On the topic of recent tweets sent out by the Giant

[busterswd]

Well, if anything has been demonstrated by this thread, IMO, it is that there are no solid arguments why gay characters should not be included, just improbable, highly contrived scenarios wherein the character would be disruptive in some way.

If the best anti-gay argument is that having random waiters and stevedores in the background suddenly yell "I'm gay!" and behave like a negative gay stereotype, then there isn't an anti-gay argument. Creating a non-existent problem and then attacking it is pretty much a dictionary definition of a straw man.

Thread conclusion: there is no reason to exclude gay characters except that certain people are illogically offended by them.

But of course, that was pretty much self-evident before a word was written by anyone.

There is a difference between saying there should be no bias against including minority characters, and pointing to their exclusion in a particular work as something that needs to be actively remedied.

Sometimes, people just want to tell a story, and making sure that your characters and settings are in line with real life population representations may not be a priority. Including a character having a certain ethnicity, gender, sexuality, whatever, that fit into your storyline, is not the same as casting value judgments on the traits that don't make it into your story. (I've noticed few, if ANY, elderly Asian-Indian type ladies in this comic.) It may reflect bias in the author, but writers will tend to write what they know and they're familiar with. Breaking this tendency in a respectful fashion is TOUGH and requires significant exposure, research, and feedback, and should an author end up accidentally doing it poorly... well, that's just inviting a LOT more backlash. I'd rather someone tackle something they're reasonably certain they can (and want to) do well, rather than half ass it and create another... oh, I don't know, Szark Sturtz from Dominic Deegan.

Is it a general ideal that MORE media should have realistic, believable minority characters? I doubt many people on this forum would argue against that. Is it necessarily Rich's, or any author's job to make sure he's got close to 50% females, close to 5% homosexual characters, etc., in a fantasy story about a group of 6 heterosexual people? Not at all. What minorities he's included have generally been tastefully and subtly portrayed, and his story really loses nothing significant if their "unique" traits are edited out; it's still the same story with the same qualities. Some people (including myself) may find the story more palatable because he has does have a diverse cast, but quibbling about how much diversity is enough is really just people butting heads over personal preference.

That being said, I demand more bears in this story. There's an ungodly amount of avian and reptilian favoritism in this comic, and aside from villainous druids who are merely bear facsimiles, very few bears. We need positive ursine role models in a society that forgets they exist. (No seriously, Rich, I love bears. More please!)

[oppyu]

For me, a diverse cast which represents a number of races, genders and sexualities is a positive. So I don't have a problem complaining if a work I like seems particularly white focused, dude focused, straight focused, or some combination of the three. It's not a mortal sin that instantly condemns a work to sucking (see: Lord of the Rings) and the writer shouldn't feel like they have to tear apart their work to better represent what I hope to see. But a diverse cast is better than a not diverse cast, if just for the fact that it's deviating from the norm.

[Kevium]

Now we apply that very logic to the exposition of any character's sexual preferences. Durkon's preferences weren't important and weren't expressed until Hilgya came along. Roy's preferences weren't expressed until Celia came along.

As an aside, #35 is a pretty early indicator of most of the Order's interests. Durkon's expression is kinda ambiguous, but he also grew up pretty sheltered.

[thisisnotspam]

For me, a diverse cast which represents a number of races, genders and sexualities is a positive. So I don't have a problem complaining if a work I like seems particularly white focused, dude focused, straight focused, or some combination of the three. It's not a mortal sin that instantly condemns a work to sucking (see: Lord of the Rings) and the writer shouldn't feel like they have to tear apart their work to better represent what I hope to see. But a diverse cast is better than a not diverse cast, if just for the fact that it's deviating from the norm.

I disagree, that is my personal preferenes are diferent in this regard. I always felt that some works are too diverse, maybe since I live in an all-white country, but MMPR's racial and gender make up always seemed somehow forced to me. I was like 6 when it was on tv here and I just found it weird how the ''teenagers with attitude'' Alpha 5 gathered seemed like they were picked to be diverse, but not too diverse, yet since I lived in a less diverse place, they seemed too diverse to me.

[Keltest]

I disagree, that is my personal preferenes are diferent in this regard. I always felt that some works are too diverse, maybe since I live in an all-white country, but MMPR's racial and gender make up always seemed somehow forced to me. I was like 6 when it was on tv here and I just found it weird how the ''teenagers with attitude'' Alpha 5 gathered seemed like they were picked to be diverse, but not too diverse, yet since I lived in a less diverse place, they seemed too diverse to me.

When you say "too" diverse, does that mean like unrealistically so?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You're more than welcome to it if you want it.

