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

[JasonMendez]

Making a character gay for the sake of it just seems really dumb in my opinion. More people care about the sexual orientation than the actual romance. I've heard people say they want characters to be gay because they lack representation in the community, but it's just baffling that a gender carries more significance than the actual love itself.

Also were they to succeed in making a character gay, I feel it would cause even more problems. Say the actors or director don't accurately describe the gay lifestyle or whatnot and they get panned for "promoting" stereotypes.

I can't see any of this ending well.

[Rowiehz]

I keep reading things alike to: "Pushing characters to suddenly be gay or bi when they weren't before is stupid" But in regards to Frozen, Elsa never really showed her romantic interest/sexuality? So how is this pushing her to be something she isn't? Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've only seen Frozen once but I don't remember Elsa showing pure romantic interest in anyone.

Of course, if a character were claimed to be of 'insert' sexuality before, and suddenly something else the next movie- I'd see the problem, but I fail to see it here.

Also to think of her relationship with Anna as 'incestmuch' is pretty awful. Pure love for someone doesn't necessarily have to be romantic. Of course there's always people who would like it that way, naturally. But that's something else.

Unfortunately I don't know much about Marvel nor Captain America, so I'll not comment on that.

[Tryhard]

I certainly wouldn't wish to force the issue. However, I feel there's a difference between 'forcing' an issue and encouraging it to be less of an issue in the first place.

Also, sometimes there's a need to challenge the default.

I can see that and would encourage it, but when people say things like 'dire need' it makes me think that you are saying it has to change. I'd like it to change, but I believe in creative freedom.

Mainly directed towards those that throw a fit over a character being LGBT or not and that argument from both honestly likely discourages anyone creating LGBT characters. They just don't want to deal with the backlash from both sides, probably, on something that is ultimately just a point of a character.

Edit: Also, in regard to actual statistics on LGBT people comparatively, why do fictional characters need to follow this ratio? I honestly wouldn't care if 90% of all character were LGBT if the creators wanted to do that. Isn't that the point of fiction, to explore things less mundane and being not entirely grounded in reality?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Tryhard

[Anacybele]

I keep reading things alike to: "Pushing characters to suddenly be gay or bi when they weren't before is stupid" But in regards to Frozen, Elsa never really showed her romantic interest/sexuality? So how is this pushing her to be something she isn't? Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've only seen Frozen once but I don't remember Elsa showing pure romantic interest in anyone.

Well, in the case of Elsa, it's more like that people want her to be lesbian just for the sake of it which is dumb. That's how it feels forced.

[EricaofRenais]

I want people to create brand new characters that happen to be LGBT instead of make characters that have been around for years that way. Also make them equally well written, look at Fates Niles is much better written and I feel a better representative of gays then Rhajat or soleil (which honestly I think are rather offending to lesbians) Heather in RD was pretty good you could tell she was a lesbian but she was well written in the parts she was in. As to Frozen Elsa was never interested in anyone so if the writers want to make her lesbian in the next movie its fine with me, even though I feel that there should be no romantic relationships in movies marketed to children. I kind of stopped caring about comic book movies after they started making superheros fight each other so the likely hood of me watching a movie based of comic books is very unlikely.

[Skynstein]

SJWs love to mistake strong friendships for romantic relationships. This "request" that the Cap come out is absolutely silly.

You'll notice that there's a push for turning characters into homosexual whenever they aren't firmly in the heterosexual camp, or when they have a troubled or non-existent romantic/sexual life. It's as if they needed to "convert" as many characters as possible to "strengthen" their cause. Why not leave them as they are? This way, everyone benefits and can fantasize about them without any guilt. Who cares if they're made "straight" by default by most fans, if characters are neutral then it's not a problem that it happens, as "straight" people are the majority, but at least it's not "set in stone" that the Cap or Elsa are straight.

This "hunt" for homosexuality is hilarious because it reminds me of Wertham trying to convince everyone that Batman and Robin were a homosexual couple in the 50s. Except Wertham was an extremely conservative fellow whose works did far more harm than good, as opposed to LGBT activists who I expect not to be so conservative.

[Alertcircuit]

There's nothing in Frozen to suggest Elsa's interested in men, nothing romantic at all. So it wouldn't really be breaking established character. More types of role models for little girls is nice too, so if they want to make her gay, ace, straight, anything in between, I'm up for it.

