Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Astrella]

Because everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve and doing so is always good for the story. (No, they don't, and no, it's not)

If there is an imbalance in that statistic, I think it's partly because there's no reason to revealing the sexual preferences of every single character. Your perceptions of the makeup of the population also depends strongly on the kinds of people you interact with on a regular basis... for an adventuring party consisting primarily of heterosexual males that are questing to save the world rather than to seek out physical pleasures, I wouldn't really expect frequent interactions with LGBT/etc. people in a manner that would bring up the latter's sexual preferences on a semi-regular basis.

And why would the average adventure party be solely heterosexual males? And do note that for basically every reasonably relevant character things that have to do with sexuality have come up.

But then again, I forgot that apparently only queer people 'carry their sexuality on their sleeve', right?

[Ted The Bug]

I pretty much have nothing substantive to contribute to this conversation, but I've been keeping up with it for a while, and I'm just amazed at how smoothly it's going.

Right on, y'all. Yay for rational discussion!

[Shadowknight12]

So OOTS has a rather poor gender and LGBT representation, which makes sense. The Giant is a white heterosexual male, so of course he'd subconsciously make that the dominant representation. This happens to a lot of writers.

Yes. You are completely right.

We have repeatedly stated in the thread (and it's in the very OP) that we are not judging the Giant for his choices. We are not blaming him. We are not demanding this to be changed or justified to us. We are simply noting facts, just like the Class and Level Geekery Thread.

You're right, LGBTQ isn't that common from a statistical point of view, so having a lot of LGBTQ characters would actually make the work seem unrealistic and seem like it's just trying to pander. The only (full-on) LGBTQ character is Sabine, and I'm pretty sure her being bi is just a joke at how horny she is, than an actual attempt at representation.

Of course, that's not why the comic lacks those characters.

No.

Firstly, representation should not be based on statistics. Not only because statistics are not infallible, but also because it means that minority works will never have a chance to be protagonists, or even well-developed.

Secondly, there is no such thing as unrealism in the fantasy genre. There is verisimilitude, which is entirely dependant on the author explaining and respecting the inner consistencies of his own work.

I'm confused... obviously haven't read the whole thread, but why are people talking like the comic (while admittedly better than most works) doesn't give LGBTQ the representation they deserved? I thought statistically they only made up from 3-8% of the population (exact percent depending on who you ask)? Isn't 3-8% about right for the (confirmed) characters we have? At least close enough to call it "plausible" rather than "under-represented?"

Please, see my reply above.

Because everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve and doing so is always good for the story. (No, they don't, and no, it's not)

Everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve. When Roy flirted with Miko/Celia/the Deva, he was wearing his sexuality in his sleeve. Same with Haley and Elan, Durkon and Hylgia, and every single time a character expresses sexual or romantic interest in someone, or expresses the existence of a husband/wife/ex-boyfriend/girlfriend/etc. The only character who does not wear their sexuality on their sleeve is V, and that's only because it's done on purpose to avoid revealing V's gender or sexuality.

The problem is that, when it comes to straightness, such overt declarations of sexuality are seen as common and acceptable, but if such sexuality is outside the norm, then all of a sudden it's wearing sexuality on the sleeve.

If there is an imbalance in that statistic, I think it's partly because there's no reason to revealing the sexual preferences of every single character. Your perceptions of the makeup of the population also depends strongly on the kinds of people you interact with on a regular basis... for an adventuring party consisting primarily of heterosexual males that are questing to save the world rather than to seek out physical pleasures, I wouldn't really expect frequent interactions with LGBT/etc. people in a manner that would bring up the latter's sexual preferences on a semi-regular basis.

The sexualities of most of the characters has already been revealed. Organically and smoothly. But it doesn't seem implausible or unrealistic because they're all straight.

Your reasoning is grounded on privilege. Straightness has the privilege of being seen as the norm, and every other sexuality is seen as "The Other", the unnatural, the exotic, the abnormal. So when a character is casually revealed to be straight, nobody even notices, but when they are revealed to be gay, bisexual or anything other than straight, it stands out because they don't have the privilege of having their sexuality considered normal and acceptable.

[Mando Knight]

And why would the average adventure party be solely heterosexual males?

Did I say that was the average makeup of an adventuring party? (No, I said that "an" adventuring party consisting of "primarily" heterosexual males, which would roughly describe OotS) As an answer to the question... perhaps because it "fits" with existing media, and is thus what most people would expect?

And do note that for basically every reasonably relevant character things that have to do with sexuality have come up.

We see things primarily from the main characters' perspective. Of course we're going to see their sexuality more.

But then again, I forgot that apparently only queer people 'carry their sexuality on their sleeve', right?

Maybe I implied that, but it's not what I meant. Obviously, Roy was open about his sexuality when he was trying to woo Miko, and most of Celia's appearances have been as "Roy's Girlfriend." Tarquin's sexuality is also loud and clear because he makes it so.

Everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve.

No, they don't, or we'd have a lot fewer characters with unlisted sexual preferences. Durkon? Outside of his fling with Hilgya, we'd have almost no evidence, IIRC. Redcloak similarly rarely discusses his sexuality (if I remember rightly, the only evidence we have that he's straight is from Start of Darkness). If they weren't main characters, we probably wouldn't know their sexual preferences, either. We only know the CPPD guy is gay because Elan tried to lure him with an illusion... even his co-worker wasn't aware of it until then. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there might be others like him who just never bother to bring it up?

