First Elsa and now Captain America too? NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE GAY

[Nobody]

How is that a problem? If you agree that an artist should do whatever they want with their work, then they should do whatever they want independently of how others read them.

Also, for the second part, I thought someone would interpret what I said that way. Hence why I added:

Bolded the part where I enforce that creators having freedom to do whatever they want is exactly what I've argued for. Also, I ask again, why can't we simply rely on artists that wish to adhere to the movement instead of interfering on the creative proccess for others to do the same?

I mean, think how troublesome Lord of the Rings would be if Tolkien was forced to change the cast for a fat young white male hetero hobbit with poor eyesight, a black skinny female hobbit that is gay, an old asian fat male hobbit who is bi and has autism, and a middle-aged female hobbit who has to use wheelchairs.

Instead, it is more reasonable to allow authors to make stories about LGBT/black/asian characters, or characters who have some sort of condition or handicap, in accord with their original idea, its structure and intent.

Honestly, I don't get what you mean. Who is forcing the authors to change the characters' sexual orientation? It's not like the LGBT community kidnaped the authors and said "i'll only release you if you make those characters gay".

Whenever a character is "turned" gay, it only happens because the author ultimately wanted it to happen, for whatever reason, even if it was because a lot of people wanted it.

Writers and the like ultimately want to make money. If people want LGBT characters, it only seems logical to include them in order to try to draw a bigger audience. They have the freedom to not include a LGBT character at the consequence of , peharps, making less money. They're not being forced to do anything, and i don't get any of the complaints in this topic, including the OP. If a writer wants to make a character gay, even if it's because of public pressure, it's still their choice.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Nobody

[-Cynthia-]

I suppose in theory publishers/producers could refuse to approve things that didn't have LGBT characters in them. In practice, it's usually the opposite- straight white men are very much the most common protagonists because of the belief that they sell and women/minorities are niche and lack broader appeal. Here's a brief bit on this http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/files/2015_It%E2%80%99s_a_Man%E2%80%99s_Celluloid_World_Report.pdf

[Tryhard]

Public pressure can do wonders, and creators need to sell their merchandise to said public. Isn't that (public backlashing) what happened to Dead or Alive 5?

you're probably talking about xtreme volleyball 3, because it was never released outside of japan

"Following the announcement not to release the game outside Asia, a public debate arose whether this was due to avoid criticism of the sexualized portrayal of women in the games, or the comparatively low US and European sales of the previous game in the Dead or Alive Xtreme series. Shuhei Yoshida, president of Sony Interactive Entertainment's Worldwide Studios, said in a statement; "It's due to cultural differences. The West has its own thinking about how to depict women in games media which is different from Japan Speaking personally, if it is a representation acceptable to the general people in Japan, I wouldn't be concerned about it in Japan. It's a difficult problem". In response to the decision not to distribute, the developer behind the adult puzzle game and dating sim HuniePop offered Koei Tecmo a million dollars for distribution rights in North America."

Now while I don't know the full details it seems to be that they themselves made the decision that they didn't want to release it - maybe some threw harsh words their way, but there is no reason to believe that they had been threatened or such. And really, that's mostly what things like this are. I don't agree with the people throwing shit at them for making a bad game, but it was still their decision to not localize it, and they go ahead and blame it on "the west". They didn't have to listen to anyone (god forbid, companies usually don't) and if anyone you should be getting mad at it's them for bending to opinionated people. Those obnoxious opinionated people are annoying, yes, but they aren't the ones at the head of Koei or pulling a gun on them to not release it outside of Japan. Once again, public backlash is detrimental to what they want to do, but if their convictions are strong enough (lol), they are still the ones in control.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

I'm getting deja vu and I don't know if I like it.

Probably relevant.

[Tryhard]

i'm just going with the stated wikipedia reason over a play-asia conspiracy

but yes, it not projecting to sell well was also probably a reason

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rezzy]

In another area of making characters gay after the fact, there's Harry Potter.

Rowling said Dumbldore was gay after the series ended, but I thought there was a missed opportunity with another character: Lupin.

