Not Tropeworthy: Straight Gay

As mentioned on the trope's discussion page, the "Straight Gay" essentially functions as a strange trope where non-stereotypical gay characters are dumped. There are a number of serious problems with the page.

The entire premise for the trope relies on the notion that any character who doesn't conform to stereotypes about their sexuality are radical, or an exception to the norm. This is reinforced with the trope name itself, "Straight Gay", which relies on the notion that any non-stereotypically depicted gay people are "acting straight", with this weird implication that being straight is directly connected to all normal behaviour. Quite possibly as a result of this kind of thinking, there's this messed up reflection of this in its usage, where every time I've seen it used it's consistently followed a general pattern of "Despite not showing any of the Classical Gay Symptoms, (Character) is actually gay, believe it or not!". In addition, there is also a tendency for this and other tropes to go into discussions about every trait of a character, and whether or not it "reveals their sexuality", which in turn has led to any non-heterosexual characters to wind up being marked as being Camp Gay (or some variant) or Straight Gay. Often, if a character doesn't completely conform to gender stereotypes, they'll be decreed an aversion, a subversion, or Camp Gay, etc.

Without anything to distinguish it, the Straight Gay trope essentially boils down to a People Sit On Chairs situation, where the entire trope, at least in its current iteration, boils down to ranging anywhere between "Gay characters that conform strictly to their gender stereotypes" and "Gay characters who are not depicted completely stereotypically". In its current iteration, it's a trope that's useless at best and actively harmful at worst, with characters' every trait being described in terms of whether or not it "makes them look gay", and kinda just generally contributes to prejudices.

There's an honest attempt to avert and discuss some of this stuff in the trope page, but unless it's reworked significantly, both in what it's about and especially in how it's used, I'd suggest it should be shrunk, moved onto a trope about how stereotypes are handled, and the page cut.

Any thoughts?

edited 23rd Jun '17 12:23:27 PM by Pattermat

Opening and clocking.

It's more, in my experience of noting where it's used, a character trope (not lampshaded) that's about there being characterisation not regarding sexuality but where it's a deliberate contrast. Like, making a character not stereotypically gay in a way that highlights the fact they are. It's an interesting trope, but doesn't seem to have suffered decay of just being used for any gay character that's not camp. No issue with it.

Doesn't Manly Gay already cover that definition? This one seems like an in-between trope between the latter and Camp Gay.

In my experience, Manly Gay is another stereotype of gay men. Macho Camp is basically a more camp version of Manly Gay. My point being that neither Manly Gay nor Macho Camp are "unstereotypical."

I'd be interested in a wick check to see if there's misuse related whether it's "a trope that's useless at best and actively harmful at worst." How are people around the wiki using Straight Gay?

Straight Gay usually refers to characters who are out but don't make a big deal out of it, which leads to people being surprised when their sexuality comes up. Someone who has no remarkable elements to their gender presentation (but is also gay) doesn't fit those other tropes. I think that it should only be used for cases where the authors intend for The Reveal to *be* a reveal, but I doubt it's always applied that way,

I suspect it's a dying trope because it's becoming more common for people to be open about their sexuality, but it was heavily used on TV Tropes in the past, and thus needs to be preserved in some form for context.

edited 19th Jul '17 8:20:33 AM by Bluewyrm

I feel like this should only be used for deliberate case where it's discussed that a character doesn't fit the gay stereotypes.

The character's sexuality being The Reveal is not necessarily part of the trope.

Also — to further explain my previous point — there are plenty of people in real life who (using Bluewyrm's phrasing) fall under the category of those "who are out but don't make a big deal out of it," which is one of the reasons why I don't think this trope's mere existence is problematic.

I think an overall problem with these non-straight sexuality tropes is that many of them are based on older stereotypes that haven't aged all that well, but people pretend tropes based on a past culture holds up in a modern culture.

They are still used quite often though so they are hardly Dead Horse Trope status.

No, but they become less and less defined so you have fewer straight examples and more of a spectrum of examples that sort of but not exactly fit.