[Raineh Daze]

Isn't it reasonable to assume that there might be others like him who just never bother to bring it up?

No. No, it isn't. Because, with the way media works, it's 'straight-until-proven-otherwise'. Also a real cop-out for anyone to say 'this character, who never showed the slightest hint of sexuality, is actually gay! See? I'm being inclusive!'

[Shadowknight12]

No, they don't, or we'd have a lot fewer characters with unlisted sexual preferences. Durkon? Outside of his fling with Hilgya, we'd have almost no evidence, IIRC. Redcloak similarly rarely discusses his sexuality (if I remember rightly, the only evidence we have that he's straight is from Start of Darkness). If they weren't main characters, we probably wouldn't know their sexual preferences, either. We only know the CPPD guy is gay because Elan tried to lure him with an illusion... even his co-worker wasn't aware of it until then. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there might be others like him who just never bother to bring it up?

In On the Origin of PCs, Durkon states that his love for Thor is "completely heterosexual, not that there's anything wrong with the alternative" which, when combined with his fling with Hilgya, paints him as squarely heterosexual (he wouldn't have needed to clarify "not that there's anything wrong with the alternative" if he was bi or gay).

In SoD, it was implied that Redcloak was giving thought to settling down and starting a family with a woman (and he probably would have done just that, if it weren't for Xykon). That also gives significant weight to the idea that he's straight.

I repeat: everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve, because most interactions between adults are highly sexualised. Even characters who have no sexual interest towards each other (such as two straight people of the same gender, or two gay people of opposite genders) spend a significant amount of time discussing their sexual or romantic liaisons. It is entirely possible to determine another person's sexuality within minutes/hours of interacting with them, unless they take deliberate pains to hide it. Even a casual slip of "my ex-girlfriend" or "my husband" is enough to make an educated guess at their likeliest sexuality.

Yes, yes it is unreasonable, because you cannot compare a workplace relationship (where discussing relationships/sex might be disallowed; or the kid might just be new) with a person's familial relationships or their friendships. The kid not knowing? Maybe he was new, maybe the Cliffport Police Department has really strict sexual harassment regulations and that sort of discussion is not allowed. But that man has friends and family (and probably romantic relationships) where his sexuality most certainly comes up.

[JustWantedToSay]

Firstly, representation should not be based on statistics. Not only because statistics are not infallible, but also because it means that minority works will never have a chance to be protagonists, or even well-developed.

If 3% of people are LGBTQ, for stories with 6 main protaganists, 16.7% will have at least one LGBTQ m-p.

8% LGBTQ gives >39%

Far from never.

[jere7my]

If 3% of people are LGBTQ, for stories with 6 main protaganists, 16.7% will have at least one LGBTQ m-p.

8% LGBTQ gives >39%

Far from never.

The point is that the first author with zero out of six LGBT characters will just point to the statistics and say, "Well, the chances are slim—16.7% to 39%. The dice just didn't fall that way. Can't blame me." And so will the second author. And so will the third. And the fourth. And you end up, in aggregate, with much lower than 3-8% representation, because every individual author can be sure that the low odds won't make them look bad.

[Shadowknight12]

If 3% of people are LGBTQ, for stories with 6 main protaganists, 16.7% will have at least one LGBTQ m-p.

8% LGBTQ gives >39%

Far from never.

And yet this does not happen, despite the fact that the numbers, once you take into consideration bisexuals, heteroflexible people, bicurious people, asexuals and so on, you end up with a big chunk of the entire population (around 30%, on average, though the numbers vary wildly).

And yet representation and inclusion is still an issue, because, as the Giant demonstrated in the thread, straight/cis writers are unsure of how to portray LGBTQ+ characters. Some might find them disgusting/uninteresting, others might be morally opposed to the idea of depicting them positively or at all, and others might be afraid of the backlash, whether by their straight audience or by the LGBTQ+ community (because the depictions were unflattering/stereotyped/etc).

And most mainstream writers are straight (not because of statistics, but because LGBTQ+ writers are segregated to the LGBTQ+ section, rather than allowed to join the genre they belong in), so you end up with entire genres devoid of any actual representation, despite how statistics allegedly say they ought to be.

I mean, just look at how some of the people in this thread are phrasing this: "having more than one LGBTQ+ character would strain credibility" despite the fact that there is no rule that states that the protagonists must be a representative sample of their world. It is just as likely that a party of six people might contain two transgendered people, a bisexual person, an asexual person, a gay guy and a lesbian, because hey, I've been in groups just like that. It's entirely possible that such a group of friends might exist under those statistics. The story just happens to follow that group instead of the all-straight-cis-women group, or the all-straight-cis-men group, or the all-straight-cis (but gender even) group.

And yet we're told that group in particular would be unrealistic. Because goodness forfend we're ever more than tokens that exist solely to support straight people. The story can never be about us, or contain us in any meaningful way.

That would be unrealistic.

The point is that the first author with zero out of six LGBT characters will just point to the statistics and say, "Well, the chances are slim—16.7% to 39%. The dice just didn't fall that way. Can't blame me." And so will the second author. And so will the third. And the fourth. And you end up, in aggregate, with much lower than 3-8% representation, because every individual author can be sure that the low odds won't make them look bad.

Also this.

