Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Shadowknight12]

This whole comparison is very instructive. Thank you.

No problem, glad to have helped!

I'm curious, then, what is it that you would like to see? 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?

More stories. That's what I want to see. More stories about LGBTQ+ characters. I once again call back to Chimamanda Adichie's conference, where she talks about how stories can rob the dignity of a people, but they can also restore it. I want to stop seeing the same story over and over again.

I want to see a gay character like Roy, a lesbian character like Celia, a bisexual character like Durkon, an asexual character like Haley, a transgender character like Elan, I want to see a character like V where their non-binary gender identity (or lack of gender identity entirely) is not an in-joke but a legitimate, serious and perfectly acceptable part of who they are.

That, to me, takes bravery. Because anyone can write a sob story about the poor cancer patient... oops, I mean "gay person who is oh so maligned by society." Why? Because it serves straight people, as I mentioned before. It makes them feel lucky to be straight, and lets them feel sorry for someone else who has it worse than them.

Bravery is writing an LGBTQ+ character for no reason other than because it's the right thing to do, and not giving two bits about what the straight audience is going to think about that.

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 understand, hence why I said I didn't blame any writer who says that. It's not easy. But then again, nobody said it would be. And other jobs, such as those I mentioned before, are not easy either. And someone's gotta do them. If that's not you, that's cool, I don't mind. I just find it quite disheartening that so few people are willing to step up to take a chance.

After all, every writer has to overcome gender segregation during their formative years in order to convincingly write the opposite gender. It's part of the basic skills that writers develop as they hone their craft. Same goes for other ethnicities, races, countries, cultures and so on. That's why research is so important for a writer. They have to incorporate a great deal of detail in order to make their writing verisimile. And even fantasy and sci-fi writers need to incorporate other types of research when crafting their own worlds. They have to incorporate more science and pure theory instead of history, but research has to be made all the same. And the same has to be applied to LGBTQ+ people if the writer is straight.

The difference is that, when it comes to LGBTQ+ people, the reward for doing so is comparatively little for the risk taken. Which is pretty much why it's such a brave thing to do. If the reward was high or the risk was low, it wouldn't be as admirable.

EDIT:

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.)

Oh. That's pretty sad. But yeah, if there's nobody pushing for it, it's not going to happen on its own.

[blauregen]

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.

At the risk of outing myself as a cliche, but if you talk about being on the receiving end of a little protectiveness and gentlemanlyness, this could
depending on the guy and situation, produce an accurate description of some of my interactions in the past. It rarely extended beyond flirting or representing as a couple, but I simply liked the role sometimes.

It is by no means typical, on the contrary, but as long as you don't treat it as universal, I'd say it it would be legitimate. And the Yaoi-Fans would actually love you for it, if you really went all out.

You could get some flak for perpetuating heteronormative gender roles, but I wouldn't expect too much for it. If you strife for manly men, just extend the bromance theme to intimacy and you should do fine too.

Gays are people too, with a lot of the same socialization as straight people get. We don't even flirt vastly different from straight people, so I don't think you would have to treat us as an alien race for portrayal.

[Shadowknight12]

And the Yaoi-Fans would actually love you for it, if you really went all out.

While I would never portray a gay couple in the way it is usually portrayed (heteronormatively), I recognise that it happens in real life and therefore it is not unreasonable to see that happening. I would obviously vastly prefer an absence of heteronormativity, but I recognise that's personal taste.

Having said that, yaoi, as a genre, is heteronormative to the point of actual homophobia. So I would strongly recommend everyone who wants to know how to portray a romantic relationship between two men to stay far away from that genre. Or to read it while constantly thinking "THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I HAVE TO DO" over and over.

[JustWantedToSay]

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.

And you think that justifies telling outright lies to make your point?

but also because it means that minority works will never have a chance to be protagonists, or even well-developed.

Which is demonstrably false.

ETA: Everybody deserves clean drinking water. But it will always end up being about numbers, how much does this well have, how fast does it renew, how much can these pipes carry, how far. Everything is going to come down to numbers eventually. That's what they are used for measuring things. If you don't measure, then you don't know.

[Shadowknight12]

And you think that justifies telling outright lies to make your point?



