#lgb representation

[violet-bookmark]

I know we (kind of)* have better media representation nowadays than in the past, but in the last years the big studios are giving us nothing while simultaneously expecting us to fall at their feet just because they said in an interview (that nobody watched) that x character is actually gay/bi, not that we will get to see them talk about it or be in a same-sex relationship on-screen.

Take for example what Marvel did with Valkyrie: they said in an interview that they were supposedly going to include a scene of her revealing her bisexuality, but decided against it at the last minute. That's not representation, that's just throwing a bone our way because they want us to watch the movie (and to consider the studio gayfriendly) but can't be bothered to write actual representation/include scenes of characters expressing same-sex attraction. And despite that, a lot of "lesbian" magazines from my native country were praising their "inclusion" (???) As if they had given them a bisexual lead, and talking about how great Marvel was for doing this empty gesture.

How can you claim you "represented" a group if you haven't even mentioned or showed anything about them on-screen? The majority of people won't care enough about the movie to search for this interview. The majority of people who have watched the movie don't know that Valkyrie is supposed to be bisexual. Which is awfully convenient because then nobody will be complaining about "Marvel pandering to the gays/bis again", but you will get just enough woke points to be considered inclusive because somehow gay magazines will be all over this news.

Same happened with How to train your dragon 2: everyone was SUPER HYPED about Stoic's friend being gay, because it is a children's movie and etcetera. People were writing articles about that bold move before the movie came out, just praising how progressive Dreamworks was being. And when the movie came out, all that the character said about it was that "he never married for certain reasons". That's it. That's all. I have seen movies from the 80's with better rep than this. Some children's books (like the Moomins) had better rep than this. Fucking High School Musical had better rep than this. And yet it was supposed to be a big deal, even when the majority of people who watched the movie won't get it. Hell, if it wasn't for all the hype I saw around it, I would have been none the wiser. Some would probably justify it with a "there wasn't enough screentime", but if you have enough time to show me dumb teenagers fighting over the only girl left in the village (??) Then you can show me a male character talking about some dude he likes. And if you really don't have time, just don't try to fit in minorities in such an awkward way. It smells like a money grab.

Please stop praising shitty "representation" from money-grabbing studios, I beg you.

* Taking into account that a lot of gay/lesbian characters still get killed/get an unhappy ending/suddenly fall for or have sex with someone from the opposite sex because why not (this happens to supposed "lesbian" characters so fucking much)/get put on a bus to never come back once they have fulfilled their mission of attracting the gays/get "over their homosexuality" and end up paired with a trans person of the opposite sex (yes, Shameless, I'm looking at you), one might argue that the majority of representation we have nowadays isn't worth much. Bisexual people also keep getting the occasional same-sex romance (that the majority of the time happens during one Very Special Episode™️) but 90% of the time they only have serious romances/endgames with partners of the opposite sex.

[orchidvioletindigo]

“If it’s bad to change LGB+ characters’ orientations for ships then it’s bad to change straight characters’ orientations for ships” no it isn’t you ignoramus

If lesbians want to headcanon a canonically straight woman as a lesbian (e.g. Bea Santello from Night in the Woods) because they’re a marginalized minority who rarely get positive representation then that’s perfectly acceptable but if straight people want to headcanon a canonically lesbian character as bi or straight (e.g. Ilia Amitola from RWBY) to erase representation for a marginalized minority then that’s scummy as hell

Also consider the following: LGB+ representation isn’t about your stupid ships, it’s about seeing ourselves in media and people respecting the table scraps we’re given and the fact that sometimes we want a little more than table scraps so we imagine more representation for ourselves than that

Also also consider: Half the time when people make the “If we’re not allowed to ship canonically gay characters in straight relationships than you’re not allowed to ship canonically straight characters in gay relationships” argument the characters they use for their “canonically straight” examples have never actually been confirmed as straight - they’re just taking heteronormativity as gospel

[opnorbury]

Update

Just in case you're wondering what we've been up to lately: we've been going over the BBC's "Research Update on Portrayal of LGB People on the BBC" from November 2012, which was a follow up of their original LGB Report from 2010.