[JustWantedToSay]

The point is that the first author with zero out of six LGBT characters will just point to the statistics and say, "Well, the chances are slim—16.7% to 39%. The dice just didn't fall that way. Can't blame me." And so will the second author. And so will the third. And the fourth. And you end up, in aggregate, with much lower than 3-8% representation, because every individual author can be sure that the low odds won't make them look bad.

If you end up with lower than that representation then it's proof that the collective of authors didn't use statistics to generate their characters. So really, it's not a failure of statistics.

If authors can't explain how they used statistics to generate their characters, then they can be blamed.

It's really not that hard to roll a couple of dice for each demographic.

[Shadowknight12]

If you end up with lower than that representation then it's proof that the collective of authors didn't use statistics to generate their characters. So really, it's not a failure of statistics.

If authors can't explain how they used statistics to generate their characters, then they can be blamed.

It's really not that hard to roll a couple of dice for each demographic.

Nobody is saying that statistics are to blame or have failed. What is being said is that statistics are a diversion from the real problem, which involves privilege, segregation and ingrained prejudice.

[EmperorSarda]

You know, I think there is a gender that hasn't quite been represented yet.

[jere7my]

If you end up with lower than that representation then it's proof that the collective of authors didn't use statistics to generate their characters. So really, it's not a failure of statistics.

If authors can't explain how they used statistics to generate their characters, then they can be blamed.

It's really not that hard to roll a couple of dice for each demographic.

Sorry—I thought we were talking about the real world.

[SowZ]

And yet this does not happen, despite the fact that the numbers, once you take into consideration bisexuals, heteroflexible people, bicurious people, asexuals and so on, you end up with a big chunk of the entire population (around 30%, on average, though the numbers vary wildly).

And yet representation and inclusion is still an issue, because, as the Giant demonstrated in the thread, straight/cis writers are unsure of how to portray LGBTQ+ characters. Some might find them disgusting/uninteresting, others might be morally opposed to the idea of depicting them positively or at all, and others might be afraid of the backlash, whether by their straight audience or by the LGBTQ+ community (because the depictions were unflattering/stereotyped/etc).

And most mainstream writers are straight (not because of statistics, but because LGBTQ+ writers are segregated to the LGBTQ+ section, rather than allowed to join the genre they belong in), so you end up with entire genres devoid of any actual representation, despite how statistics allegedly say they ought to be.

I mean, just look at how some of the people in this thread are phrasing this: "having more than one LGBTQ+ character would strain credibility" despite the fact that there is no rule that states that the protagonists must be a representative sample of their world. It is just as likely that a party of six people might contain two transgendered people, a bisexual person, an asexual person, a gay guy and a lesbian, because hey, I've been in groups just like that. It's entirely possible that such a group of friends might exist under those statistics. The story just happens to follow that group instead of the all-straight-cis-women group, or the all-straight-cis-men group, or the all-straight-cis (but gender even) group.

And yet we're told that group in particular would be unrealistic. Because goodness forfend we're ever more than tokens that exist solely to support straight people. The story can never be about us, or contain us in any meaningful way.

That would be unrealistic.



Also this.

Some stories demand straight people. Some demand mostly or all gay/bi people. Some demand all transgendered people. Odds don't factor into it at all. Just like a story about all spies isn't 'bad' demographically. Probably less than 1 in 10,000 people are spies, but a story about a group of 4 spies isn't strange just because it focuses on spies.

For a story, its not like you pick a random person and they happen to have exceptional things happen to them. You are choosing to tell the tale of the exceptional person as opposed to the store clerk they bump into in chapter seven. This is not at all to say homosexuality is some strange, magical thing. That's not it at all. My point is you tell the story about the people you want to tell it about, NOT because of statistics in real life.

If anything, you should maybe see a higher percentage of uncommon or else minority peoples because while many stories are about common people put in fantastical situations, many others are about uncommon people in normal situations. For me, homosexuality is typical enough that they wouldn't strike me as uncommon people. That isn't the case for many people, though, so I'm surprised there aren't more gay people in fiction to spark curiosity from people who don't know many/any homosexuals.

This isn't to say I support heteronormativity or not. That's not my point. Saying something is right or wrong isn't my point here. Just to say that, if heteronormativity is the norm, I'd expect to see more homosexuals in media than I do 'because' they are considered uncommon, not in spite of it. *Shrug* If it weren't such a charged issue but it was still considered abnormal, I bet we'd see a lot of it in media.

The author shouldn't be a slave to numbers in 'either' direction, though. If the story has 50 straight characters and no gay ones, and that is what the story called for, so be it. But the story will probably be more interesting when you challenge the established dynamics of the story at some point. A static story gets pretty boring, so in a story with 50 straight people adding a gay dynamic might be the best way to add new drama. But maybe not. Honestly, when I write characters, sexuality is one of the last things I usually think about.

[Cerlis]

Did I say that was the average makeup of an adventuring party? (No, I said that "an" adventuring party consisting of "primarily" heterosexual males, which would roughly describe OotS) As an answer to the question... perhaps because it "fits" with existing media, and is thus what most people would expect?
We see things primarily from the main characters' perspective. Of course we're going to see their sexuality more.

the point of that comment was that the main characters all wear their sexuality on their sleeve like anyone else, so there is nothing wrong with a non straight character doing so as well.

