A single unified LGBTQ+ conversation

x? more or less but only because I support unique people and not the typical Joe or pathetic celebrities such as markiplier,miley Cyrus,or jj watt because they contribute nothing to society all they want is money and fame but I love people like Lgbt community, Jack Johnson who helps clean up the ocean,and so on.

Uh, what?

Oh sorry I was just talking to someone else.

Uh, what?

Question: What if a work has, let's say, 5 lesbian characters, then kills off one, just one. The other four are fine.

Is this still an instance of Bury Your Gays?

not really it just depends on if the one killed off is the favorite character of the show .

If she's killed for any reason other than being lesbian, no.

Not really.

Bury your gays is about killing of the token character.

If you have a gay character die, but all the characters are gay, that's just par for the course in media, because characters are killed all the time.

That's really subjective.

edited 23rd Jan '17 4:34:02 PM by BaconManiac5000

I think in that case it depends a lot on the context.

For example, if the one who's killed is the most/only sexually active one, or if they're one part of the only relationship in the show, I think that would be an instance of it. If it's like, an action show that just happens to have a lot of gay characters, then probably not.

Agreed on the sexually active thing. Combining Bury Your Gays and always killing the "slut" is the quickest way to piss me off. Seriously...

I'm actually taking a film class right now, and from the very beginning of cinema, if a woman was "sexually liberated" (or, for a while, just plain liberaed. Like having her own career -gasp-) or a "slut" (who would always be evil and ruin the lives of innocent men) she either had to be killed or be seriously punished by the end of the movie. Soon the standard began afflicting LGBT characters as well, once they starting getting portrayed in movies. This shit really needs to die

edited 23rd Jan '17 4:30:22 PM by Cailleach

Yes.

However, is not puttin gay characters in peril a form of societal compensation?

This group of people have it really hard IRL so we're goin to make them seem like angels and nothin bad will happen to them in whatever we're producin.

Am I the only one that sees what's wrong with this picture?

We're so afraid of offendin somebody that we put marginalized groups on a pedestal, effectively wipin away any guilt unmarginalized groups had.

It promotes a form of altruism that's entirely self-centered and only makes those who don't suffer IRL feel vindiacted that they "support" somethin.

"I can't be racist, I loved 12 Years a Slave!"

"I could listen to these people are their plight, but I've seen Milk. I dont need to understand them."

You see what Im sayin? This was what I was gettin at earlier.

That is, in fact, not a real problem.

Gay people die all the time in TV shows and movie. It's kinda like how back in the 80's, there was this joke that the black guy would always die first. So I don't know what you mean when you say "nothin bad will happen to them in whatever we're producin. "

edited 23rd Jan '17 5:51:07 PM by Xopher001

I thought tokenism was a problem? Reducin marginalized groups to mere objects so people can feel better about themselves rather than actually portrayin realistic characters?

Anythin we're producin as in movies, tv shows and the like.

Honestly? If you look at cinema history, this happens every time a harmful stereotype is broken. For example, for the longest time female characters were all passive, emotional, weaklings. So then came a long string of movies and TV shows portraying strong career women, and anything that reverted back to the old stereotype got people angry. For a while. Now since most movies tend to have more than one female character and this stereotype has been broken enough that people no longer expect it the second a female character is introduced, you can portray female characters with more freedoms.

For another example, for a while, black characters were either jovial idiots or savages, so in comes a string of movies and shows with Sidney Poitier-type black characters who always well-spoken and noble. Nowadays, not every black character has to be this way because the mold was thankfully broken.

In order to break a stereotype, there is a short time where you have to shove hard in the other direction

Now, we need to improve our portrayals of LGBT characters

edited 23rd Jan '17 5:59:57 PM by Cailleach

You're allowed to be orientation-blind again when it's normal to have more than a single-digit percentage of gay characters across all of media, and percentages of characters who get killed/maimed/put on buses are roughly equal.

The problem isn't that gay characters get killed/maimed/sent away, it's that there are so few gay characters out there that the ones who do die and suffer disproportionately are almost all of them. Stop making "the gay one" and then the ones who are gay aren't the expendable ones.

What you've got to ask is if there would have been a significant difference had a different, possibly straight, character been killed. If the answer is no, that it didn't matter which character was killed to have that affect (or worse, that it wouldn't matter if a character was killed or not), then there is no good reason to kill the queer character over a straight character. If there are more straight characters in the work, as there usually are, then there's actually better reason for one of them to have been in that role (law of statistics). It might not be deliberately Bury Your Gays by the creators choosing the queer character, but it has the same ultimate effect; perhaps even more so: out of all the characters, with no reason to kill one, the one most expendable is the queer one. It doesn't send good messages. It may depend on individual cases, but most of the time it does fall into the carelessness and is really bad for representation and obviously for maintaining realistic queer stories (can't have them if all the characters are dead).

I'm sorry. our inevitable march to Mad-max means it's spring in january and my sinuses are dying so I'm a bit wibbly and incoherent right now but, um, i actually thought this was an OTC thread for a second because we don't usually do debates here

but, with all due respect, what's your deal philosopher?

i just want LGBTA characters who have happy endings and don't die either A) because they had sex or B) for a tragic inspirational story

but i'm super biased because for a long time it was so hard to find any LGBTA characters in anything so each one was a precious pearl of unexpected grace in a cold and uncaring universe

so killing them meant all representation in that thing died

Gays in media:

• Most likely effeminate
• Either villainous or dead

Lesbians in media:

• Most likely masculine
• Either villainous or dead

Bisexuals in media:

• Most likely promiscuous
• Either villainous or used as fanservice (or dead?)

That should sum it up about nicely, I guess?

Model comes out as intersex, everyone thinks it's about gender

@FD And aromantics and asexuals don't exist

Sorry if I'm derailing the thread, but when it comes to representation and diversity, we can always trust the Internet. But I've been trying to ask myself this very important question-

What happens if the representation seems too forced, such as in the Ask Humantale Tumblr?◊

Do we applaud them for their attempt, or do we revile them for trying too hard and creating diversity for diversity's sake?

Why would we revile them for trying to hard?

I think gay people may also appear as comedic characters. Or maybe those are effeminate male characters, so effeminate gay characters are the intersection of both sets?

Well, my point is, in that Tumblr, the mods make each and every character in Undertale minorities, even if it doesn't fit the canon and/or doesn't fulfill any purpose. (For example, if Asgore's a gay transman, how did he get together with Toriel, an androromantic transwoman? And yes, I am well aware of the fact that trans men and trans women can reproduce, but that is besides the point.)

edited 23rd Jan '17 6:55:43 PM by fdiaperhead