I really thought the Tonks-Lupin romance was stupid and forced, not too mention Lupin is almost double Tonks' age. Lupin is 37 and she's early 20s, plus he doesn't seem into her at all. The whole werewolf condition seemed to be an allegory for homosexuality and/or HIV anyway. Oh, he looks like everybody else and seems normal, but has this secret, and he might prey on your kids and infect them? I kind of got the impression that Lupin was ambiguously gay until Book 6 came out and forcibly gave Lupin a female love interest. Then again, Lupin never seems happy in his marriage, so maybe he is.

Lupin was one of my favorite characters, and he deserved better than to be killed off screen to fill some arbitrary connection to orphaning kids two decades before.

[Jotari]

I think the intention of the Lupin Tonks romance was to drive home the idea that the plot is a lot bigger than Harry's limited perspective and that the adults are fully realised people who are doing just as much if not more to fight Voldemort. It's a theme most evident in the fifth book where Harry's insistence on involving himself gets Sirius killed but little things like Lupin and Tonks getting together in the last two books serve to reinforce the fact.

I agree that killing both of them off screen so unceremoniously was pretty poor taste. Lupin at the very least deserved much more than that.

[Strawman]

Not HP related, but on the original topic, there might also be merit to the idea that taking a character that is already popular with an established fanbase and fictional world or universe (lore might be a good word) presents an easier vehicle to present that LGBT+ character many people want in way that counters many arguments and concerns about introducing a non-straight Disney Prince/Princess/etc. or Superhero. If a character is already loved by a large audience, having that character come out will likely upset a good portion of the fanbase, but could probably make up for it in the long run. Introducing brand new main lgbt+ (any minority group really) main character comes with a lot of uncertainty not just because of the character's sexual orientation/gender identity/ other minority characteristic, but because of all the other variables that make up that character that might make them likable or unlikable. Established characters (or at least ones like Cap or Elsa) don't come with that uncertainty or those extra variables since they have already proven to be popular.

Actually, back on HP, there is something I remembered when J.K.Rowling made that revelation that Dumbledore was gay. I remember one of my friends being very disappointed, like that one part of his character was big enough to change her whole perception of the character, or somehow actually did change his whole character. That is like a real life thing for people though when they come out, or that prevents them from coming out. The idea that revealing your true sexual orientation or gender identity will be a big enough negative that people close to you won't treat you like the same person or that they'll abandon you. That one part of yourself could overshadow everything else. I think that anyone that has come out or is thinking about coming out wants to have people in their life that values them for who they are and won't let one small piece mean more than the whole. And maybe we want to see that in an already popular character, that Elsa or Captain America (note that I don't actually care or want either of them to be turned into lgbt+ characters, personally) or whatever disney character or super hero or star wars hero or harry potter wizard or Avatar Korra can have a coming out narrative in which fans look past the one part of them and still embrace the character as a whole, not abandoning them for that.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I suppose in theory publishers/producers could refuse to approve things that didn't have LGBT characters in them. In practice, it's usually the opposite- straight white men are very much the most common protagonists because of the belief that they sell and women/minorities are niche and lack broader appeal. Here's a brief bit on this http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/files/2015_It%E2%80%99s_a_Man%E2%80%99s_Celluloid_World_Report.pdf

Well it's not exactly untrue per-say. People like to see themselves represented and a big part of a movie is being able to project ourselves onto the protagonists. I've seen lots of articles about how a big part of Fast and Furious' success comes from its massive popularity with Hispanic audiences for example. If the majority of the movie-going audience is going to be Caucasian, than making the heroes Caucasian makes sense from a marketing perspective even though I'd like to see more diversity in the media.

Sources:

http://www.thewrap.com/how-hispanics-became-hollywoods-most-important-audience/

http://hispanic-marketing.com/fast-furious-taps-into-hispanic-audiences/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/06/media/fast-and-furious-diverse-box-office/

http://www.thewrap.com/latinos-shift-fast-furious-6-overdrive-holiday-box-office-93951/

http://fusion.net/story/114933/hispanics-made-up-a-whopping-37-percent-of-the-furious-7-audience-this-weekend/

On the subject matter, I'd be mostly fine with Elsa being gay (although she seems more ace than anything else) but less so with Captain America. I'd much rather have them create a new, original gay superhero rather than piggy-back of the popularity of an established heterosexual superhero, similar to how I'm not fond of making Jane Foster Thor rather than creating a new female superhero or giving an established female superhero their own comic.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Phillius

[Rezzy]

My problem with making Thor a woman is because unlike most heroes, Thor wasn't a title or anything that Thor had. Thor simply was Thor. He had aliases and whatnot, but it's not like he has a job that he can just retire from.