I think I'd like to sig it too.

[Keltest]

I think I'd like to sig it too.

we could form a legion spreading the word of oppyu

[Unisus]

I think one problem in this whole affair is that people whose sexual identity and preference is not explicit or at least implied are perceived as straight cis, whether they are or not. So if you have a scene in a movie with 100 people or so without anyone shown as having a certain trait, people assume that there are no LGBT people among them, even though there's no reason to do so.

And while it's easy to include women or people of other races, the inclusion of LGBT people is more difficult as you need something to show that they actually are LGBT.

[thisisnotspam]

When you say "too" diverse, does that mean like unrealistically so?

Kinda, like they have diversity for diversity's sake. In Captain Planet it made sense that the heroes would be of various races and nationalities, but the Power Rangers they all live in the same town, go to the same school, have different interests, yet they are shown to be friends even before they were chosen for to be the power rangers.

[Rater202]

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong.

Bull

Lot's of people are of the opinion that homosexuals are between 4 and 48 times more likely to be pedophiles, and that a child raised by one or more homosexuals is proportionality more likely to be raped, molested, or otherwise abused sexually by their guardians.

Th original people to form this opinion did so with no evidence to support it.

all statistical evidence shows that pedophilia is no more common among homosexual than it is among heterosexuals.

Thus, the opinion is contradicted by factual evidence, which makes the opinion invalid.

{scrubbed}

[TDG]

Forenote - its late, and I'm tired, and some of the below focuses primarily on sexuality as a means of highlighting gender/sexuality spectrum matters. That isn't meant to prioritise sexuality over gender, but its an issue I personally feel more able to speak about given my own circumstances.

I have to admit - I began to read this thread with the intention of reading it cover-to-cover. As I worked my way through I got the idea to link to every single comic that had a "plot irrelevant"/"tokenistic" reference to cis-gendered, heterosexual relationships (eg: girl hitting on Elan in Azure city, Belkar and Jenny, two people who's sole purpose was to say "I'm gonna eat you" while making out) but as I progressed through the thread I found I had to skim chunks of pages because I was becoming so sad, and I just couldn't bring myself to keep trawling through the archives to make my point on a thread that bought me down so much.
So apologies if this has been covered before, but I couldn't slog my way through every word on the page and I couldn't go to as great lengths as I had first intended because I became so... over it.
It just felt like it was going to fall on deaf ears as quite a number of people on this thread seem to insist that sexuality must have a point.

Sexuality doesn't have a point, doesn't have a purpose. Sexuality just is. Non-cis/non-heterosexual/non-binary gendered individuals don't wake up and say (for example) "I'm going to be gay in order to fulfill some essential part in a wider narrative today". They don't even wake up and say "I'm going to be gay". They wake up and are gay (or any other aspect of the gender/sexuality spectra)

When people argue that NC/NH/NBG things should only be referenced when that part of the character, it says to me "that can't just be gay/trans*/asexual etc because to have such a bizarre trait demands justification or a narrative purpose" - it tells me that genders and sexualities that do not make up the majority aren't just a normal sub-sector of a population, but are abnormal/alien to the population. To say that it is unnessecary to include characters expressing their sexuality in any way that doesn't have a direct impact on the plot is to say that being gay, bisexual, trans*, genderfluid, asexual, or anything other than cis-gendered and straight is some freaky little trait that is only permitted when serving something that the majority can identify with.

Growing up outside of that majority, you become disillusioned. You live a society that actively discriminates and marginalises you. Even when you turn to the media for a bit of escapism you still hardly ever see anything that deviates from binary, cis-gendered, heterosexual couples in the "mainstream". You'll routinely see flame wars about whether X should have fallen for the good boy A, or the bad boy B, but you don't see much that makes you say "thats a little piece of me".

This thread leaves me similarly disillusioned. I'm not sure this post even makes sense anymore because it's trying to convey the emotions that are brewing beneath a blunted, hollow cloud. But put it this way -- pick 20 comics at random and see if you can spot any characters (or referenced characters) that could have their gender identity or sexual preference changed without drastically altering the theme or plot of the story. Then ask yourself "why couldn't and why shouldn't they fall outside of the majority?"

Seriously -- I'm not saying go reimagine the story so that suddenly Roy is pansexual, or Xykon is genderfluid. We've got a multiple page thread arguing about the existence of an alluded to same-sex relationship for a character whose name we do not even know yet (assuming it isn't "Bandana") so I'm not going near that hornet's nest. I'm just saying pick 20 strips at random from somewhere after the initial book (heavy main character/introduction focus) and try to identify a character who's gender identity or sexual preference would not alter the storyline as a whole and then say to yourself "well if it isn't going to alter the story line, why do I care?"