Maybe I implied that, but it's not what I meant. Obviously, Roy was open about his sexuality when he was trying to woo Miko, and most of Celia's appearances have been as "Roy's Girlfriend." Tarquin's sexuality is also loud and clear because he makes it so.

pretty sure a majority of characters have been. Belkar has made a pass at everything humanoid with breasts (including Roy), The vigor in which Elan and Haley go at it is obvious and sicking to most of the party. Durkon was alot more proper with how he delt with Helga but not necessarily more subtle. .....

No, they don't, or we'd have a lot fewer characters with unlisted sexual preferences. Durkon? Outside of his fling with Hilgya, we'd have almost no evidence, IIRC. Redcloak similarly rarely discusses his sexuality (if I remember rightly, the only evidence we have that he's straight is from Start of Darkness). If they weren't main characters, we probably wouldn't know their sexual preferences, either. We only know the CPPD guy is gay because Elan tried to lure him with an illusion... even his co-worker wasn't aware of it until then. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there might be others like him who just never bother to bring it up?

.....Most characters in which it isnt brought up in some fashion or another are those who have neither the time or inclination to do so. For example the only female that Redcloak has delt with is a sociopathic necrophilic human.

But I can say from much personal experience since some people in my life are very privy to my sexuality, to having those who dont even know i've had sex or even dated that i can personally tell you with the utmost truth , keeping your sexuality a secret is a HUGE task. For most characters in a story its easy because we only see them in regards to the one or two things important to their character. But if you are going to compare the story to real life it requires ALOT of mental editing to turn "me and my boyfriend went there last week" to "me and my friend" or conciously try not to grimice when someone suggests you working over a hot girl.

As Shadowknight put it well, its just that with "norm" sexuality you dont notice that thing. But the second a man says 'boyfriend" people zero in on that like a laser.

If you end up with lower than that representation then it's proof that the collective of authors didn't use statistics to generate their characters. So really, it's not a failure of statistics.

If authors can't explain how they used statistics to generate their characters, then they can be blamed.

It's really not that hard to roll a couple of dice for each demographic.

I can understand how a writer might use statitics to say, find out the population of the city they are making or some such, but I'm pretty sure that no one creates their characters via statistics.

[Bulldog Psion]

Nobody is saying that statistics are to blame or have failed. What is being said is that statistics are a diversion from the real problem, which involves privilege, segregation and ingrained prejudice.

That is true. But on the other hand, it can also be because of fear of messing up. A straight author can be fully sympathetic to LGBTQ people, harbor no prejudice against them, and want to include them, but realize that there exists a moderate to high probability of career-ruining slip-ups bringing down the wrath of the LGBTQ community, and then everyone else, on their heads.

It's such a hot button issue that it is probably dangerous to one's career as a writer to delve too deeply into LGBTQ issues because someone will be offended, especially if you're a heterosexual author, and then you'll be painted as a hater forever.

If you include just one character, you're accused of tokenism. If you include many, you'll likely be accused of trying too hard to be inclusive. If you make the gay character the same as the straight ones, you'll probably be accused of heteronormative writing or "not really trying." Make the character different, and you'll be accused of stereotyping, or messing something up, or making fun of gays, or whatever.

Few writers are so powerful that they can ignore having all publishing houses reject their books out of hand because they are perceived as prejudiced against gays. Sure, Stephen King could buy out an entire publishing house, most likely, and print and distribute his own books. But most writers are far less affluent and cannot endanger the source of income that supports them and allows their families to enjoy food, shelter, and clothing.

Therefore, the very sensitivity of the LGBTQ situation means that any non-LGBTQ author who writes about it is sticking their neck out hugely, and risks ruining themselves through some unintentional gaffe. It's a lot easier to write about a bunch of straight characters and call it day, then to get experimental and end up offending the very people the author is trying to be inclusive towards.

I can't really see any solution other than LGBTQ people writing more fantasy fiction or fiction in general, since they are obviously immune to being called prejudiced or haters against themselves. It's safe for them to write about LGBTQ characters. I would certainly like to see some groundbreaking fiction from such authors; it would also provide pointers to non-LGBTQ people on how to handle such material in an acceptable manner, which many authors simply do not know how to do right now.

[SowZ]

the point of that comment was that the main characters all wear their sexuality on their sleeve like anyone else, so there is nothing wrong with a non straight character doing so as well.

pretty sure a majority of characters have been. Belkar has made a pass at everything humanoid with breasts (including Roy), The vigor in which Elan and Haley go at it is obvious and sicking to most of the party. Durkon was alot more proper with how he delt with Helga but not necessarily more subtle. .....

.....Most characters in which it isnt brought up in some fashion or another are those who have neither the time or inclination to do so. For example the only female that Redcloak has delt with is a sociopathic necrophilic human.

But I can say from much personal experience since some people in my life are very privy to my sexuality, to having those who dont even know i've had sex or even dated that i can personally tell you with the utmost truth , keeping your sexuality a secret is a HUGE task. For most characters in a story its easy because we only see them in regards to the one or two things important to their character. But if you are going to compare the story to real life it requires ALOT of mental editing to turn "me and my boyfriend went there last week" to "me and my friend" or conciously try not to grimice when someone suggests you working over a hot girl.

As Shadowknight put it well, its just that with "norm" sexuality you dont notice that thing. But the second a man says 'boyfriend" people zero in on that like a laser.

In my gaming group of about 7 people, which has been playing and hanging out for about a year now, 2 of us, (guys,) started dating. They did so for months. Talking with my girlfriend, whose in this group of friends, I mentioned something about their relationship. She looked shocked. "Oh, you didn't know they were dating?" Her: "I didn't even know (one of the guys names) was gay!" She didn't think less of him, she just didn't know.