Cap being bi is fine. Normally I'm indifferent to changing an existing character's traits solely for diversity, but the MCU's diversity is so blatantly played safe that bi Cap would be something fresh.

I should mention that I've always interpreted Cap and Bucky's relationship to be a strong platonic one though, so if he does come out I don't necessarily think it should be for that character, although I wouldn't have a big problem if it is.

[Sylphid]

While I can't really talk about the specific examples used here, the general trend is something I can comment on.

I fully welcome the rising amount of LGBT+ characters in media, but the trend isn't without its issues. Those issues mostly being with how such characters are handled. Sometimes it just feels like LGBT+ characters are added in just because "it's popular/trendy" when there's usually more pressing point for it. Still, having representation is usually better than not, so than in itself isn't that big of a problem. The bigger issue is when LGBT+ characters are defined by their sexuality and have no character outside of that (this is usually a result of the first issue, or just bad writing). Sometimes this results in a sensationalist "look this guy is gay, come adore our movie/game/whatever", which really isn't the right way to go about it. Writing LGBT+ characters poorly helps no one since it just results in caricatures that at best gives you a one-note character who doesn't really represent the minority it's supposed to and at worst make the preconceptions/homophobia stronger in those who already have those...

But yeah, this is pretty much the best way to handle such characters most of the time:

The best approach to this, I'd say, is the Falcon approach. The Falcon wasn't the first Black superhero, but he was the first that was handled well, in that him being black was completely irrelevant to his character; he wasn't the token black Avenger, he was an Avenger who happened to be black. LGBT characters should be handled the same way; don't make a big deal out of it, don't write them any differently from how you'd normally write them.

(For the record, making sexuality the main thing about the character can work, if the narrative sets out to explore what that means to their life. But it still shouldn't be what defines said character, and this approach is overused and usually poorly handled at this point)

As for making old characters be representatives, it can work as long as it doesn't go against what's been established in the past canon (not headcanon). This could likely be more difficult with Captain America since he has a longer history that could potentially cause conflict with the new material, but like I said, I don't really know anything about Marvel.

Elsa obviously has less material to potentially conflict with this, so as long as her sexuality wasn't explicitly stated in the first movie it could work.

But I do think it's better to make new LGBT characters rather than change existing ones since that's easier from narrative perspective and can have less unfortunate headbutting with fanbases.

EDIT: Also, now it's LGBTQIA? I've never heard of it written this way before. What the hell are the I and A supposed to mean? This is getting really confusing.

No idea what intersexed means tho

The term can get really long depending on how many minorities you include in, so I don't think there's a definite "correct" one. LGBT+ is probably the easiest one to use since most people get it.

Intersex refers to not having a specific, easily recognizable gender when you're born.

[Crysta]

Given Disney's history of heroines being fixated on a dashing hero I'd say Elsa not fitting that trope at all actually makes it more believable, not less. And I highly doubt even if they do reveal that she's asexual/homosexual/bisexual it'll be emphasized or blatant because sexuality in Disney films is really subtle at best.

Captain America would be more jarring but even then I don't care with how much they decide to change comic characters to make them more relateable or appealing. I'm much more offended at him being a nazi like wtf.

Not gonna lie, this topic makes me roll my eyes for the some reason stumbling across an article complaining about some director not making his cast all white dudes and insist they're just including something different to cater to the political correctness crowd. Remember the fuss about that black storm trooper, guys!?

[Res]

Not gonna lie, this topic makes me roll my eyes for the some reason stumbling across an article complaining about some director not making his cast all white dudes and insist they're just including something different to cater to the political correctness crowd. Remember the fuss about that black storm trooper, guys!?

I nearly made this comparison in an earlier post, when trying to argue why sometimes making an extra effort for representation is necessary.

Edit: Also, in regard to actual statistics on LGBT people comparatively, why do fictional characters need to follow this ratio? I honestly wouldn't care if 90% of all character were LGBT if the creators wanted to do that. Isn't that the point of fiction, to explore things less mundane and being not entirely grounded in reality?

My point was that without making an effort to include more LGBT+ characters, we end up with a default where only a tiny percentage of characters are LGBT+.

[Rapier]

I nearly made this comparison in an earlier post, when trying to argue why sometimes making an extra effort for representation is necessary.

My point was that without making an effort to include more LGBT+ characters, we end up with a default where only a tiny percentage of characters are LGBT+.