Why couldn't the black dragon have a playdrake magazine featuring "mr october" instead of miss?
Why couldn't blind old pete not be interested in Celia and Haley's claims to be "completely nude"?
Why couldn't the prison guard at cliffport be gay? --- oh wait. He was. And as far as I know, we didn't have a 10 page thread discussing the merits of this tidbit on the structure of the story. He just was, and a good number of people who read that wee tidbit felt connected at a deeper level with the comic as a result.

Attention has been drawn to the fact that a character has alluded to their sexual identity and we have swarms of people now saying that having a character doing such is unnessecary. But it happens all the time with cis-gendered, heterosexual identities. Even a friggin puppet has what appears to be a heterosexual relationship with a female puppet.

"The majority" is not synonymous with "everybody" and it makes sense that in every few dozen "plot irrelevant" references to sexual attraction in this comic there would be some that exist outside that majority. Is it truly that scary that one of these has featured across a few pages? Or that the author of those pages has drawn attention to it in a completely seperate area than the pages itself? Seriously - you can read the comics without having to read Rich's views alongside them every time.

If you want some truly frightening statistics then look up the principles of "minority stress" and the depression/suicide rates for LGBTQAI* individuals. There are people literally dying because of the way they feel excluded/dissociated from society. And part of that comes from the fact that they don't feel represented in the media and because of the nature of sexuality. Arguing that characters such as the Cliffport guard or Bandana identifying as a member of a minority group without "narrative purpose" holds very little water with me.
You are effectively arguing whether perceived "tokenism" and "irrelevance" is as important as helping an already shunned sector of society feel more at home in their own lives.

Maybe when I'm feeling less disillusioned and less hollow I will go through and make a list of every character whose gender/sexuality is "irrelevant to the story" but still included. However, I imagine I'll just be angry by the number of character moments I would be linking to that did not spark a 10 page discussion about the relevance of their sexuality on the story and the "need to include it" (seriously -- a freaking puppet gets a heterosexual partner. How does that affect the Snarl?).
Ultimately I don't really want to drag myself through that anger just so I can argue that its not worth being so opposed to the "pointlessness" of the small talk made by an apparently cis-gendered female about a singular ex-girlfriend while flying on an airship to a Gnomish civilisation to repair the damage done by a lightning-throwing Norse god in order to prevent a Vampire spirit from reaping death and destruction on a group of Dwarves that are located somewhere between a desert-based hole in the fabric of reality and a mystical gate that prevents a god-killing abomination (or maybe lifeless beautifully incomprehensible planet?) being exploited by a giant purple goblin ghost/god.

[SaintRidley]

Kinda, like they have diversity for diversity's sake. In Captain Planet it made sense that the heroes would be of various races and nationalities, but the Power Rangers they all live in the same town, go to the same school, have different interests, yet they are shown to be friends even before they were chosen for to be the power rangers.

And? I mean, it's fictional urban California. If it were set in some suburb in the middle of Nebraska, maybe, but even then no. Strangely enough, we do see lots of people, of lots of races, living in the same place and being friends with each other. I may be being dense, but I really don't understand your complaint here.

[Murk]

[I]Lots of good stuff

I completely get where you're coming from, and since I feel partly responsible for creating these emotions, I want to give a, hopefully valuable, explanation of some practical problems with being inclusive.

First off, maybe I am alone in this, but I'm guessing not: I hated most of the examples of random, non-relevant sexual remarks of minor characters. It's like the old questions about tolerance: "would you mind if you see two men making out in front of you?" I Always want to answer "yes", but I know that people will associate this with homophobia. The thing is that if the question was "would you mind if you see a man and a woman making out in front of you?" the answer would still be yes. So, yeah, to me a lot of your examples (and Bandana's remark) felt unnecessary. That's more some sort of prude than homophobia, I think.

Second, in relation to what has been said before about tokenism: I'm sorry, but there are just so many minorities. If you look at the Wikipedia page about all non-cis genders, identities, sexualities, what have you - it's a lot. I sometimes hear people with very complex and very individual outlooks or identities who feel underrepresented in the media, and I understand that's hurtful, but in some stories there's just not enough room to respresent everyone. Of course this is not the case for homosexuality, but you get the point.