Shoot, one of my relationships ended. After a few months of dating, I broke it off quietly. Some of my closest friends didn't know we had stopped dating for some weeks.

Some people are just very private about their sex/dating lives. Not because they are ashamed, either. They just want it to be their business. Of course, this isn't everyone's experience. But I don't think it is abnormal, either.

Few writers are so powerful that they can ignore having all publishing houses reject their books out of hand because they are perceived as prejudiced against gays. Sure, Stephen King could buy out an entire publishing house, most likely, and print and distribute his own books. But most writers are far less affluent and cannot endanger the source of income that supports them and allows their families to enjoy food, shelter, and clothing.

Stephen King could write a book about gay little people working at an abortion clinic and he'd still have to use a stick to fight off 'million-dollar-advance' offering publishers

[Bulldog Psion]

Stephen King could write a book about gay little people working at an abortion clinic and he'd still have to use a stick to fight off 'million-dollar-advance' offering publishers

True. There's probably literally nothing he could do or say to change that at this point, either!

[jere7my]

That is true. But on the other hand, it can also be because of fear of messing up. A straight author can be fully sympathetic to LGBTQ people, harbor no prejudice against them, and want to include them, but realize that there exists a moderate to high probability of career-ruining slip-ups bringing down the wrath of the LGBTQ community, and then everyone else, on their heads.

It's such a hot button issue that it is probably dangerous to one's career as a writer to delve too deeply into LGBTQ issues because someone will be offended, especially if you're a heterosexual author, and then you'll be painted as a hater forever.

Can you actually name a single author that this has happened to? Not someone who sparked a wave of outrage; there are plenty of those. One whose career was actually ruined by being "painted as a hater."

[SowZ]

Can you actually name a single author that this has happened to? Not someone who sparked a wave of outrage; there are plenty of those. One whose career was actually ruined by being "painted as a hater."

I can't speak for the novel writing world, but I can say it can happen faster than you can blink in Hollywood. With certain producers, you piss them off one time and you're done. Even if you are already established, (look at Shia Labeouf.) And there is a pretty well established gay community in Hollywood. If your painted as a homophobe, it can kill you as a screenwriter, at the very least.

[JustWantedToSay]

Nobody is saying that statistics are to blame or have failed. What is being said is that statistics are a diversion from the real problem, which involves privilege, segregation and ingrained prejudice.

And yet this does not happen, despite the fact that the numbers, once you take into consideration bisexuals, heteroflexible people, bicurious people, asexuals and so on, you end up with a big chunk of the entire population (around 30%, on average, though the numbers vary wildly).

So because statistics aren't being used, aren't being followed... then we shouldn't use statistics?

You brought up "tokens." That's an example of studios/publishers etc trying to appease the public through averages. Averages are not the whole of statistics. (I'd also call it an example of the "gambler's fallacy" )

I'd agree that such averages are a distraction, and looking back it's probably what you meant by statistics.

ETA-- But real statistical representation, not averages, i think needs to be a big part of any solution.

[jere7my]

I can't speak for the novel writing world, but I can say it can happen faster than you can blink in Hollywood. With certain producers, you piss them off one time and you're done. Even if you are already established, (look at Shia Labeouf.) And there is a pretty well established gay community in Hollywood. If your painted as a homophobe, it can kill you as a screenwriter, at the very least.

We're not talking about someone whose career was ruined because they were revealed as a homophobe. We are talking about someone whose career was ruined because they made a good-faith effort to write gay characters but got it wrong. Can you name one?

(Shia Labeouf has been in four feature films since the homophobe flap, by the way.)

[Cerlis]

In my gaming group of about 7 people, which has been playing and hanging out for about a year now, 2 of us, (guys,) started dating. They did so for months. Talking with my girlfriend, whose in this group of friends, I mentioned something about their relationship. She looked shocked. "Oh, you didn't know they were dating?" Her: "I didn't even know (one of the guys names) was gay!" She didn't think less of him, she just didn't know.

Shoot, one of my relationships ended. After a few months of dating, I broke it off quietly. Some of my closest friends didn't know we had stopped dating for some weeks.

Some people are just very private about their sex/dating lives. Not because they are ashamed, either. They just want it to be their business. Of course, this isn't everyone's experience. But I don't think it is abnormal, either.



Stephen King could write a book about gay little people working at an abortion clinic and he'd still have to use a stick to fight off 'million-dollar-advance' offering publishers

well my point was about how with alot of people how often and easy it is for one's sexuality to come out.

the only reason your girlfriend didnt find out sooner is the fact that you mentioning their relationship didnt happen earlier. there are several examples of how just the right group dynamic (such as the first time the group meets, his boyfriend cant make it. Thus he might not refer to him by name buy "as my boyfriend" since he wont say "tom" because the other people wouldnt know who "tom" is.)

I mean thats the main thing for me, since most people dont know who "Daniel" is , the only other pronouns are "my boyfriend" or "my friend". So all it takes is not knowing someones name and turning the conversation to relationships (which alot of people do) to divulge that information.

If such information isnt brought to light for along time its mostly happenstance.

-----------------------------------

And i'm not sure what all this about brave authors or purposefully making a book bout lgtb issues. Most people here support the notion of having characters like that without the slightest bit of special treatment.