Which is demonstrably false.

That actually made me laugh. If you're going to count exceedingly rare exceptions as demonstrations of the falsehood of my statement, then sure, that's an outright lie, I guess.

I'm not counting those exceedingly rare cases, though.

[blauregen]

While I would never portray a gay couple in the way it is usually portrayed (heteronormatively), I recognise that it happens in real life and therefore it is not unreasonable to see that happening. I would obviously vastly prefer an absence of heteronormativity, but I recognise that's personal taste.

Yup.

Having said that, yaoi, as a genre, is heteronormative to the point of actual homophobia. So I would strongly recommend everyone who wants to know how to portray a romantic relationship between two men to stay far away from that genre. Or to read it while constantly thinking "THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I HAVE TO DO" over and over.

That's because the uke is for heteronormative girls to identify with.

[Shadowknight12]

ETA: Everybody deserves clean drinking water. But it will always end up being about numbers, how much does this well have, how fast does it renew, how much can these pipes carry, how far. Everything is going to come down to numbers eventually. That's what they are used for measuring things. If you don't measure, then you don't know.

The comparison does not hold water.

I have no objections with measuring (as proven by my staunch and enthusiastic support of this very thread). My problem is when numbers are used as the sole justification for inclusion. Inclusion has nothing to do with numbers. Art is not a faithful reconstruction of society. It's a vehicle to improve culture and humanity.

That's because the uke is for heteronormative girls to identify with.

Yes, precisely. It's the equivalent of lesbian erotica for men. Both are exploiting gay/bi people for the titillation of straight people, degrading them with complete disregard of the effect they have on their audiences.

[JustWantedToSay]

That actually made me laugh. If you're going to count exceedingly rare exceptions as demonstrations of the falsehood of my statement, then sure, that's an outright lie, I guess.

I'm not counting those exceedingly rare cases, though.

WTH are you talking about.

LGBTQ protaganists are currently exceedingly rare.
LGBTQ people are not.

Therefore if representation were based on statistics. LGBTQ protaganists would not be rare.

You said:

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.

Which is demonstrably false.

Because as I pointed out for IF statistical representation occurs between 1 out of 6, and 2 out of 5 would stories (with 6 m-ps) will have LGBTQ protaganist.

That does not equal never. Far from slim.

[blauregen]

Yes, precisely. It's the equivalent of lesbian erotica for men. Both are exploiting gay/bi people for the titillation of straight people, degrading them with complete disregard of the effect they have on their audiences.

True, true. But in the spirit of gender equality, it doesn't offend me much. Unless you plan to scold the straight guys for thinking girl-on-girl is hot too.

[Shadowknight12]

WTH are you talking about.

LGBTQ protaganists are currently exceedingly rare.
LGBTQ people are not.

Therefore if representation were based on statistics. LGBTQ protaganists would not be rare.

I just realised we were talking about two completely different things. You seem to believe in some ideal world where numbers actually matter more (or can ever be made to matter more) than personal bias. I naturally do not consider for a millisecond that this world can possibly exist (and again, I do not consider that numbers ought to have any incidence on art. I'd rather take personal bias and try to fight that with education, than to have numbers working both for and against me). What I thought you were talking about was that it was okay to tell writers "throw a meaningless, two-bit character every so often and you'll meet your LGBTQ+ quota", which is what's going to happen if you make representation to be all about numbers.

You said:

Which is demonstrably false.

Because as I pointed out for IF statistical representation occurs between 1 out of 6, and 2 out of 5 would stories (with 6 m-ps) will have LGBTQ protaganist.

That does not equal never. Far from slim.

See above. I thought you were talking about something else.

True, true. But in the spirit of gender equality, it doesn't offend me much. Unless you plan to scold the straight guys for thinking girl-on-girl is hot too.

I don't scold straight people for thinking same-sex titillation is hot. I disapprove when they are willing to exploit heteronormativity and homophobia to get their rocks off, that's all. And yes, I am gender equal in that regard.

[Doctor Foreman]

I want to see a character like V where their non-binary gender identity (or lack of gender identity entirely) is not an in-joke but a legitimate, serious and perfectly acceptable part of who they are.