Third, and I think this might be an important explanation for the sometimes hateful remarks you'll find in discussions about representation: I am starting to feel attacked. I'm not attacked as much as homosexuals (or other minorities) themselves, and it's not by far as hurtful as the discrimination some people have to put up with in their daily lives, but it does feel like I have to include homosexuals in my stories, and I should be inclusive. If I write a very silly, non-character driven story of ten pages, and there's not a [insert minority] in it, I feel like I'm a bad person. Of course this is mainly a good sentiment - people really should be inclusive - but the force behind it is very scary. If I see the vigor with which some people here can passively-agressive call out people who go "oh, huh, y'know, sometimes I don't want to think about every aspect of society when I'm reading/writing a story", I get a little defensive.
Again, this is not my right, and it's a very silly thing compared to discrimination, but it might be an explanation.

[Morty]

Technically speaking, it's not "necessary" for characters to have any traits which do not directly related to their role in the narrative. Vaarsuvius' speech patterns don't really "matter" nearly as much as her lust for power and consequences thereof. But if we go down that route, the story becomes a pointless recount of fictional events - something Tarquin would approve of. Characters need background traits that aren't "relevant", whatever the hell it's supposed to even mean, in order to feel like real, breathing people. Sexual orientation, whichever form it may take, can be one of those traits, even if it doesn't shape the plot in any way. Making sure that not everyone who appears on-screen is straight makes the world more real, more connected to reality and easier to relate to for those who aren't heterosexual. And it takes pretty much zero additional effort on the part of everyone involved.

[Bulldog Psion]

Another interesting point one could raise is that only gay characters seem to be the ones whose very existence is questioned. I find that highly disturbing.

1. Xykon, an asexual mass murdering serial killer, torturer, tyrant, and all around horror may be personally disliked by people, but nobody suggests he should be removed from the comic.

2. You show a lady who says she has a girlfriend, and there is an uproar and tumult that amounts to saying she should be removed from it. Questioning whether the character's presence in the comic is "justified" is precisely the same as debating whether she should be removed, after all.

Honestly, that is an ... interesting ... set of priorities.

Now, I personally have no problem with violence in entertainment. I have no desire to see Xykon removed or toned down. I enjoy a good fictional battle as much as the next person -- the excitement, the peril, the drama, etc. etc.

But in a work with serial killers, mass murderers, god-killing abominations, tyrants who burn slaves alive, arenas where people are eaten by therapod dinosaurs, vampires, death knights, mass enslavement, massacres, battle, and war ...

... a passing, positive reference to a woman having a girlfriend is enough to prompt supposedly deep ponderings and questionings of whether or not one should go so far as to include this radical, astounding, earth-shattering, difficult-to-justify situation? The brows of mighty philosophers must be knitted and knotted for years over this profound and challenging question! Does the fact that Bandana has a girlfriend and not a boyfriend mean that her presence in the comic is unnecessary, unjustified, excessive?

The horror, the chaos, the deep soul-searching needed to answer this pressing question!!!! Someone in the comic having a squeeze of the same sex may cause the Snarl to break loose, both there and in the real world, unless there is profound (and totally unspecified, of course) narrative justification^TM for the very existence of this reality-wrenching, infinitely perilous entity -- a girl with a girlfriend!

... shyeah, right. All I can say safely here, probably, is that the giant debates over whether the inclusion of a gay character is "narratively justified" are right out of the Twilight Zone or Bizarro World.

And? I mean, it's fictional urban California. If it were set in some suburb in the middle of Nebraska, maybe, but even then no. Strangely enough, we do see lots of people, of lots of races, living in the same place and being friends with each other. I may be being dense, but I really don't understand your complaint here.

100% agreed. Heck, I live in a small Midwestern city, in one of the least diverse areas of the upper Midwest, more than likely. However, when I ran errands yesterday, I saw two black guys walking down the street, an Asian couple working in a natural foods store, and a coppery chap shopping for hunting equipment in the local Walmart. I could have put together a five-person superhero team from a little Midwestern town without any white people at all, and that's just while doing a little shopping and some laundry!

[thisisnotspam]

And? I mean, it's fictional urban California. If it were set in some suburb in the middle of Nebraska, maybe, but even then no. Strangely enough, we do see lots of people, of lots of races, living in the same place and being friends with each other. I may be being dense, but I really don't understand your complaint here.

Not a complaint. It was the first example I thought of because
1: It's the first show I noticed that was obviously made with a intentionaly diverse cast of characters that could have all been the same sex and race and it made me think about why the makers would do so. Was it a calculated move to reach a wider audience or a positive message about tolerance for kids? Stuff like that.
2: It's well known.

[Unisus]

But in a work with serial killers, mass murderers, god-killing abominations, tyrants who burn slaves alive, arenas where people are eaten by therapod dinosaurs, vampires, death knights, mass enslavement, massacres, battle, and war ...