I wouldn't have minded if he had gotten terribly wounded or something and passed on Mjolnir to a worthy woman, but the way he lost his powers just made me angry. She didn't just take his job, she took his identity.

It would be like if I came into work one day

CEO: Hey, you're fired.

Me: What, why?

CEO: Oh, and your name's not Rachel anymore, we gave it to the new guy.

Me: What does that make me?

CEO: Who cares? You're not worthy.

When Dick Grayson become Batman, he didn't become Bruce Wayne. There's been lots of Green Lantern's but they each had their own name.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think the gay topic is somehow related here.

They loved to change straight to gay.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=53041

I think "gay" thing is exclusive for N/A version.

American folks seem to prefer gay stuff, so all the localization versions always try to convert straight stuff to gay stuff to comfort the N/A audience.

Edited June 6, 2016 by hanhnn

[Raven]

If romance (straight or otherwise) is going to be covered in Captain America and Frozen, it needs to be done well and proper. Not just tactlessly nailed on for the sake of keeping the lesbian/bi/gay/trans communities happy.

[Rezzy]

If romance (straight or otherwise) is going to be covered in Captain America and Frozen, it needs to be done well and proper. Not just tactlessly nailed on for the sake of keeping the lesbian/bi/gay/trans communities happy.

The problem with Disney movies is the romance is often the focus of the whole movie. It wouldn't really work for Elsa, because having a romance heavy plot, lesbian or straight, would seem to clash with her established character.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think they are trying to send new message to the straight kids: "Gay is fun, you should try it, once you go gay, you can't go back."

That's why the LGBT crowd will go bigger, even most of them are just fake gays.

[Res]

It's hardly as if Disney or Marvel are current bastions of well-written straight romances. I don't see why any non-straight romances would suddenly have to be held to a certain standard when people generally don't complain about all the awful existing romances. But yeah, it'd be great to see better written relationships overall.

I think they are trying to send new message to the straight kids: "Gay is fun, you should try it, once you go gay, you can't go back."

That's why the LGBT crowd will go bigger, even most of them are just fake gays.

If someone is straight, they're straight. You don't change sexuality on a whim.

Also, lgbt+ people are still heavily discriminated against, and still receive a lot of prejudice. Why would anyone choose to experience that just for the hell of it?

[Rezzy]

It's hardly as if Disney or Marvel are current bastions of well-written straight romances. I don't see why any non-straight romances would suddenly have to be held to a certain standard when people generally don't complain about all the awful existing romances. But yeah, it'd be great to see better written relationships overall.

If someone is straight, they're straight. You don't change sexuality on a whim.

Also, lgbt+ people are still heavily discriminated against, and still receive a lot of prejudice. Why would anyone choose to experience that just for the hell of it?

I've seen a trend where most Disney romances are lampooned, especially the early ones. The only one I see debated as being a good romance is Belle and the Beast, since it seems to takes place over at least a few weeks to months, but then there's the Stockholm debate. I liked Frozen in particular, because it called out the typical Disney romance, and it had the message that familial love was just as strong.

And I loved it when my mother drunkenly started lambasting me and asking "Are you gay!?" when I was a teenager. I love that the first girl I kissed died of an overdose, likely intentionally. I think it's something that everyone should have the joy of experiencing.

[eclipse]

I think they are trying to send new message to the straight kids: "Gay is fun, you should try it, once you go gay, you can't go back."

That's why the LGBT crowd will go bigger, even most of them are just fake gays.

The mods are very much aware of this post.

Future posters, please do not respond to it.

[blah the Prussian]

Eh, the message that you shouldn't fall in love with someone you just met is a decent one, but it was handled poorly. The revelation came out of left field and felt tacked on. I personally think the movie would have been stronger had if focused entirely on Elsa, Anna, and Kristoff, and specifically on Elsa controlling her powers. Maybe make her realize what she had done after she sings Let It Go, and then joins Anna immediately, rather than attacking her with the snowman thing (which, yeah, one count of attempted murder on Elsa).

[MacLovin]

I just heard this earlier on my way home from work on the radio.