In V's case, isn't it both?

[Shadowknight12]

In V's case, isn't it both?

It depends on perspective. From V's perspective, V has a gender, and considers it plainly obvious (and unimportant), therefore they do not see themselves as genderqueer or agendered. From our perspective as an audience, sure, V could be androgynous or genderqueer (though it would be hard to qualify them as agendered when V repeatedly implies they do have a gender).

[Eldest]

I just realised we were talking about two completely different things. You seem to believe in some ideal world where numbers actually matter more (or can ever be made to matter more) than personal bias. I naturally do not consider for a millisecond that this world can possibly exist (and again, I do not consider that numbers ought to have any incidence on art. I'd rather take personal bias and try to fight that with education, than to have numbers working both for and against me). What I thought you were talking about was that it was okay to tell writers "throw a meaningless, two-bit character every so often and you'll meet your LGBTQ+ quota", which is what's going to happen if you make representation to be all about numbers.

Look, mate, I agree with you for most of this, but you come off just a tad condescending. He's saying "wouldn't it be nice if the number of LGBTQ characters mirrored the reality," and you're saying "authors should not add LGBTQ characters just to mirror reality."
Well, guess what? Neither of those things contradict each other. Either that, or it's 5am local and I haven't gone to bed yet, so I'm fatigued enough to completely misread what he/you're saying.

[Shadowknight12]

Look, mate, I agree with you for most of this, but you come off just a tad condescending. He's saying "wouldn't it be nice if the number of LGBTQ characters mirrored the reality," and you're saying "authors should not add LGBTQ characters just to mirror reality."
Well, guess what? Neither of those things contradict each other. Either that, or it's 5am local and I haven't gone to bed yet, so I'm fatigued enough to completely misread what he/you're saying.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as condescending, but I resent having my sexuality reduced to a statistic and then having the actual problem swept under the rug like that. It's not a statistical matter. It's a problem of empathy, prejudice, privilege, ethics, tolerance and culture. Statistics is a diversion from the actual problem, which is that people do not care about us. Even in the absolute best of cases, and we actually manage to implement representation based on statistics, that will not have any effect on writers who flat-out do not care about us. They will make the least amount of effort possible to meet the quota and continue pouring effort on their straight and cis characters, as they have always done.

The answer is not statistics. The answer is fostering education, empathy and understanding.

[ScionoftheVoid]

It depends on perspective. From V's perspective, V has a gender, and considers it plainly obvious (and unimportant), therefore they do not see themselves as genderqueer or agendered. From our perspective as an audience, sure, V could be androgynous or genderqueer (though it would be hard to qualify them as agendered when V repeatedly implies they do have a gender).

I think that they mean both as in "both an in-joke and a non-binary (or non-existent) gender identity", rather than what you're talking about.

I've been lurking this thread with interest, but have been to late to respond to most things.

EDIT: I could be wrong, but I imagine that the kind of "in-joke" originally referred to was having the identity itself dismissed as a joke, not worth taking seriously. Fortunately, in OotS, the joke is that no-one knows and that different people's assumptions clash with one another, which - IMO - doesn't seem offensive at all.

[Shadowknight12]

I think that they mean both as in "both an in-joke and a non-binary (or non-existent) gender identity", rather than what you're talking about.

I've been lurking this thread with interest, but have been to late to respond to most things.

Uh, yes, V is both of those things. That's not the dichotomy I made in the post they quoted. The dichotomy was "in-joke or serious depiction".

You can always jump in to support people you agree with.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Uh, yes, V is both of those things. That's not the dichotomy I made in the post they quoted. The dichotomy was "in-joke or serious depiction".

You can always jump in to support people you agree with.

...My apologies, reading comprehension failure.

I'd rather not drag things up from pages back, nor jump in without having read the whole thread, really.

[Shadowknight12]

IMO - doesn't seem offensive at all.

Never said it was offensive. I tend to give most humour a pass on matters like that. "You can't take a joke!" is not a fight I ever want to get in, so I prefer to let it go.

...My apologies, reading comprehension failure.

I'd rather not drag things up from pages back, nor jump in without having read the whole thread, really.