We keep seeing enormous discrepancies between the BBC's good intentions and the reality of the abysmally bad LGB portrayal on BBC Sherlock, with all its explicitly queer villains as well as its obvious hints at a beautiful queer romance between Sherlock and John that are then invariably just played for laughs and not followed up on.

Just like we did previously with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with their first LGB Report, we've been making screenshots of the most interesting/baffling bits of the 2012 report, that we will soon start posting to our Twitter.

[imaslowlearner-butilearn]

I am so starved for Gay content. I grew complacent over the summer, seeing Gays and Bis in the all the shows I was watching. I didn't know. I couldn't know. I wasn't prepared for the desert of heterosexuality awaiting me in the months to come

[separating-my-porn-and-tjlc]

canon Johnlock is a moving target

So, not today.

1/29 is the anniversary of the day they met, so Sunday?

Series 4 blu-ray: My one from the U.S. amazon comes on January 24th

UK steelbook and Series 1-4+ TAB set come out on January 23rd (for me, arriving Feb 6).

Is anyone in the #TJLC community going to have this steelbook on the 23rd? On Tuesday? Because I am wondering if episode 4 will be included on that and then air Sunday 1/29, so fans who have the release would see it first?

Or it’d have to be something we’d buy on blu-ray as its own release? (if so, I’d be excited for the artwork and the special features)

Clue references suggest it WILL be on the initial “home video” release (in this case blu-ray and DVD--perhaps also with season pass on Amazon?)

I need to know if anyone has clues about this as a possibility.

[thehorseshoetheorist]

I feel like a good differentiator for views on lgb representation in media can be summed up by whether or not you think the jock dude in Paranorman is good representation.

I grew up in an era where the goal was to show SSA people as just... people. Nothing distinguishing about them, no way to tell their sexuality unless she casually mentions her wife or he talks about his boyfriend. And jock dude exemplifies that - he's just a jock dude getting sucked into his little brother's adventure and having a good time and ignoring Norman's older sister flirting with him, and then at the end he casually mentions his boyfriend.

On the other hand I can see plenty of people saying it's bad representation because we don't find out he's gay (or bi) until the very end of the film and it's a throwaway line. The argument there is that it doesn't count, because we don't see him being gay on screen.

(I can think of another famous example of this argument and it rhymes with Shmumbledore, but I'm leaving that out because it's not explicitly textual the way Paranorman is)

I have to wonder how much of the shift in perception of "what counts" was accelerated by the rise of identity politics - in a world where your (gender/sexuality/etc) identity is central to your personality, a single line doesn't count as representation because we haven't seen the identity being expressed. Conversely, the jock dude in Paranorman typifies the "my sexuality is the least interesting thing about me" worldview. Jock dude's sexuality is a fact about him, not his whole identity, so a casual mention is enough.

[prankasoreassrex]

I think a lot of people seem to really fail to understand how important the fight for representation of LGB characters particularly in children’s/young adult content really is. The main thing isn’t really for out adults to see stories they can relate more too (although this is obviously great and important). It is about children knowing that LGB people exist and that its normal and fine and beautiful.

We don’t want more gay characters for the sake of it, we want them to help stop young gay people traumatising themselves or being easier targets for abuse because they don’t know that their feelings towards the same sex are acceptable.

And honestly the biggest sign that children need LGB representation is the massive opposition to it, if they didn’t think it would help gay people they wouldn’t be opposed.

No one’s actually scared that watching gay characters is going to turn their straight child gay they’re scared their gay child is going to realise and accept themselves as gay.  

[purpleyin]

Black Sails

Watching S2 now and this show is getting many yays from me for being a semi-historically set drama that actually still has LGB characters. Also, canon femmeslash! And a couple of canon OT3 type scenarios. 

Pirates was always gonna suck me in but hoorahs for their going above and beyond what I expected.