I do not see how other means of social conscientizing about LGBT people and minorities are not just as effective, and I don't see why we can't simply rely on artists that wish to adhere to the movement instead of forcing others to do the same. I'm not against such characters in a setting, but I'm against allienating art to follow political agendas. Creators should have freedom to construct their work the way they feel like, independent of external pressure to mold their work. Any kind of creative intervention is harmful and toxic to art because it is a spanner on the creative proccess.

[Rezzy]

Most people have been civil, so I'll add my two cents. Full disclosure, I'm bi, currently married with children in a hetero relationship, but I've had more girlfriends in my life than otherwise. (My deep desire to have kids of my own was the main reason I pursued this path, rather than continuing to date as a lesbian.) Most people would never guess that I find women attractive, and it only really comes up when relevant. I really just want to be treated as an equal and don't need to share a character's preference for anatomy to identify with them. If new LGBT characters come up organically, it would be the best way.

I've found that there's two major groups against making characters bi, gay, lesbian, etc. First, there's the group that will tell me that God hates me or that I'm an abomination. There's little I can do to convince them otherwise.

The second group is sympathetic, but don't like characters being changed arbitrarily. The response the LGBT community gives back is of paramount importance. If I try to suddenly demand established characters be gayified, they may balk at the idea of their idea of the character being changed just to satisfy a minority. People telling them they are bigots for not agreeing, then pushes them into the former camp. I've often seen such nasty behavior on my own side that makes me ashamed to come out as bi, not because I'm ashamed of who I am, but because I don't want people to think I'm a special snowflake who's offended by everything.

For Elsa, I'm not against her being a lesbian per se, but with Disney movies, the heroine's love life tends to be at the forefront of the story. I liked the original story where the message was familial love was just as strong, if not more so, than romantic love. I like Elsa being independent and don't think she should get a love interest at all.

I could see Cap being bi personally, but he's got 70+ years of backstory, and I could see the reasoning of people not liking the idea for that reason. I sort of see it like not liking the new Batman vs Superman movie. Batman doesn't kill people. It's part of his character. Why are you changing it?

For another point to go along with the Falcon example. I really like Star Trek DS9. Sisko is the Captain, who happens to be black. He's not the black captain. It's merely an aspect of many of his character.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Considering Steve was willing to move that amount of mountains to get to his Bucky and protect his Bucky in Civil War, its really really natural to assume he might actually have romantic feelings for the guy. I felt like his little moment with Sharon Carter was the forced one in order to show that "omg this character isnt GAY!!!" Honestly, i know im not alone in that opinion either. Steve being bi wouldnt change anything actually. He'd still be the asskicking hero whos more American than America.

Fun fact: the character of Loki in Marvel (both MCU and comic verse) is bisexual.

If Elsa was gay, why the fuck not? Did she show any established traits that she is into guys? No. Anna was the one who was into guys and vocally so. Would it drastically change Elsa's character? No it wouldnt. Would it be "a bad message to send to kids"? holy shit id hope not. The idea that gayness is "unwholesome" is not just really inaccurate, but disgustingly discriminatory. Especially when we live in an age where kids have two mums or two dads. In Elsa's case, it wouldnt be forcing homosexuality onto a character, it would be normalizing it. Because Elsa has no love interests in the first Frozen, no forcing would take place. It would just be a part of her character. It would be the same if Disney made her asexual.

Personally, I'd like to see more fruits in entertainment media.

Same.

[Water Mage]

Most people have been civil, so I'll add my two cents. Full disclosure, I'm bi, currently married with children in a hetero relationship, but I've had more girlfriends in my life than otherwise. (My deep desire to have kids of my own was the main reason I pursued this path, rather than continuing to date as a lesbian.) Most people would never guess that I find women attractive, and it only really comes up when relevant. I really just want to be treated as an equal and don't need to share a character's preference for anatomy to identify with them. If new LGBT characters come up organically, it would be the best way.

I've found that there's two major groups against making characters bi, gay, lesbian, etc. First, there's the group that will tell me that God hates me or that I'm an abomination. There's little I can do to convince them otherwise.

The second group is sympathetic, but don't like characters being changed arbitrarily. The response the LGBT community gives back is of paramount importance. If I try to suddenly demand established characters be gayified, they may balk at the idea of their idea of the character being changed just to satisfy a minority. People telling them they are bigots for not agreeing, then pushes them into the former camp. I've often seen such nasty behavior on my own side that makes me ashamed to come out as bi, not because I'm ashamed of who I am, but because I don't want people to think I'm a special snowflake who's offended by everything.

