She-Ra and the Princesses of Power

[clearspira]

I think they do--if the main character on a popular show is X, then X becomes more acceptable to the kids. Also, there's a tendency in our society to consider LGBT issues "adult", which is why breaking that down and pointing out that gay kids have the same, say, romantic issues as straight kids, stuff like that, will help equalize society.

I'd add on this: seeing yourself on screen matters. A lot. And while young young children generally don't have a concept of attraction yet, having stories in their memories to draw upon can help immensely in contextualizing those feelings when they do emerge.

And let's be real, the busy bodies pushing against such representation know it. If a kid has words and language and stories for their experiences as they grow up, makes it impossible for them to convince them it's somehow weird or sinful or unnatural, however it gets phrased that day.
(Heck, this is true for *adults* too. Spend about 15 minutes in the queer parts of twitter for example, you'll find a dozen stories of people who knew something was different but they could only figure it out and explore it once they had words to describe it. Language and stories are foundational for human thought.)

Well said.

That's why I think that we should flood media with LGBT characters, to correct the imbalance, before we go back to edit. I mean, it took HOW long for "The Incredibles 2" to accurately portray a realistic family dynamic (superpowers aside) in the movies, after decades of cartoon stereotypes? Get the representation first, then refine down to the good stuff.

Flood the media with LGBT characters? You do know that only 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT right? Even if we account for those that have not yet come out and thus would not show up on any study, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the figure would go above 10% without further evidence to the contrary. Going too far in the opposite direction is just as wrong as having no homosexuals on television and film at all because it comes off as pandering. And it isn't just me that says that, any decent Google search will reveal plenty of LGBT folks that consider the approach that you are suggesting to be offensive. Most want representation, not saturation.

[Yukaphile]

I dunno. Some researchers think we're all inherently bisexual, just that social conditioning keeps us locked in a heteronormative society. Human identity is too complex a topic to really pin down to a set of variables. but I'm definitely in favor of normalizing the LGBT community, so being gay or bi or trans is not seen as an "othering." But flooding the market? I dunno... then you'd get homophobes and transphobes getting all triggered and screaming it's an SJW Apocalypse to their cherished values. Bleh. No thanks.

[MissKittyFantastico]

With respect, even if every creator who wanted to flood the market with LGBT representation got an automatic funding deal no questions asked, the market's still going to have plenty of dry land. Maybe at some point in the future the baseline will have moved far enough for oversaturation to be a concern, but barring some massive societal shift, not in my lifetime.

[CmdrKing]

Flood the media with LGBT characters? You do know that only 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT right? Even if we account for those that have not yet come out and thus would not show up on any study, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the figure would go above 10% without further evidence to the contrary. Going too far in the opposite direction is just as wrong as having no homosexuals on television and film at all because it comes off as pandering. And it isn't just me that says that, any decent Google search will reveal plenty of LGBT folks that consider the approach that you are suggesting to be offensive. Most want representation, not saturation.

Let's split the difference and say that a nice round 5% of people are LGBTQ in one form or another. I'd personally shoot way higher, probably about 15% and maybe has high as 20%, but that depends on a lot of factors that aren't currently true. 5% is fine.
That's one in twenty. 1/20.

Statistically, if you have 20 characters in your show, one is going to be gay or bi or trans or in between.
Most shows that get a full season have 20 characters. Most that last a while have several times that.
Every show having at least one LGBTQ character is, in fact, statistically typical.

[Worffan101]

I think they do--if the main character on a popular show is X, then X becomes more acceptable to the kids. Also, there's a tendency in our society to consider LGBT issues "adult", which is why breaking that down and pointing out that gay kids have the same, say, romantic issues as straight kids, stuff like that, will help equalize society.

I'd add on this: seeing yourself on screen matters. A lot. And while young young children generally don't have a concept of attraction yet, having stories in their memories to draw upon can help immensely in contextualizing those feelings when they do emerge.

And let's be real, the busy bodies pushing against such representation know it. If a kid has words and language and stories for their experiences as they grow up, makes it impossible for them to convince them it's somehow weird or sinful or unnatural, however it gets phrased that day.
(Heck, this is true for *adults* too. Spend about 15 minutes in the queer parts of twitter for example, you'll find a dozen stories of people who knew something was different but they could only figure it out and explore it once they had words to describe it. Language and stories are foundational for human thought.)

Well said.

That's why I think that we should flood media with LGBT characters, to correct the imbalance, before we go back to edit. I mean, it took HOW long for "The Incredibles 2" to accurately portray a realistic family dynamic (superpowers aside) in the movies, after decades of cartoon stereotypes? Get the representation first, then refine down to the good stuff.

Flood the media with LGBT characters? You do know that only 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT right? Even if we account for those that have not yet come out and thus would not show up on any study, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the figure would go above 10% without further evidence to the contrary. Going too far in the opposite direction is just as wrong as having no homosexuals on television and film at all because it comes off as pandering. And it isn't just me that says that, any decent Google search will reveal plenty of LGBT folks that consider the approach that you are suggesting to be offensive. Most want representation, not saturation.

Even if every TV show for the next 5-10 years had nothing but LGBT characters, there's still however many thousand others that previously existed that DON'T.

Also, your strawman is showing.

