTok, you must be lying. You magically no longer are able to be discriminated against, you must just be lying for more attention.

A queer Latino author actually said 'he's weaponizing white twink tears to sell his book' - claiming that the whole thing was just made up for publicity (with no proof). Is there a huge issue with white privilege in society and in the queer community? Yeah. But that doesn't mean that they suddenly don't also face homophobia.

It's like the left HATES when anyone succeeds at anything. Be an aspiring author, be an aspiring content creator, but the MOMENT you gain any level of success, SCREW YOU, YOU'RE A SELLOUT, YOU'RE A SHILL, YOU LIE ABOUT YOUR MINORITY STATUS FOR ATTENTION!!! Do some people lie about that stuff to get ahead, sure! But you better have proof that's what they're doing, or else you're just making being public about your minority status a minefield for EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO'S A MINORITY!! You are HURTING gay people when you dismiss their stories of experiencing homophobia - just because they have a level of success you don't!

This is a rambling rant that I don't blame no one for reading. But I just had to get it out of my system after seeing so many responses to the author's initial post where there were no facts, no evidence that the guy was lying - it was all assumptions about how the person THOUGHT the bookstore business worked, and everyone in the comments ate it up like it was fact and have started turning on this blind, gay author just trying to sell his children's books about gay penguins.

The og author doesn't need to provide 'receipts' naming the bookstore. He's worked through stuff like this privately with the offending business in order to rectify the situation without blowing up the person's life (they aren't the ones with the platform, he is, and if it's a private business, he's stated he's not interested in sending angry mobs their way, he just wants the situation to be known so others can do better).

In today's age of 'gotta show receipts so I can go mob the offending party and feel good about myself', withholding that info can look like you're just making stuff up for 'clout' or whatever - but another idea is that whipping up targeted hate isn't going to solve the underlying issue - talking about it broadly might (so if the individual business gets negative reviewed to oblivion and closes down, people don't dust their hands off and think 'well done, we did it' and walk away and ignore the numerous other businesses doing the exact same thing).

Ironically, those demanding receipts offer none of their own, only baseless assumptions of how they THINK things work and how 'well if it hasn't happened to me, it must mean it never happens!', whipping up their own angry mobs who are too eager to tear down a queer disabled author because he's gotten a level of success.

[lapis-lazuliie]

i love the passion you have for the media you love and queer representation (esp with in9)

SKFK anon that is sO lovely, thank you 💖🥹

[alloutofgoddesses]

You know what. The story arcs of both Kalmar and Artham Wingfeather are absolutely unintentional queer allegories. Trans rights exist in the Wingfeather Saga I have decided.

[lightthatibecome]

sometimes the heights people will go to in order to be biphobic + justify their biphobia is so insane to me

[antirepurp]

my fingers are so unbelievably crossed for a gender identity arc in jojolands

[angry-kid-with-no-money]

"Nora doesn't know anything about the things she writes about" "aftg is terrible queer rep" "the queer characters in aftg are so problematic"

Idk guys maybe the book series abt problematic ppl set in 2006 and written in the mid 2010s shouldn't be expected to hold up against scrutiny of what we consider to be moral and correct now, in 2024

Idk tho, idk

[gemharvest]

AS SOON AS I COMPLAIN I MAKE IT LOOK BETTER FUCK OFFFFF

[wishbonedean]

Thank you, and to add some tinfoil-hat theory, anyone that feels cheated by the ending they got? It's because of the explicit bi erasure. You're mad? This is just another Wednesday for me. This is why i dont hate the ending - they made people *mad* the bi characters died, rather than casually accept that their deaths were inevitable as so many shows, including this one (as a *commentary* - more on that later), have done.

Season 15 (and most seasons, I would argue) is a meta-mirror of the real world, the writers explicitly likened Chuck to a network executive for a reason, and they wrote the Destiel arc to be so central to the plot, that the only way to end it was to fulfill the romantic arc and canonize the bisexual love in the room, or kill them, and the network had to choose - the writers didn't kill Dean and Cas, they gave the network a choice, and based on *market research* (see: the American public), most people would rather see a dead bisexual than a happy one, and that's how the writers attempted to make up for all the queerbaiting and homophobic nonsense we had to endure for 15 seasons - showing everyone their own ass, i mean, isnt this what they asked for?

We can joke about how it's a show that doesn't take itself seriously, but plenty of these writers had been working on this show for years, they loved these characters - if we watch their last season, deadly seriously, they have given us a pretty damning social commentary on the state of corporate/network censorship seizing control of our own narratives from us.

Edit: grammar, punctuation, wording

ok but where are my fellow bisexual castiel truthers huh where are my bi4bi deancas siblings in arms huh where are my cas-is-gay-but-as-in-the-umbrella-term people HUH WHERE ARE Y'ALL WHERE

[lelianasbong]

oh boy, a decade-old terrible take just got even worse. "sera/taash is bad lesbian/enby rep because they're abrasive. queer people in media should be Unthreatening Witty Cis Gay Men (Who Talk About Boys With Me 🥰)"

[chaoticbiguysblog]

I feel like initially most people were on the same page about Tommy Kinnard, they were like ok let's see where it goes and we got Bi Buck!! Like, in April, I was on top of the world bc of Bi Buck, and I was so excited for him and eager to see where it goes, even the ones who didn't want him for Buck from the start were indifferent to him.

But I feel like the divide and the ship wars intensified was when people started using the "healthy male friendship" and "why can't two men just be friends" argument against Buddie, we have hundreds, if not thousands of those in pop culture and homophobes often use this argument against lgbt rep, so to see a group, some if not most of which are queer themselves use the same argument is off putting.

Then, whether you're his fan or a hater, you gotta agree that Tommy's character is a blank slate, he's not been given much to do, besides a few moments, and a significant part of that is him being racist and sexist to two fan favourite characters: Chim and Hen respectively (similarly people disliked Taylor for what she did to Bobby, the redemption and forgiveness before she started dating Buck was implied but it's not enough). Other than that he doesn't have a lot of qualities. And what happens is fans project a lot of things on him. What made me abandon the Tevan ship was people "stealing" Eddie's character traits and projecting it onto Tommy, while labelling him a terrible mentally insane father who uses Buck for his own gain, yada yada yada. And I love Buck and Eddie equally, so to me that was irritating.

Also, since he doesn't have many character traits, his lines, which are intended as sassy can come off as him being a dismissive and condescending dick.

Then for the off screen side of things, we were constantly told Buck is straight, by the actors and the showrunner but everyone was like eh whatever, and then our headcannons were proven right, but suddenly theorising about Eddie and that a lot of queer people including myself identify with him is looked down on if not straight up mocked, and that the canon storylines are the only ones that matter have made the fandom a bit toxic.

Buddies are often accused of blindly hating on Tommy, that he's hated only bc he's not the guy we wanted Buck to kiss, so I feel like I should lay it out as to why a lot of us went from being indifferent or open to the guy to straight up hating him.