Previously, I heard Twitter was pushing for Elsa to be a lesbian in Frozen 2. Now I hear that there's a push for the Cap to be made gay as well. And on TOP of the stupidity that is apparently him being a spy for a villain (I won't get into this because there's another thread on it).

WTF is this bullshit? Elsa has no clear sexuality, sure, but if she was meant to be lesbian, wouldn't Disney have done that with her already from the start? Like put little hints here and there on the side in the first Frozen? Her suddenly being a lesbian would feel forced and out of place.

And awhile back DC started making previously straight characters gay, like Green Lantern. There IS more than one named Green Lantern (three that I know of, in fact. Hal Jordan, John Stewart, and Guy Gardner), but as far as I've seen, all of them have been portrayed to be interested in women before this. Why change this because a few whiny babies begged for it?

This radio broadcast also mentioned other media that's made up of entirely gay relationships. WHY IS EVERYTHING BEING MADE GAY? (the radio guy even asked this as well)

Look, I'm all for LGBT+ rights and all, but this is not how you get it. You don't try to force your lifestyle on people or existing media that's been portrayed to be straight. That's totally stupid and wrong. If you want gay characters, say "I'd like to see a gay character" not "make character X gay!" See the difference? The former isn't forcing anything on existing stuff, it's asking for brand new stuff.

I REALLY hope Disney is smart and doesn't make either of these characters gay/lesbian. Especially Elsa, because she's one of my favorite characters now, and I totally love her. I actually think she should be like Queen Elizabeth I and be asexual and never get with anyone at all. She seems like that type of woman to me. Besides, Kristoff and Anna are already together, so it's not like there's any issue with the possibility of either sister producing heirs.

EDIT: Sorry, meant to say DC for Green Lantern. xP Derp.

First of all, the Green Lantern in question is an alternative version of Alan Scott, the golden age one. It's part of a modernized re-imagining of DC's original "Earth 2" for the new 52 multiverse. That version of Alan Scott isn't in any way connected to the pre-new 52 Alan Scott or any Golden Age era related iteration. (I've read the new 52 earth 2 stuff, it's nothing and just seems to serve as a sorta semi post apocalyptic thing).

Thing is, comic book companies have this thing called a multiverse, which is how they explain stuff like Batman Beyond's Batman popping up in the new 52 or having Static join the Tit

And then we get Marvel and their wonkiness. The old Ultimate Universe version of Colossus was gay, but the prime Marvel Colossus isn't. Or I could just point you towards reading Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinite Crisis Convergence, Multiversity, and the 2015 Secret Wars event comics if you want to read about that kinda stuff.

Well it's not exactly untrue per-say. People like to see themselves represented and a big part of a movie is being able to project ourselves onto the protagonists. I've seen lots of articles about how a big part of Fast and Furious' success comes from its massive popularity with Hispanic audiences for example. If the majority of the movie-going audience is going to be Caucasian, than making the heroes Caucasian makes sense from a marketing perspective even though I'd like to see more diversity in the media.

Sources:

http://www.thewrap.com/how-hispanics-became-hollywoods-most-important-audience/

http://hispanic-marketing.com/fast-furious-taps-into-hispanic-audiences/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/06/media/fast-and-furious-diverse-box-office/

http://www.thewrap.com/latinos-shift-fast-furious-6-overdrive-holiday-box-office-93951/

http://fusion.net/story/114933/hispanics-made-up-a-whopping-37-percent-of-the-furious-7-audience-this-weekend/

On the subject matter, I'd be mostly fine with Elsa being gay (although she seems more ace than anything else) but less so with Captain America. I'd much rather have them create a new, original gay superhero rather than piggy-back of the popularity of an established heterosexual superhero, similar to how I'm not fond of making Jane Foster Thor rather than creating a new female superhero or giving an established female superhero their own comic.

well true.

I hear a lot of controversy about the Jane Foster Thor, but I think there's been plenty of foreshadowing to her possible demise. Besides, I recall Marvel's most well known Gay superhero (Northstar) is an X-Man, which leads to a whole mess of problems since they seem to be pushing FF and X-Men characters to the side because of the ongoing feud with Fox.

My problem with making Thor a woman is because unlike most heroes, Thor wasn't a title or anything that Thor had. Thor simply was Thor. He had aliases and whatnot, but it's not like he has a job that he can just retire from.