Oh, no problem! Sorry if I come off as a bit abrasive, I probably need to head for bed already.

All right, that makes sense. But do feel free to jump in with anything you want to say if it's important to you.

[blauregen]

I don't scold straight people for thinking same-sex titillation is hot. I disapprove when they are willing to exploit heteronormativity and homophobia to get their rocks off, that's all. And yes, I am gender equal in that regard.

I am not sure about the homophobia in this context. I take a wild guess and assume that you see the portrayal of one half of a gay male couple as femme and/or submissive as devaluing gay identity to a subset of a female patriarchal stereotype. Well, it does as stereotypes go.

But exploitation of heteronormativity is pretty much stock for the vast majority of erotica, regardless of gay or straight. I think ,back in second wave feminism, the exploitation and objectification of women by erotica was a really big topic.

In the nineties this was downplayed a lot again, and I wonder whether it isn't actually a step forward to be recognized as an equal opportunity sex-object in this context.

For general fiction: I completely agree with you, that for the purpose of public education, the portrayal of gay people as just that, as people who happen to be attracted to the same sex, and otherwise not different from other people, would be desirable. But gay characters have as much right to be quirky as straight ones, which can include having fun with stereotypes. So, no. I personally disapprove only if it is touted as universal and normative. Otherwise I file it under diversity.

[Tetsujin-28]

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.

Statistics are not infallible sure, but after several differing studies, you can get a pretty confident estimate of a demographic. I think it's safe to say that LGBTQ is not a statistically significant part of the population.

That being said, representation based off statistics does not necessarily mean that LGBTQ characters can never shine. There's nothing unrealistic with having a gay protagonist or a gay villain or a gay major sidekick, whatever. However, it would seem rather unrealistic if the entire cast was homosexual outside of a context in which it would make sense (say, a LGBTQ pride rally). This isn't just for homosexuals, it applies to all groups. It would seem rather artificial if there was a whole cast of white people in a Chinese or North Korean school, since they dislike whites and they have a very homogenous population.

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.

Actually, only the main characters have had their sexuality revealed, and V's is still ambigious. A lot of the supporting/side characters do not have their sexuality revealed, simply because it is totally irrelevant.

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).

[citation needed]

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.

It's entirely because of segregation? And absolutely nothing to do with statistics?

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's no more a rule than not having plot holes. It's just something that makes the story seem more realistic.

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.

No, it's statistically not as likely. Your anecdote is irrelevant.

It's entirely possible that such a group of friends might exist under those statistics.

This is true, but I'm sure there's at least one school in China or North Korea with a bunch of white people too.

And yet we're told that group in particular would be unrealistic.

Because it would, unless there was an actual context in which it makes sense for a bunch of minorities to gather (such as a LGBTQ rally or something).

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.

No one has said that in this thread. The story can very well be about gay people. What I'm saying is, it would make sense that there would be an under-represtation of gay people because they are statistically not as common, but it wouldn't make it unrealistic for a gay character to be a main character at all.

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.

That's unfortunate, but that's how it is. Cultural inertia affects all things.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Never said it was offensive. I tend to give most humour a pass on matters like that. "You can't take a joke!" is not a fight I ever want to get in, so I prefer to let it go.

"Dismissive" is perhaps a better choice for what I meant.

Oh, no problem! Sorry if I come off as a bit abrasive, I probably need to head for bed already.

All right, that makes sense. But do feel free to jump in with anything you want to say if it's important to you.

Not at all, you're being perfectly reasonable.

[blauregen]

Statistics are not infallible sure, but after several differing studies, you can get a pretty confident estimate of a demographic. I think it's safe to say that LGBTQ is not a statistically significant part of the population.

Statistically significant? For wich alpha and survey. As for significant in the common sense: It is a survey where it is difficult to get proper numbers. It is actually interresting to go through the list on, for example, this wiki page and observe how the percentages change depending on time, location and method.

I am sure that with personal interviews in the american bible-belt, counting only exclusively homosexual men who had non-incidental homosexual sex in the last six monts, we could achieve a study that shows an insignificant percentage of homosexual men.

I am equally confident that if we conducted an anonymized study with no perceptible paper-trail of the percentage of men who could imagine to get in bed with Johnny Depp in San Francisco, we might actually exceed the 30%.

