,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
When we call something queerbaiting, we're essentially saying: "source material X doesn't count as real or valid queer representation." Here is a thread on why we need to be cognizant about which real-life queer people & stories we're erasing when we expand our use of that term.
First: actual queerbaiting, in which art-creators hint at queer representation in order to attract viewers and then insist their art was 100% hetero all along, sucks a lot. I am not advocating getting rid of the term.
Nor am I saying it's not valid to feel jerked around when a show uses the promise of a specific queer relationship on their publicity circuit, and then doesn't follow through on it in the actual source. (Or follows through only to write out a character, a la #TheMagicians)
However: when we narrow our definition of "real and valid queer representation" until the ONLY thing that counts as queer rep is on-screen queer *romance* or on-screen queer *sex*, we are telling a significant portion of the real-life queer community that they don't count.
When we use the "queerbaiting" label to describe a millennia-long, loving asexual same-gender relationship (aka #GoodOmens) we are telling asexuals in loving life-long relationships that they don't count as queer.
We are also telling sexual queers whose primary, life-organizing relationships are queerplatonic (me, this is me) that their queerness is defined only by who they fuck, not by who they choose to build a life with.
When we use "queerbaiting" to describe a show with a main character whose queer sexuality is depicted explicitly, on-screen, many times--whose queerness in fact forms a key part of her character arc (aka #KillingEve )...
... because said character doesn't end up in a romance with her female co-lead, we are telling queer singles that their queerness doesn't count unless they're in a relationship (w/ a same-gender person). We're also telling aromantic people that they don't belong in the community.
We are ALSO telling the world at large--creators and audiences, queer and straight--that the ONLY kind of story we're willing to consider valid queer rep is romance. While this is not as bad as the only queer story being one of death & tragedy, it's still a travesty.
I want a space where ALL kinds of queer stories get told: romances yes, but also stories of queer friendship; queer mentorship; queer animosity; queer competition and cooperation; queer found family; queer provocation and queer mistakes.
None of that happens if we tell everyone whose queer content doesn't fit into the narrow box "Lead A & Lead B kiss and/or fuck onscreen" (even if A&B make a life together; even if A&B kiss & fuck other same-sex people) that their art is exploitative & doesn't count as queer rep.
