The Problem with Animation and LGBT “Representation”

This is gonna be long. I’m not writing a TL;DR. I’ll mark the sections I feel are the most important part of what I’ve written with a ☆

We’ll start this off with the lesson of the day, which would be about Queer Baiting.

“But what’s Queer Baiting?”

☆ Why, I’m glad you asked. Queer Baiting is a shitty marketing tactic used by authors and animators to attract a queer audience. They do this by creating sexual and/or romantic tension between two same-sex characters, however these relationships are never evolved or expanded on. Sometimes, it was never going to be canon in the first place.

“But why is that problematic? They’re still representing same-sex couples in a way”

Excellent question. And to that I have to say, a character switching teams at the end of a series with absolutely zero development with that person is not representation and is not being ‘woke’. I’m looking at you, Legend of Korra.

And this isn’t me contributing to the bi erasure. There’s nothing wrong with heterosexuality or bisexuality. Everyone, including straits, should be prideful about their sexuality. But this shit is so normalized to the point where gays and lesbians who’re hoping to see themselves and their lifestyles reflected in media never get to see it because of queer baiting.

I mean, just look at shows like Yuri!! On Ice, Love Stage!, Hibike! Euphonium, Free!!! and Super Lovers, (starting to notice a trend here) all of these were huge cluster fucks with nothing but queer baiting and shallow plots. Homoerotic relationships were hinted and its implied that characters in these shows have feelings for one another or there’s heavy same-sex sexual tension present. Only for nothing to fucking happen.

Often times, “representation” in animation revolves around putting that minority up on a throne when the point of representation should be to normalize what you’re trying to represent. Not to sit them up on a pedestal and make them stand out like a circus attraction.

☆ Let’s take a look at shows like Craig of the Creek, Stuck In the Middle and Cowboy Bebop. What makes these shows examples of good representation in media? The answer is simple. Nobody cares that Harley and the Diaz’s are Hispanic because they’re chaotic and persevering. Nobody cares that Craig is black because he’s fun and adventurous and nobody cares that Faye Valentine is a woman, because she’s fucking badass.

These characters didn’t rely on being put on a pedestal to matter or contribute something to their respective show. It didn’t matter that Faye was a woman cause she had personality she was a badass who happened to be a woman, not the other way around.

“But it’s still diversity, why does it matter if they’re uplifted?”

☆ Well well, as I said, the point of representation is to normalize what you’re trying to represent. Normalize as in to have it become just as normal as what’s already considered ‘the norm’. Having them stand out to the point where every single character is talking about that characters race, sexuality or gender is counter productive. You don’t sit that character on a pedestal that stands higher than ‘the norm’, you put it on the same pedestal as the norm.

☆ Having a characters main personality trait be their gender, race and sexuality and practically having that character walk around and say “hey! Look at me! I’m gay!” Or “I’m black” or “I’m a woman!” Makes them seem like less of a person and more of a spectacle.

This is why diversity for the sake of diversity can never work. If you’re adding in a gay character just for the sake of ‘diversity’, just to attract more viewers from a certain demographic, that’s an automatic flop. Those characters lack depth and are devoid of any sort of personality.

I just think it would be a pretty epic poggers moment if a characters only personality trait wasn’t their sexuality.

☆ Your character should just happen to be gay. Or happen to be POC or happen to be a woman. They shouldn’t be a minority that just so happens to have a personality. The need to be well written. Race, gender, sexuality...all of that should come second to their persona.

☆ Characters shouldn’t be defined by their race gender and sexuality. It’s their morals and their personality that should determine whether they’re a good character or not.

I thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

BONUS!

Lots of people claim JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure queer baits. And to that I say...no it doesn’t? Araki loves to sexualize men and play around with sexuality. He’s just limited to what he can and cannot incorporate in his work due to people who are less tolerant of those things.

That doesn’t stop Araki from sneaking in gay characters and implying sexual ambiguity in others.

- DIO is canonically bisexual and it’s implied that he’s slept with N’doul, Pucci, Vanilla Ice, Kakyoin, Midler and Mariah.
- Squalo and Tiziano (part 5) are canonically gay
- Gelato and Sorbet (part 5) are canonically gay
- Araki wanted Jolyne (part 6) to be in a lesbian relationship with Anasui, who first appears as a woman and is in love with Jolyne. Araki was made to change this decision at the request of his editors later on and the next time Anasui appears, he is a man.
- The Pillar Men of part 2 are implied to be an entire race of asexuals. We’re told that they often went millennia without reproducing.
- Josefumi and Kira (part 8) are implied to be bisexuals

It’s great because these characters have personalities outside of their sexual orientations and sexual ambiguity. Just another reason why JoJo is great.