I wouldn't have minded if he had gotten terribly wounded or something and passed on Mjolnir to a worthy woman, but the way he lost his powers just made me angry. She didn't just take his job, she took his identity.

It would be like if I came into work one day

CEO: Hey, you're fired.

Me: What, why?

CEO: Oh, and your name's not Rachel anymore, we gave it to the new guy.

Me: What does that make me?

CEO: Who cares? You're not worthy.

When Dick Grayson become Batman, he didn't become Bruce Wayne. There's been lots of Green Lantern's but they each had their own name.

Well, the stuff that happened in Original Sin still needs to be explained someday, and Fury Sr. might come back sometime.

I recall Foster-Thor and Thor Odinson each being identifiably different.

As in the hammer grants the powers of Thor, but Odinson himself still possesses a great deal of power without the hammer.

But this was all stuff in the time leading up to secret wars so alot of that's been rendered moot.

But I can kinda get behind Foster's desire to do good despite the fact that the hammer erases any effect that chemotherapy has on her terminal cancer.)

Although it would have been a better idea for Foster to just have told Odinson that she was wielding the hammer while he was temporarily unworthy. I mean what the fuck. It's not like he'd have started a fight over the thing.

as for my actual opinion on outright changing a character that's been heavily portrayed as heterosexual and then turning them gay. That makes no sense. I read shit about people who criticize Cap and Bucky for not turning gay in Cap:Civil War, but that's kind of a very silly complaint.

but then again, with the X-Men and FF characters being out of the question for know, that would leave the highest profile gay Superhero at Marvel Studios to be like...............uh...................

fuck idk. I think almost every major gay character marvel has is in the X-men franchise.

DC has Renee Montoya (Question) and Kathy Kane (Batwoman) as its high profile gay heroes.

[Cornguy]

My problem with making Thor a woman is because unlike most heroes, Thor wasn't a title or anything that Thor had. Thor simply was Thor. He had aliases and whatnot, but it's not like he has a job that he can just retire from.

I wouldn't have minded if he had gotten terribly wounded or something and passed on Mjolnir to a worthy woman, but the way he lost his powers just made me angry. She didn't just take his job, she took his identity.

I tend to stay away from this discussion, but I completely agree. Beta Ray Bill's name didn't change when he picked up Mjolnir, why are you trying to make this character into genderswapped Thor? War Machine starts calling himself Tony Stark, "wow, black Iron Man!"

I know I'm a little late, but I like the idea of Elsa being gay. Not so much that I think she should be, but why shouldn't she be? I'm super white and straight, and I can say that we have plenty of characters to relate to. I'm not saying these characters should just be for them either. My fellow white, straight people can and should care about these characters, and hopefully understand them eventually.

As for Cap... I think there's no basis for it in the comics. However, the movies are their own alternate universes, and if they wanted to make him bi(in a gay relationship), it could be kinda cute. I mean, you've got a guy from a time that made it clear that this wasn't okay. He finds out pretty much for the first time that this is a real part of society now, and he realizes he's always wanted this. This sounds like a shoddy fanfic now that I look at it, but for honesty's sake I'll leave it there.

I do think shoehorning these qualities into fiction is a mistake, but leaving them out when you have a clear opportunity to use them well is also a mistake.

Well, there's my rant. Its 7am, it looks coherent to me, but I may need to edit after sleeping.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I know I'm a little late, but I like the idea of Elsa being gay. Not so much that I think she should be, but why shouldn't she be? I'm super white and straight, and I can say that we have plenty of characters to relate to. I'm not saying these characters should just be for them either. My fellow white, straight people can and should care about these characters, and hopefully understand them eventually.

It's not that people have a problem with her being gay per-say, but rather the impression I got is that seeing as how the main theme of the first movie was platonic love between siblings, giving her a love interest would be a jarring shift in tone. There's also the fact that given the petition to make her gay, making her gay in the next movie will be seen by a lot of people as pandering to SJWs rather than an artistic choice made by the director/writers/whoever. Bear in mind, this is also without factoring in the people who see Elsa as bisexual, asexual (that's me!) and what-have-you.