Hell, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...AmbiguouslyGay Ambiguously gay has been used for decades (if not centuries) in media. And even if the stereotype is offensive to real people, the point is the fact that for a LOOOOOOONG time everyone has acknowledged the fact that "these people exist and will often be encountered"

-----------------------

And at the risk of being repetative, but i think this is one of two things that gets lost every 2 pages, is that people arent Railing against Authors for not making more gay characters and gay stories.

Its the notion that such characters are an afterthought at best because its "a straight world"

[Shadowknight12]

Some stories demand straight people. Some demand mostly or all gay/bi people. Some demand all transgendered people.

And these stories are a tiny minority. Most of the time, a story will work just fine regardless of the protagonists' gender or sexual identities.

Odds don't factor into it at all. Just like a story about all spies isn't 'bad' demographically. Probably less than 1 in 10,000 people are spies, but a story about a group of 4 spies isn't strange just because it focuses on spies.

This is exactly what I said. Regardless of how statistically small a group might be, it wouldn't be innately unrealistic to have a story focusing around them. Having an entire cast of LGBTQ+ people is not unrealistic, because there are groups of friends who function exactly like that.

For a story, its not like you pick a random person and they happen to have exceptional things happen to them. You are choosing to tell the tale of the exceptional person as opposed to the store clerk they bump into in chapter seven. This is not at all to say homosexuality is some strange, magical thing. That's not it at all. My point is you tell the story about the people you want to tell it about, NOT because of statistics in real life.

That is exactly what I said. Statistics don't matter. I was disagreeing with people who were saying that underrepresentation was okay because LGBTQ+ people were statistical minorities, not agreeing with them.

If anything, you should maybe see a higher percentage of uncommon or else minority peoples because while many stories are about common people put in fantastical situations, many others are about uncommon people in normal situations. For me, homosexuality is typical enough that they wouldn't strike me as uncommon people. That isn't the case for many people, though, so I'm surprised there aren't more gay people in fiction to spark curiosity from people who don't know many/any homosexuals.

This isn't to say I support heteronormativity or not. That's not my point. Saying something is right or wrong isn't my point here. Just to say that, if heteronormativity is the norm, I'd expect to see more homosexuals in media than I do 'because' they are considered uncommon, not in spite of it. *Shrug* If it weren't such a charged issue but it was still considered abnormal, I bet we'd see a lot of it in media.

We see a lot of it in media. Any time two women are posing suggestively together, you are seeing the "exotic" effect of marginalising LGTBQ+ people. Every time you see a sassy gay guy or transwoman helping a straight woman, you are seeing the "exotic" effect. This applies racially and ethnically, too, with the "magical black person/Latin American/Native American" trope.

This is not a good thing, and not only because of the stereotyping. We do not exist to serve straight/cis people. We are more than titillation or assistants. We are more than sob stories about homophobia, transphobia or AIDS, which exist not to make straight/cis sympathise with us, but to make them feel so glad they don't have to suffer like that (see also: cancer patients, disabled people).

The author shouldn't be a slave to numbers in 'either' direction, though. If the story has 50 straight characters and no gay ones, and that is what the story called for, so be it. But the story will probably be more interesting when you challenge the established dynamics of the story at some point. A static story gets pretty boring, so in a story with 50 straight people adding a gay dynamic might be the best way to add new drama. But maybe not. Honestly, when I write characters, sexuality is one of the last things I usually think about.

I am arguing against the number/statistical argument. What I'm arguing is that most stories do not require specifically cis or straight characters, and yet that is the vast majority of what we see.

Yes, sexuality is one of the last things most writers think about (unless they're writing romance/erotica), which is exactly why it is just as easy to write a character as straight as it is to write them as gay or anything else (and this is exactly as it should be).

Which is why authors can almost never say "it was out of my hands" when it comes to that. Because that is a bare-faced lie, straight to our faces. I fully respect the Giant for the reasons he gave us in this thread. He did not lie to us, he did not try to blame someone else, he accepted responsibility for what he wrote and he owned up to it. That is admirable and beyond reproach.

There are exceedingly few instances where a writer can say "it was out of my hands" or "I could not do it any other way" and actually be speaking the truth.

I can't really see any solution other than LGBTQ people writing more fantasy fiction or fiction in general, since they are obviously immune to being called prejudiced or haters against themselves. It's safe for them to write about LGBTQ characters. I would certainly like to see some groundbreaking fiction from such authors; it would also provide pointers to non-LGBTQ people on how to handle such material in an acceptable manner, which many authors simply do not know how to do right now.

Yes, that is one way to help.

You know what would be another way to help? If straight people would have the courage to stick up their necks for us. They aren't obliged, obviously (in case I actually have to say that), but it IS possible for straight people to fix this.

And I actually find it highly frustrating and infuriating where straight people wash their hands and think of their own hides first, and the repercussions aimed at them, instead of their legacy. We have many professions where people willingly put themselves at risk for the sake of others. I consider my own profession to be like that, even if the risk to my life and well-being cannot be compared to that of a police officer, soldier or firefighter.

While I completely understand looking after oneself, I fail to see why the artist profession (whether they write, paint, sculpt, act, compose, dance or perform any of the arts) is not considered under the same lens. I go to work every day and expose myself to disease, violence and biohazardous workplace accidents, for the sake of those who cannot diagnose or treat themselves. I find it profoundly embittering that those with the skill/training/talent to do art are more worried about themselves than the scores of people they could be helping with their work. If I cared more about my own well-being than those of others, I would not work with sick people. I would not be willing to wade into dangerous situations to help others.