... a passing, positive reference to a woman having a girlfriend is enough to prompt supposedly deep ponderings and questionings of whether or not one should go so far as to include this radical, astounding, earth-shattering, difficult-to-justify situation? The brows of mighty philosophers must be knitted and knotted for years over this profound and challenging question! Does the fact that Bandana has a girlfriend and not a boyfriend mean that her presence in the comic is unnecessary, unjustified, excessive?

I guess the uproar about Bandana wouldn't have been that much if there hadn't been endlesse threads about inclusion and how the Giant should include LGBT characters in his work. It were those threads that made Bandana look somehow forced.

[Peanut Gallery]

You're right. We shouldn't make the story about Elan's sexual orientation. He never should have gotten with Haley and forced his heterosexuality to become a major plot point

I do generally dislike the "Elan thinks Nale is hitting on him OMG IM HETEROSEXUAL GUYS!". Or Nale worrying more that V thinks he's bi instead of worried V might recognize Sabine and him acting out of character. Not exactly an uncommon trope, but it grates me. I would call that having their heterosexuality shoved down my throat for no plot progressive purposes.

I mean I do get that those people exist in real life so its not an unrealistic reaction, but I actively avoid them too.

[Keltest]

I guess the uproar about Bandana wouldn't have been that much if there hadn't been endlesse threads about inclusion and how the Giant should include LGBT characters in his work. It were those threads that made Bandana look somehow forced.

The fact that Rich flat out said "I don't care about story quality if it means not doing this." didn't help.

[Bulldog Psion]

The fact that Rich flat out said "I don't care about story quality if it means not doing this." didn't help.

Yeah, you've got a point there. What Mr. Burlew probably meant to say was something along the lines of "I'd be willing to sacrifice anything, even story quality, if it was necessary to be inclusive." As it was, it was poorly enough worded so that those waiting to pounce were able to take that and run with it.

It's unfortunate that there was anyone waiting to pounce, but they exist, and so, threads like this come about.

These threads won't sway the hardliners, but I do hope that some people wavering between homophobia and acceptance will find themselves tipped over to acceptance by the thought-provoking ideas people present here.

[Sartharina]

... Isn't Hinjo gay? I think I read somewhere that Hinjo might be gay. I think it was a fan theory, though.

[Keltest]

... Isn't Hinjo gay? I think I read somewhere that Hinjo might be gay. I think it was a fan theory, though.

he is colorblind, but his sexuality is, AFAIK, only in the minds of fans.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

... Isn't Hinjo gay? I think I read somewhere that Hinjo might be gay. I think it was a fan theory, though.

His sexuality is unknown, canonatically speaking.

[Murk]

These threads won't sway the hardliners, but I do hope that some people wavering between homophobia and acceptance will find themselves tipped over to acceptance by the thought-provoking ideas people present here.

Actually, I'm all for acceptance, I do not care one little thing about peoples sexual preference, and I think I live in the first country to accept gay marriage, but threads like this make me defend the hardliners more and more. It's all very "YOU SHALL BE A GOOD PERSON AND YOU SHALL BE IT NOW!".
That is probably very childish, but meh, so be it.

[Bulldog Psion]

... Isn't Hinjo gay? I think I read somewhere that Hinjo might be gay. I think it was a fan theory, though.

He's canonically unknown.

Meaning, of course, that he represents an excellent opportunity.

[Jormengand]

... Isn't Hinjo gay? I think I read somewhere that Hinjo might be gay. I think it was a fan theory, though.

As above, Rich stated that Hinjo was colourblind after someone asked why there weren't any colourblind characters, y'know, for inclusiveness and all. Because colourblind people are oppressed in the real world. I mean look, this blue text is oppressing colorblind people everywhere!

[Keltest]

As above, Rich stated that Hinjo was colourblind after someone asked why there weren't any colourblind characters, y'know, for inclusiveness and all. Because colourblind people are oppressed in the real world. I mean look, this blue text is oppressing colorblind people everywhere!

I still cant always tell when the little thread icon turns green because of the colors the forum uses!

[Jormengand]

I still cant always tell when the little thread icon turns green because of the colors the forum uses!

You could try fiddling around with the screen's contrast and colour settings if you're being serious.

[BannedInSchool]

Stop forcing your abnormal color perception on me!

[Jormengand]

Stop forcing your abnormal color perception on me!

"Jeez, I wish Rich would stop forcing his views on colourblindness on us. I mean, what narrative purpose did Hinjo's colourblindness serve?"