[Yukaphile]

Personally, I wouldn't care if there were only gay characters in every show I watched from now on. Similar to het couples from early 20th century entertainment, where that was the only option given the time. Really, I wouldn't. I think love is what matters most, whether that's two men or two women - or more. Even if they were portrayed horribly, well, many het couples have been, so there won't be total and fair representation until gay couples have been mishandled a few times... right? So SF Debris discussing "gay-dropping," well... I dunno. To me, seems as if that's always gonna be awkward for het people until we've normalized the LGBT community until it's seen to be as mainstream and normal as cis-het people.

[clearspira]

I think they do--if the main character on a popular show is X, then X becomes more acceptable to the kids. Also, there's a tendency in our society to consider LGBT issues "adult", which is why breaking that down and pointing out that gay kids have the same, say, romantic issues as straight kids, stuff like that, will help equalize society.

I'd add on this: seeing yourself on screen matters. A lot. And while young young children generally don't have a concept of attraction yet, having stories in their memories to draw upon can help immensely in contextualizing those feelings when they do emerge.

And let's be real, the busy bodies pushing against such representation know it. If a kid has words and language and stories for their experiences as they grow up, makes it impossible for them to convince them it's somehow weird or sinful or unnatural, however it gets phrased that day.
(Heck, this is true for *adults* too. Spend about 15 minutes in the queer parts of twitter for example, you'll find a dozen stories of people who knew something was different but they could only figure it out and explore it once they had words to describe it. Language and stories are foundational for human thought.)

Well said.

That's why I think that we should flood media with LGBT characters, to correct the imbalance, before we go back to edit. I mean, it took HOW long for "The Incredibles 2" to accurately portray a realistic family dynamic (superpowers aside) in the movies, after decades of cartoon stereotypes? Get the representation first, then refine down to the good stuff.

Flood the media with LGBT characters? You do know that only 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT right? Even if we account for those that have not yet come out and thus would not show up on any study, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the figure would go above 10% without further evidence to the contrary. Going too far in the opposite direction is just as wrong as having no homosexuals on television and film at all because it comes off as pandering. And it isn't just me that says that, any decent Google search will reveal plenty of LGBT folks that consider the approach that you are suggesting to be offensive. Most want representation, not saturation.

Even if every TV show for the next 5-10 years had nothing but LGBT characters, there's still however many thousand others that previously existed that DON'T.

Also, your strawman is showing.

1) Do you actually know what a strawman is? Because to quote the Princess Bride ''I don't think it means what you think it means.'' Have you done any actual research into what the LGBT community thinks on the subject BTW or are you just guessing?

2) ''Even if every TV show for the next 5-10 years had nothing but LGBT characters, there's still however many thousand others that previously existed that DON'T.''
Comically missing the point about what I said.

[Yukaphile]

Two of my friends are bisexual, and I think they'd agree with clearspira here.

[CmdrKing]

Unless you have some receipts, I'm going to say you have no idea what's meant by pandering in this context. Because dollars to donuts you're referring to people complaining about queerbaiting, which is an entirely different concept. Because yes, film makers claiming that they have a gay, or bi, or pan character in their movie to drive hype, then actually there's no content in the entire film that substantially backs this up, queer folk complain about that all the time. It was a bit of a theme in 2018 between Beauty and the Beast, Solo, and Crimes of Grindewald (although that last one made "okay yeah they were totally lovers" the most logical explanation for the character dynamic).

But actual, explicit queer content? Nah, every LGBTQ person I know is all in on that. The entire internet flipped its shit in celebration when Adventure Time ended and had two women not only get back together, but share an on-screen kiss. And this holds true with folk I know in daily life, not just weirdos deeply hooked into The Discourse online.

Truthfully most queer folk I know are increasingly over media made by straight people at this point. With stuff like Steven Universe and, by most counts, She-Ra (just to touch base with the actual topic at hand) being made by lesbians, why settle for anything made by people who don't get you unless it's the absolute top of the line content?

[Worffan101]

Unless you have some receipts, I'm going to say you have no idea what's meant by pandering in this context. Because dollars to donuts you're referring to people complaining about queerbaiting, which is an entirely different concept. Because yes, film makers claiming that they have a gay, or bi, or pan character in their movie to drive hype, then actually there's no content in the entire film that substantially backs this up, queer folk complain about that all the time. It was a bit of a theme in 2018 between Beauty and the Beast, Solo, and Crimes of Grindewald (although that last one made "okay yeah they were totally lovers" the most logical explanation for the character dynamic).

But actual, explicit queer content? Nah, every LGBTQ person I know is all in on that. The entire internet flipped its shit in celebration when Adventure Time ended and had two women not only get back together, but share an on-screen kiss. And this holds true with folk I know in daily life, not just weirdos deeply hooked into The Discourse online.

Truthfully most queer folk I know are increasingly over media made by straight people at this point. With stuff like Steven Universe and, by most counts, She-Ra (just to touch base with the actual topic at hand) being made by lesbians, why settle for anything made by people who don't get you unless it's the absolute top of the line content?

Yeah, pretty much this.

There's a reason why Legends of Tomorrow has a massive hardcore fandom, and it isn't just because Legends of Tomorrow is a smart, fun, good-hearted show full of likeable characters, it's because Sara Lance is an openly bisexual main character who kicks lots of ass and dates or sleeps with glamorous women and lots of lesbians want to see that on screen as much as possible.