For Elsa, I'm not against her being a lesbian per se, but with Disney movies, the heroine's love life tends to be at the forefront of the story. I liked the original story where the message was familial love was just as strong, if not more so, than romantic love. I like Elsa being independent and don't think she should get a love interest at all.

I could see Cap being bi personally, but he's got 70+ years of backstory, and I could see the reasoning of people not liking the idea for that reason. I sort of see it like not liking the new Batman vs Superman movie. Batman doesn't kill people. It's part of his character. Why are you changing it?

For another point to go along with the Falcon example. I really like Star Trek DS9. Sisko is the Captain, who happens to be black. He's not the black captain. It's merely an aspect of many of his character.

I agree with this 100%.

As a gay person myself, I dislike the idea that I'm better than heterosexuals just because I'm gay.

And like you said, Frozen is all about familial love, the whole interesting thing about Elsa was that she didn't have a love interest.

Giving Elsa a love interest, be it male or female, goes against what the first movie was about.

Does Elsa really needs a love interest?

[Crysta]

Creators should have freedom to construct their work the way they feel like, independent of external pressure to mold their work. Any kind of creative intervention is harmful and toxic to art because it is a spanner on the creative proccess.

The problem with this, I think, is people will probably think an artist is merely catering to a subset of people regardless of their actual intent by it existing in the first place.

And even if they do include character x because group x requests it... creators should have freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, and if they want to appeal to the minority and diligently do so, so be it. That is not wrong. In fact, I'd argue complaining about how they're just appealing to group x is actually just as much 'creative intervention'.

[Anacybele]

Rezzy, Water Mage: Yeah, that must be why I feel like Elsa should be asexual or have no love interest. I totally agree with that too.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Anacybele

[Loki Laufeyson]

Does Elsa really needs a love interest?

Nah. It would be pretty nice if she never hooks up with anyone. Still, im not against her hooking up with a lady.

[Crysta]

The only thing I could see preventing that is the fact that she's a queen and inevitably will need to produce a heir.

Which sucks.

EDIT: actually I guess Anna could do it lol

Edited May 26, 2016 by Crysta

[Tryhard]

My point was that without making an effort to include more LGBT+ characters, we end up with a default where only a tiny percentage of characters are LGBT+.

Oh, that part wasn't really directed at you specifically, just others were discussing it.

But unfortunately there is no easy solution to that, because every time this is even considered this argument becomes embroiled and it unfortunately creates a pretty hostile environment for creators.

The problem with this, I think, is people will probably think an artist is merely catering to a subset of people regardless of their actual intent by it existing in the first place.

And even if they do include character x because group x requests it... creators should have freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, and if they want to appeal to the minority and diligently do so, so be it. That is not wrong. In fact, I'd argue complaining about how they're just appealing to group x is actually just as much 'creative intervention'.

I think that was what he was trying to say. And I agree with it. If people think they're catering, I don't really care.

Fun fact: the character of Loki in Marvel (both MCU and comic verse) is bisexual.

at least they leave out the mythical story about how he had sex with a horse Edited May 26, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rezzy]

I do appreciate Fire Emblem trying to have LGBT characters, and it's much easier in FE, since there's pretty much a fresh cast every time, but it shows just how easy it is to do it poorly.

For lesbians, we get Rhajat, who's a creepy stalker, who I have no idea why Corrin wants to be with her. I actually got up to S rank with her in Birthright, before finishing the support convo chain and saying "nope" before reloading an earlier save.

Next we get Soleil, the most lesbian, non-lesbian love option in the history of fiction. I really like her design and wanted to give her a chance, but if a girl came on that strong to me, I'd probably react like Ophelia does. I wish her character wasn't so one-note.

I wish we could have S supported with either Flora or Scarlet, they're Corrinsexuals anyway, and won't cause us to miss out on a kid that's not Kana.

[Crysta]

Yeah, there's also wanting to appeal to a group and then not actually knowing the first thing about them, too.

I feel those supports were written through the lens of a writer whose viewpoint might be colored by some stereotypes.

[Anacybele]

The only thing I could see preventing that is the fact that she's a queen and inevitably will need to produce a heir.