It seems to me like the major problem with this sort of thing is that there's nothing they can do that won't result in some level of controversy; if they make her straight the Social Justice crowd will pissed at the lack of representation and if they make her gay then they'll be accused of pandering to SJWs. If they make her bisexual or asexual, then they'll still be accused of pandering to SJWs but they'll also have the activists tearing the characterisation apart for anything 'problematic'. Did they make Elsa to overtly bisexual, thus perpetuating the stereotype that all bisexuals are constantly horny? Did they not make it overt enough, making her bisexual in name only? Does Elsa end the movie in a relationship with a man or a woman? If it's a boy, then they run the risk of Elsa being accused of being a 'bad bisexual' for winding up with a man a la Alex/Piper/Larry from Orange is the New Black (because 'bisexual' is just a fancy way of saying lesbian, am I right?) and if she winds up with a woman, you'll probably have people complaining about how they should've just made her gay or something like that.

I could go on, but this post is winding up long enough as it is. But between the homophobic, misogynistic assholes who think any sign of diversity is bad and the heterophobic, misandrist 'activists' who think that 'representation' should mean no white men (and in some cases men and straight people in general) should ever be portrayed in media ever again (both groups who seem to dominate the debate nowadays, if only by virtue of being the loudest), it's all but impossible to find a situation that doesn't stir up a fuss and I half-jokingly suspect that the main reason the status-quo persists is because very few directors would touch this debate with a ten-foot pole.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Phillius

[Rezzy]

It's not that people have a problem with her being gay per-say, but rather the impression I got is that seeing as how the main theme of the first movie was platonic love between siblings, giving her a love interest would be a jarring shift in tone. There's also the fact that given the petition to make her gay, making her gay in the next movie will be seen by a lot of people as pandering to SJWs rather than an artistic choice made by the director/writers/whoever. Bear in mind, this is also without factoring in the people who see Elsa as bisexual, asexual (that's me!) and what-have-you.

It seems to me like the major problem with this sort of thing is that there's nothing they can do that won't result in some level of controversy; if they make her straight the Social Justice crowd will pissed at the lack of representation and if they make her gay then they'll be accused of pandering to SJWs. If they make her bisexual or asexual, then they'll still be accused of pandering to SJWs but they'll also have the activists tearing the characterisation apart for anything 'problematic'. Did they make Elsa to overtly bisexual, thus perpetuating the stereotype that all bisexuals are constantly horny? Did they not make it overt enough, making her bisexual in name only? Does Elsa end the movie in a relationship with a man or a woman? If it's a boy, then they run the risk of Elsa being accused of being a 'bad bisexual' for winding up with a man a la Alex/Piper/Larry from Orange is the New Black (because 'bisexual' is just a fancy way of saying lesbian, am I right?) and if she winds up with a woman, you'll probably have people complaining about how they should've just made her gay or something like that.

I could go on, but this post is winding up long enough as it is. But between the homophobic, misogynistic assholes who think any sign of diversity is bad and the heterophobic, misandrist 'activists' who think that 'representation' should mean no white men (and in some cases men and straight people in general) should ever be portrayed in media ever again (both groups who seem to dominate the debate nowadays, if only by virtue of being the loudest), it's all but impossible to find a situation that doesn't stir up a fuss and I half-jokingly suspect that the main reason the status-quo persists is because very few directors would touch this debate with a ten-foot pole.

I really think it would be best left ambiguous.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I really think it would be best left ambiguous.

Exactly. Considering that the first movie was about the platonic love between Anna and Elsa, I think they'd be better off not using romantic love as a theme. Maybe friendship or something?

[Jotari]

I doubt anyone but the most hardlined fascists whom you'll never please regardless, would be offended if you they made her asexual. Mainly because it stems from a lack of orientation and therefore a lack of anything to actually be offended about. And in terms of characterisation you wouldn't have to change a single thing that's already established about her.

[Rezzy]

I doubt anyone but the most hardlined fascists whom you'll never please regardless, would be offended if you they made her asexual. Mainly because it stems from a lack of orientation and therefore a lack of anything to actually be offended about. And in terms of characterisation you wouldn't have to change a single thing that's already established about her.

It's pretty hard to definitively nail a character down as asexual. Especially, in a kids movie, they aren't going to say "I'm asexual", and not being a relationship isn't evidence of being asexual, it just means they aren't in a relationship at the moment, which could have a myriad of reasons.