The same applies analogously to surveys about women.

[Cerlis]

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.

I for one, when i saw the preview for Modern family, was first intrigued. Basically by the whole concept (not just the fact that there was a gay couple).

But the fact that (from what i saw of the previews and bits from episodes) they where both pretty camp (and sensitive and neat) it gave me the strong impression that it was yet another Faux-include-gay-characters act. Basically the notion of wanting to be hip and modern and all that so you include a gay character, but they have to be "the gay we all know". Oh sure, there are plenty of gay people like them and I love them. But its the same thing as making the ditsy girl a blond, or the fat guy the slob-loser.

My previous posts where during work, and after my lunch break i was thinking alot and i think some of my favorite web comic characters could (mostly) be exactly the same whether they where male, female, gay or lesbian. I was thinking, for instance, about if Elan and Hale(y) where a gay couple. You'd have the witty, smart and a bit fashion forward (as Haley is) Hale, and the cute, silly, honest ,and Dumb Elan. Probably the only thing you couldn't keep is any offhanded jokes about breasts.

Naturally of course i wouldnt suggest this, it was just an easy sample to use for this exercise. I remember when reading about that Female Litmust(sp?) test, it was mentioned for the movie Matilda "The gender of all the characters seems to be completely inconsequential."

Usually sexuality is only needed (assuming the characters already have a singular love interest) for sex jokes and flirting jokes. And I find it admirable and interesting to find characters in which their gender doesn't matter. (I'd love to hear about a story or series in which it was , say, made overseas and when it came to America they gender swapped someone and it didn't much matter)

I also had a better example but forgot it.

View Post
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.

If you truly are a writer ( i say that because i call myself one but have at best written a 1 page story about a Warcraft character lol), then i think you should investigate this....thing. I think "problem" or "issue" is incorrect because there is nothing wrong with it.

One reason why LGTB people are often seen as in-your-face and overtly sexualized is because of the process of finding your sexual identity. I fooled myself into thinking i was straight with some quirks until i finally admitted it to myself at about 20. The point being is that when you spend so much time analyzing your feelings and all that you learn alot about sex and gender which makes you very comfortable with it. So while a passive straight man might at worst think he is lazy in the bedroom and thinks he likes strong aggressive female might think nothing of it, a gay man who is passive in the bedroom might force himself to think "Why"

Anyways,the point of all this is that i highly agree with what someone (i guess a writer who wrote for a psychologist character) said. And that is that in any relationship (that can be lovers, boss/employee, server/customer) there is always a dominant and passive pairing. So the problem is its not about "being the man" or being the woman, its about dominant or passive. And so stereotypically dudes will harp on friend if he takes the passive role, because most of the time society sees that as woman's work. What those people dont notice is that -stereotypically- that men will take the passive role on many things. Child rearing, home-ec, shopping, family socialization (i'm being very stereotypical hear of course). But what isnt brought to light is the fact that that is passive behavior. Its still labeled as "womens work", so "its ok that i'm passive about it". So basically Stereotypically, a man's behavior doing man things is focused on (praised if dominant, jeered if passive) and ignored when it concerns "woman" things.

The main reason i'm going on about this is because i found it personally fascinating and you will see the passive vs dominant role thing everywhere. And the best part is when the roles are reversed. Such as a normally dominant person turning passive when put into a situation they dont feel comfortable with.

----------------------------
If you are ever bored I -might- recommend a web-comic by the name of "Blur the Lines." About half the strips are NSFW, and since most of the comedy comes from sex if you aren't comfortable with alot of imagery concerning that area then i wouldn't go. I just mention it because the two characters are based on the creator and his Husbear, and they are well depicted as a married couple with their quirks, arguments and affection. And both of them are definitely "Men" (even if Rick is a total dork)

[Carry2]

Statistics are not infallible sure, but after several differing studies, you can get a pretty confident estimate of a demographic. I think it's safe to say that LGBTQ is not a statistically significant part of the population.

It's pretty difficult to get reliable statistics on this point, but if you lump all these categories together, I've heard reports of anywhere between 5 and 10% of total population(?)