Values Dissonance is at work here. In older works, gays are usually straddled with stereotypes (Camp Gay, Manly Gay, etc), so the act of subverting the stereotype is a notable one.

As values change, nowadays "a gay who's not a stereotype" becomes standard, and thus not notable.

My suggestion is to only keep examples where the work includes other gay characters who are stereotypes. Or where it's lampshaded, like someone saying "you don't look gay" for example. Basically, make Straight Gay into "the one gay who isn't stereotyped" instead of "a gay who isn't stereotyped". The Only Sane Man in gayness, if that makes sense.

That would never work without watching every single wick the trope ever gets. And that kinda missing the point, even now in this day and age gays are still pegged with stereotypes, often toned down or cranked up but still are that.

Really I think we just need to push the 'aside from knowledge of their sexual orientation there is absolutely nothing to the character that says they are' more. Outside of a minor scene or comment informing us 'I'm gay. Ok? Let's get to work with the plot' nothing else says so usually since the work isn't built around that. There is no Ho Yay, situations to remind us, repeated off hand comments or anything like that.

Like when Blizzard said that 'two Overwatch characters were gay', nothing in game led to who they were until they released a comic which had a scene with Tracer and her girlfriend identifying one of the two but that is it.

edited 24th Jul '17 2:13:50 AM by Memers

I can understanding using a stereotype being a trope, but I don't really get how not using a stereotype also being trope.

There are other tropes that are essentially "not using a stereotype," such as Action Girl (and it's right there in the description).

Action Girl has its own share of issues for that same reason, plus being effectively meaningless.

edited 24th Jul '17 9:48:55 AM by Karxrida

How are these tropes effectively meaningless? If something subverts particular expectations in a particular way, that's meaningful.

The problem is that Straight Gay is Not A Subversion, but yes an aversion. And, following Averted Trope, "Aversions should ALMOST NEVER be listed on trope pages. 99.9% of the time they are the exact same thing as just not using the trope. Generally, only nigh Omnipresent Tropes, or aversions only tropes should have aversions listed as examples. Simply not using a trope does not mean a work is an example of a trope."

edited 24th Jul '17 2:43:34 PM by MagBas

This trope should be used cautiously, but isn't meaningless. Perhaps a complete rewrite to avoid People Sit On Chairs could work if done carefully?

Okay the difference between literal subversion or literal aversion seems a bit pedantic because the point was that there's a stereotype that is not being played even though audiences generally expect it to be played.

Moreover, the point that Averted Tropes "should ALMOST NEVER be listed on trope pages" is moot because that article is talking about tropes that are themselves averted. Like, "Averted in Harry Potter, where nothing like this ever happens," as opposed to "In Harry Potter, this happens." We're not talking about a trope that gets listed as being averted, but rather one that is listed as being played.

Straight Gay's entire definition is about something not occurring. If the tropes this averts are not near omnipresent, this has the same level of tropeworthiness as a trope named Non-Greedy Jew.

edited 26th Jul '17 5:24:21 PM by MagBas

This is one of those tropes that is going to be heavily affected by when the work was made. Now it's not tterribly unusual to see a gay character who's ..just gay. But in the past, sexuality that deviated from cis-het tended to be pushed into one of the stereotype tropes if it was mentioned at all.

Throwing out a trope because it isn't used much now is a bad move. We catalog tropes, not "current tropes".

More or less. Straight Gay is more or less a contrasting trope Camp Gay which used to be the assumed norm. As that assumption fades Straight Gay is going to become less out a counterpoint. But it will still apply for works made (or set) for when Camp Gay was still considered to be the "default".

The page may need some careful curating for more modern works, but that doesn't mean its not a valid trope.

I would argue that forms of Camp Gay are still default and Straight Gay is still way outside the norm.

edited 27th Jul '17 12:14:12 AM by Memers

Camp Gay, Manly Gay, Flaming Gay, Lipstick Lesbian, the stereotypical Butch lesbian * and the flip sides: Informed Sexuality and Have I Mentioned Im Gayare all still easier to get away with in modern TV, I'd say. Movies and written fiction are more likely to use Straight Gay than TV is. but it's nowhere near the default yet.

But it's definitely a trope.