And it's genuinely soul-crushing to realise that you are willing to take a personal risk for the sake of others who don't give two bits about you in turn.

So because statistics aren't being used, aren't being followed... then we shouldn't use statistics?

You brought up "tokens." That's an example of studios/publishers etc trying to appease the public through averages. Averages are not the whole of statistics. (I'd also call it an example of the "gambler's fallacy" )

I'd agree that such averages are a distraction, and looking back it's probably what you meant by statistics.

No, we shouldn't use statistics because they are meaningless. I don't want representation to be decided based on numbers. Representation is an ethical matter. It has nothing to do with numbers. Trying to make it about numbers is a diversion from having to acknowledge that the issue is one of ethics.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Because everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve and doing so is always good for the story. (No, they don't, and no, it's not.)

"Everyone is straight-until-proven-otherwise" aside (which I think I don't agree with), yes not every character should wear their sexuality on their sleeve, but I think the representation/inclusiveness thing is about characters that do wear their sexuality on their sleeve or otherwise reveal it, many of whom do. And people like identifying with characters.

It doesn't have to be an exactly proportional sample of the population, this isn't a census report. Besides, I really doubt 3% of all the characters whose sexuality is known are non-straight. Even from fiction in only the last decade, it is probably a tiny fraction.

[oppyu]

For the record, in characters who have some hint towards their sexual identity, we have 29 straight characters and 1 succubus.

EDIT: Make that 30, I forgot to include Soon Kim.

[SowZ]

And these stories are a tiny minority. Most of the time, a story will work just fine regardless of the protagonists' gender or sexual identities.



This is exactly what I said. Regardless of how statistically small a group might be, it wouldn't be innately unrealistic to have a story focusing around them. Having an entire cast of LGBTQ+ people is not unrealistic, because there are groups of friends who function exactly like that.



That is exactly what I said. Statistics don't matter. I was disagreeing with people who were saying that underrepresentation was okay because LGBTQ+ people were statistical minorities, not agreeing with them.



We see a lot of it in media. Any time two women are posing suggestively together, you are seeing the "exotic" effect of marginalising LGTBQ+ people. Every time you see a sassy gay guy or transwoman helping a straight woman, you are seeing the "exotic" effect. This applies racially and ethnically, too, with the "magical black person/Latin American/Native American" trope.

This is not a good thing, and not only because of the stereotyping. We do not exist to serve straight/cis people. We are more than titillation or assistants. We are more than sob stories about homophobia, transphobia or AIDS, which exist not to make straight/cis sympathise with us, but to make them feel so glad they don't have to suffer like that (see also: cancer patients, disabled people).



I am arguing against the number/statistical argument. What I'm arguing is that most stories do not require specifically cis or straight characters, and yet that is the vast majority of what we see.

Yes, sexuality is one of the last things most writers think about (unless they're writing romance/erotica), which is exactly why it is just as easy to write a character as straight as it is to write them as gay or anything else (and this is exactly as it should be).

Which is why authors can almost never say "it was out of my hands" when it comes to that. Because that is a bare-faced lie, straight to our faces. I fully respect the Giant for the reasons he gave us in this thread. He did not lie to us, he did not try to blame someone else, he accepted responsibility for what he wrote and he owned up to it. That is admirable and beyond reproach.

There are exceedingly few instances where a writer can say "it was out of my hands" or "I could not do it any other way" and actually be speaking the truth.



Yes, that is one way to help.

You know what would be another way to help? If straight people would have the courage to stick up their necks for us. They aren't obliged, obviously (in case I actually have to say that), but it IS possible for straight people to fix this.

And I actually find it highly frustrating and infuriating where straight people wash their hands and think of their own hides first, and the repercussions aimed at them, instead of their legacy. We have many professions where people willingly put themselves at risk for the sake of others. I consider my own profession to be like that, even if the risk to my life and well-being cannot be compared to that of a police officer, soldier or firefighter.

While I completely understand looking after oneself, I fail to see why the artist profession (whether they write, paint, sculpt, act, compose, dance or perform any of the arts) is not considered under the same lens. I go to work every day and expose myself to disease, violence and biohazardous workplace accidents, for the sake of those who cannot diagnose or treat themselves. I find it profoundly embittering that those with the skill/training/talent to do art are more worried about themselves than the scores of people they could be helping with their work. If I cared more about my own well-being than those of others, I would not work with sick people. I would not be willing to wade into dangerous situations to help others.

And it's genuinely soul-crushing to realise that you are willing to take a personal risk for the sake of others who don't give two bits about you in turn.



No, we shouldn't use statistics because they are meaningless. I don't want representation to be decided based on numbers. Representation is an ethical matter. It has nothing to do with numbers. Trying to make it about numbers is a diversion from having to acknowledge that the issue is one of ethics.

Cool cool. I think we are mostly in agreement about this area of discussion, then.

As for artists taking a stand for gay people, I don't know, (PERSONAL EXAMPLES THAT ARE PROBABLY BORING TO MOST PEOPLE.)

Spoiler

Show

I guess I've just never given it a whole lot of thought. Most of my stories that have established sexual orientations have some gay characters in them, but its always because I just felt like it or the character struck me that way. I don't think I've ever done it that pointedly. I have with women, but as for homosexuality its always been an afterthought. Never really a plot point. Which might be what you'd like to see, but maybe you'd like to see the controversy addressed honestly more often, which I don't think I've ever done.

