the LGB representation bingo card

[kindkit]

I've decided that the world needs a lesbian, gay, and bisexual¹ representation bingo card for all those oh-so-reasonable answers some people like to give when one asks why a particular text contains no characters who are identified as LGB. I'm probably not the first person to think of this, but a quick google didn't reveal an existing card except for a comics-specific one.

So, wanna help me brainstorm squares?

Ideas so far (mine and others'):

It's a children's/YA story.

It's not important to mention the characters' sexualities.

Lesbian/gay/bisexual people only make up X percent of the population, so statistically it makes sense that all the characters are straight.

The creator is at the start of their career and obviously can't risk including queer characters.

Wasn't that one character who had two lines in episode eight gay?

The author said Chracter Y is LGB but it just wasn't specifically mentioned.

It's set in [historical period or historical event] and there's no evidence of any queer people then (and if there was, they were all in the closet).

The creator is gay, why are you singling out their sexuality?

It contains [other minority group], why does it have to have queer people too?

The character is bisexual, they just happen to be attracted to the opposite sex for the whole of this canon.

Why do you have to make everything about sex?

The creator is straight, how can you expect them to write about something they haven't experienced?

It's fantasy! And this universe just doesn't have any queer people in.

There are queer people in my universe.. I just didn't think any of them were worth writing about.

In my universe, nobody cares about sexuality.

They'd just mess it up anyway.

It's about [common setting for situational homosexuality] so that would be stereotyping.

They're as good as dating already!

It just never came up!

The creator is gay, so I'm sure they know what they're doing.

We all know [Character X] and [Character Y] are doing it, anyway

Your contributions are encouraged!



¹I'm aware that the list does not cover the entirety of the queer spectrum. That is because I think the issues of visibility and inclusion around, for example, trans* or asexual characters are sufficiently different from those around LGB characters that one bingo card will not fit all. For that matter, there could probably be separate bingo cards for gay men, bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians, if someone wanted to make them.

Comments

[sebastienne]

It's fantasy! And this universe just doesn't have any queer people in.

Or

There are queer people in my universe.. I just didn't think any of them were worth writing about.

Or

In my universe, nobody cares about sexuality

[kindkit]

Ah, yes, the famous "in my universe all sexualities are okay and nobody cares, therefore no one ever mentions a same-sex partner! Because of TOLERANCE!"

Thanks!

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Or the Diane Duane variant, when asked whether Tom and Carl are a gay couple: see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.motss/msg/25c9214646dd8589

"Let me suggest a question to those interested in this, instead of
giving a straight answer (ooh, pun). What might be good reasons for
me _not_ getting too definite on this subject in the books themselves?

"Hint A: Discard what will possibly be the first reason to come to
mind (i.e. anything to do with potential sales, marketing, or possibly
being banned anyplace).

"Hint B: I really dislike labels. _Any_ kind. I look forward to the
day when there will be no need for them any more, and nothing left but
people for whom it is OK to love other people in ways that do no harm
to the loved (or others). I much doubt I'll see such a time in this
lifetime, but it's a goal worth working for."

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Note: http://www.owlspringspartnership.com/about-us "The Owl Springs Partnership is the husband-and-wife writing team of Belfast-born Peter Morwood and New York native Diane Duane, now resident in Ireland for more than twenty years..."

Sounds like some traditional heterosexual-relationship labeling to me.

[kindkit]

Yeah, I'm always intrigued by how certain straight liberals always think it's queer sexualities and relationships that don't need labels and definitions. And cultural recognition and acknowledgement and tedious old-fashioned stuff like that.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't assume DD is necessarily 100% straight (though she might be for all I know). It's interesting that her very first novel was about a world in which supposedly there are no labels (no straight, gay, bi, etc.), and the sex is pretty free-for-all. But because marriage in that world is tied to childbearing/begetting (NOT to sexual fidelity), it's inherently between men and women, which, in this era of demagogues shouting about Adam'n'Eve-not-Adam'n'-Steve, grates on me. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/10/door-into-fire

[kindkit]

Yes, good point, I shouldn't assume she's straight. However, she doesn't publicly identify as anything other than straight so far as I know, and she does publicly identify herself as married to a partner of the other sex. So she's got the heteronormative privilege that goes with that, and therefore I'm troubled by her making pronouncements about how queer people don't need culturally validated identities labels.