[Cerlis]

It's pretty difficult to get reliable statistics on this point, but if you lump all these categories together, I've heard reports of anywhere between 5 and 10% of total population(?)

I can guarantee you that there is no way whatever way they find those statistics can be nearly accurate.

Because a man who thinks he's straight but thinks more about his bits than his wives when he has sex, or the guy who has a FWB off to the side is not going to go answering this survey or admitting it to the doctor.

[Carry2]

I can guarantee you that there is no way whatever way they find those statistics can be nearly accurate.

Like I said, it's very difficult to get hard data on this point, especially given the usual difficulties with self-reporting. (For example, straight women consistently report having less sex than straight men, despite this being basically mathematically impossible.) But debating a subject of the basis of (A) denying all terms and definitions or (B) the usefulness of empirical data tends to get very tiresome very quickly. Imperfect as these tools may be, we ultimately have nothing else to work with.

My main point, however, was to suggest that while the LGBTQ demographic may be a distinct minority, it's not an insignificant one either.

[Themrys]

I can guarantee you that there is no way whatever way they find those statistics can be nearly accurate.

Because a man who thinks he's straight but thinks more about his bits than his wives when he has sex,

Isn't that egoism rather than homosexuality? ;)

[Eldest]

Statistics are not infallible sure, but after several differing studies, you can get a pretty confident estimate of a demographic. I think it's safe to say that LGBTQ is not a statistically significant part of the population.

That being said, representation based off statistics does not necessarily mean that LGBTQ characters can never shine. There's nothing unrealistic with having a gay protagonist or a gay villain or a gay major sidekick, whatever. However, it would seem rather unrealistic if the entire cast was homosexual outside of a context in which it would make sense (say, a LGBTQ pride rally). This isn't just for homosexuals, it applies to all groups. It would seem rather artificial if there was a whole cast of white people in a Chinese or North Korean school, since they dislike whites and they have a very homogenous population.

This is fantasy. Fantasy means you get to make up the rules. Please explain why it would be unrealistic for a different culture to have different norms? Now explain why it would be unrealistic for a different world to have different percentages.

And addressing the rest of your post, 5-10% of the population being LGBT is the statistic that I got out of various articles (if you google this, ignore yahoo answers, there's somebody who got top rated comment who does not know what he's talking about). So one in 10 or at worst 1 in 20. However, a story does not need statistics. So no, it would not be unrealistic for there to be a group of only queer characters. It would be statistically unlikely in the real world, yes. But stories that only follow statistically likely events are quite boring.

[Astrella]

That being said, representation based off statistics does not necessarily mean that LGBTQ characters can never shine. There's nothing unrealistic with having a gay protagonist or a gay villain or a gay major sidekick, whatever. However, it would seem rather unrealistic if the entire cast was homosexual outside of a context in which it would make sense (say, a LGBTQ pride rally). This isn't just for homosexuals, it applies to all groups. It would seem rather artificial if there was a whole cast of white people in a Chinese or North Korean school, since they dislike whites and they have a very homogenous population.

Sometimes people just are queer though. (or another minority.), sure a group of people that are mostly queer would be a bit less likely, but that basically describes my friend circle, where straight / cis people are the minority by far.

And there's plenty of settings where that isn't out of the usual. Would a comic like say Questionable content which just focuses on a group of friends suddenly be unrealistic if the majority of characters were queer?

(Also a teensy bit annoyed that a fully straigh cis (male) caste is something that we are expected to have no troubles identifying with and stuff but the reverse is always 'hard' and unrealistic.)

[SowZ]

Sometimes people just are queer though. (or another minority.), sure a group of people that are mostly queer would be a bit less likely, but that basically describes my friend circle, where straight / cis people are the minority by far.

And there's plenty of settings where that isn't out of the usual. Would a comic like say Questionable content which just focuses on a group of friends suddenly be unrealistic if the majority of characters were queer?

(Also a teensy bit annoyed that a fully straigh cis (male) caste is something that we are expected to have no troubles identifying with and stuff but the reverse is always 'hard' and unrealistic.)

I don't actually have trouble identifying with gay characters or difficulty writing them. But I have trouble identifying with/writing homosexual romantic relationships.