I've never felt like its a risk and I can't remember ever getting a negative reaction out of gay characters. Then again, I only write part time and have never written for broadcast. Most of my stuff has been for school or else pretty niche so I may see tough choices as to honesty in my characters should I break into writing for a living.

I like to think I'd stick to my characters regardless of social pressure, though maybe I'd cave. To be honest, for me it would probably be less about homosexual issues and more about the integrity of the characters. But I'd be willing to change a lot of things about my style for a paycheck, so I guess I can't say until I'm put in that position.

[Shadowknight12]

Cool cool. I think we are mostly in agreement about this area of discussion, then.

As for artists taking a stand for gay people, I don't know, (PERSONAL EXAMPLES THAT ARE PROBABLY BORING TO MOST PEOPLE.)

Spoiler

Show

I guess I've just never given it a whole lot of thought. Most of my stories that have established sexual orientations have some gay characters in them, but its always because I just felt like it or the character struck me that way. I don't think I've ever done it that pointedly. I have with women, but as for homosexuality its always been an afterthought. Never really a plot point. Which might be what you'd like to see, but maybe you'd like to see the controversy addressed honestly more often, which I don't think I've ever done.

I've never felt like its a risk and I can't remember ever getting a negative reaction out of gay characters. Then again, I only write part time and have never written for broadcast. Most of my stuff has been for school or else pretty niche so I may see tough choices as to honesty in my characters should I break into writing for a living.

I like to think I'd stick to my characters regardless of social pressure, though maybe I'd cave. To be honest, for me it would probably be less about homosexual issues and more about the integrity of the characters. But I'd be willing to change a lot of things about my style for a paycheck, so I guess I can't say until I'm put in that position.

Nope, I am anti-addressing-controversy (though this is by no means an opinion widely shared by LGBTQ+ people), I have no desire whatsoever to be reminded of how terrible it is to be in a society that hates me. I viscerally despise the idea that being gay or bi or trans or asexual or anything else is a plot point. It's not. We do not need a reason to exist. We do not need to justify our sexual or gender identities, while straight and cis people get a free pass.

I for one do not blame you or any other artist for making that choice. Being a brave is a choice, not an obligation. I simply resent the idea that the profession is not seen as encouraging bravery in the slightest. I dislike that society does not encourage writers to be brave, and instead encourages them to look after number one.

[Bulldog Psion]

You know what would be another way to help? If straight people would have the courage to stick up their necks for us. They aren't obliged, obviously (in case I actually have to say that), but it IS possible for straight people to fix this.

And I actually find it highly frustrating and infuriating where straight people wash their hands and think of their own hides first, and the repercussions aimed at them, instead of their legacy. We have many professions where people willingly put themselves at risk for the sake of others. I consider my own profession to be like that, even if the risk to my life and well-being cannot be compared to that of a police officer, soldier or firefighter.

While I completely understand looking after oneself, I fail to see why the artist profession (whether they write, paint, sculpt, act, compose, dance or perform any of the arts) is not considered under the same lens. I go to work every day and expose myself to disease, violence and biohazardous workplace accidents, for the sake of those who cannot diagnose or treat themselves. I find it profoundly embittering that those with the skill/training/talent to do art are more worried about themselves than the scores of people they could be helping with their work. If I cared more about my own well-being than those of others, I would not work with sick people. I would not be willing to wade into dangerous situations to help others.

And it's genuinely soul-crushing to realise that you are willing to take a personal risk for the sake of others who don't give two bits about you in turn.

This whole comparison is very instructive. Thank you.

[SowZ]

Nope, I am anti-addressing-controversy (though this is by no means an opinion widely shared by LGBTQ+ people), I have no desire whatsoever to be reminded of how terrible it is to be in a society that hates me. I viscerally despise the idea that being gay or bi or trans or asexual or anything else is a plot point. It's not. We do not need a reason to exist. We do not need to justify our sexual or gender identities, while straight and cis people get a free pass.

I for one do not blame you or any other artist for making that choice. Being a brave is a choice, not an obligation. I simply resent the idea that the profession is not seen as encouraging bravery in the slightest. I dislike that society does not encourage writers to be brave, and instead encourages them to look after number one.

You've made me think about Star Trek: TNG where Gene Roddenberry promised gay characters in the series and pushed for gay couples sitting in the background in ten-forty, but he died before he was able to get it in, and none of the writers continued his goal. (Which some have said to regret, now.)

Anyways, I'm curious what is it that you would like to see, exactly? More gay main characters on TV and in movies? More gay relationships handled similarly to straight ones? What would you view as brave if not addressing the controversy head on?

That's one thing I can empathize with the Giant on for sure, even being a much more amateur writer. I have enough trouble with writing straight relationships, which I can even draw from personal experience when writing, much less a homosexual one, which I have no experience with. While I could try and write it the same as any other relationship, I'm afraid if I focused on it much I would make one character the man and the other the woman. Which I've probably done a bit in past writings already.

Or, even harder, a lesbian relationship. I think I relate to women more than lots of guys, living in a largish family with all female siblings, but a romance without a male side for me to relate to is something I've never even attempted. So I think I can understand where The Giant comes from.

I find the gender gap much harder to cross with my characters than the sexual orientation one. It seems to me the Giant finds the opposite is true for him, which interests me and I wonder why. But yeah, anyways, I'm side tracking a little bit.