Which sucks.

EDIT: actually I guess Anna could do it lol

Yeah, and even if Anna and Kristoff didn't have a kid, they could get by somehow. In real life this kind of situation has happened too. That's why I drew parallels to Queen Elizabeth I, who never married and there was no immediate family who could take the throne after her. Instead, distant relative James I came in. For all we know, Anna and Elsa have some distant relatives too.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Anacybele

[peener weener]

saying "just write [minority] characters like you would any other character!" is silly and dismissive of the experience of minorities. it basically means writing minority characters as you would a majority, or in this case gay characters as you would straight characters, or in many cases black characters as if they were white. it's bad writing.

things like sexuality and race, like it or not, define to a greater or lesser degree who you are in a given social context, and that goes for heteronormative people as well. what a lot of people don't seem to realise is that heterosexuality is an important aspect of straight characters, even if unconsciously or unnoticeably (it's The Norm! after all). you need to understand where characters are coming from and how it affects them. it's even more frustrating when people tote the opinion that "THEY SHOULD JUST HAPPEN TO BE GAY DON'T THROW IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES" like it's the ultimate progressive approach, when really it totally misses the mark and buys into what their approach purportedly nullifies.

obviously, if you write a character that just happens to be gay, it's fine, it's not like it's necessarily badly written or even that you'll misstep how your character would act in certain situations, but it's really a very basic take on minority characters that works well for inclusion but isn't immediately representative of real life. also, don't confuse what i'm saying with asking for people to make really melodramatic pieces about the LGBTQ+ Struggle^TM or needing characters to be stereotypical, just that people have to understand that even if you aren't a minority, things like your gender and your sexuality and your race have an effect on who you are as a person, be it to yourself or in the eyes of others, and that it's just something that people can't place their fingers on with "normal" characters because it's not something we take into account in the first place when it comes to them.

i mean, i can vouch, as a person of the LGBT+ persuasion, that my sexuality has had a deep impact in my development as a person for reasons that are probably obvious to y'all.

Edited May 26, 2016 by fuccboi

[Crysta]

Just be glad it doesn't take place in the 15th century where she'd probably be married to her thirty year old first cousin at thirteen. She would probably already have had a litter of kidlets.

[Loki Laufeyson]

saying "just write [minority] characters like you would any other character!" is silly and dismissive of the experience of minorities. it basically means writing minority characters as you would a majority, or in this case gay characters as you would straight characters, or in many cases black characters as if they were white. it's bad writing.

things like sexuality and race, like it or not, define to a greater or lesser degree who you are in a given social context, and that goes for heteronormative people as well. what a lot of people don't seem to realise is that heterosexuality is an important aspect of straight characters, even if unconsciously or unnoticeably (it's The Norm! after all). you need to understand where characters are coming from and how it affects them. it's even more frustrating when people tote the opinion that "THEY SHOULD JUST HAPPEN TO BE GAY DON'T THROW IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES" like it's the ultimate progressive approach, when really it totally misses the mark and buys into what their approach purportedly nullifies.

obviously, if you write a character that just happens to be gay, it's fine, it's not like it's necessarily badly written or even that you'll misstep how your character would act in certain situations, but it's really a very basic take on minority characters that works well for inclusion but isn't immediately representative of real life. also, don't confuse what i'm saying with asking for people to make really melodramatic pieces about the LGBTQ+ Struggle^TM or needing characters to be stereotypical, just that people have to understand that even if you aren't a minority, things like your gender and your sexuality and your race have an effect on who you are as a person, be it to yourself or in the eyes of others, and that it's just something that people can't place their fingers on with "normal" characters because it's not something we take into account in the first place when it comes to them.

i mean, i can vouch, as a person of the LGBT+ persuasion, that my sexuality has had a deep impact in my development as a person for reasons that are probably obvious to y'all.

I think this is why things like Steven Universe is really popular, because its normalizing certain things, and making the characters' relationships (which is a stand in for sexuality) really a part of who they are. (like Garnet) It takes that entire concept and creates an imaginative story with it. Its hard for me to think that this is a bad thing for media. So i really agree with you. Being bi is a pretty big part of me too, and is for many people.

Just be glad it doesn't take place in the 15th century where she'd probably be married to her thirty year old first cousin at thirteen. She would probably already have had a litter of kidlets.

omg we are really glad Disney isnt George RR Martin.