Follow TV Tropes

Queerbaiting

Go To

A media work's attempt to lure an LGBT fanbase with either false hints of representation or stereotyped, non-essential LGBT characters

This trope has been Nuked
Proposed By:
rightyo on Jan 14th 2015 at 5:23:16 AM
Last Edited By:
AndreaTx on Jun 9th 2018 at 11:58:13 AM
Name Space: Main
Page Type: Trope

"Sometimes we'll do a take for that demo. I'll brush by [Maura's] blouse or maybe linger for a moment. As long as we're not being accused of being homophobic, which is not in any way true and completely infuriating, I'm OK with it."
Angie Harmon (Jane Rizzoli) on Rizzoli & Isles

In the world of newspapers, there is one definition of "queer baiting": to invoke homophobia as a means to suggest unreliability (e.g. "... an openly-gay ex-Olympic fencer").

In popular media, there is another: to portray queerness in order to attract an LGBT Fanbase (and also the liberal and Millennial viewers also more interested in seeing representative stories), but never actually confirm it. Though the term seems pejorative, queerbaiting is not necessarily negative, but as a means to capitalise on both the queer and straight storytelling potential, and to retain as large an audience as possible. Basically, it's allowing the audience to see what they want to — and never outright denying nor confirming anything.

This is the queer preamble to a Ship Tease scenario, but it is not always surrounding a couple — in some cases, it may be the suspected belonging to the LGBT+ community of a single character. This extends it to include cases of characters that may appear to be trans*, asexual, polyamorous, and other identities under the LGBT umbrella. Queerbaiting may also be present in works where the suspicion has in fact been resolved: confirmation either In-Universe or out, either for or against (i.e. explicitly stating a character's sexuality, even if their behaviour is contrary). One of these resolutions is the Bait-and-Switch Lesbians trope: teasing a lesbian couple, but they're really just very close, straight, friends.

It is frequently associated with the television shows Supernatural and Sherlock, surrounding their male leads. In these cases, the characters are named as straight, but still given homoerotic interactions with each other — it is also most likely a conscious decision.

It is important for fans to remember that not all instances of perceived queerbaiting are a malicious effort on the part of the work's creators, that it may be unintentionally appearing that way, or just noticed by queer fans. Of course, there are many deliberate examples, both in works and in cleverly designed promotional materials. In works the queerbaiting is likely to be rather overt content, or the kind of subtext which has a long queer-related history; in promos it will likely be moments that only appear as queer as they do without the actual context they would appear in.

Within the use of queerbaiting versus actual representation, you may have noticed a gender divide, and it is reasonably apparent: creators are much more open to showing actual queer women characters. This is probably because it will supposedly not alienate any part of the audience: it appeals to queer people and straight men, and both marketing and psychological research suggest that if the characters (no matter gender or orientation) are developed then female viewers will not care to not watch.

There is another situation which fans may also designate as queerbaiting, this is the inclusion of characters that are gay in-name-only: examples where a character, who could be a main character, is confirmed as queer, but the ramifications of this (same-sex attraction, interest in queer causes, etc.) are never seen — they might as well be straight for all the effect it has on the character and story. This being practically the reverse of standard queerbaiting by taking a queer character and giving them wholly straight attributes, may perhaps be an attempt to hide this sexuality whilst still having "representation" and to attract queer, and liberal, viewers whilst also placating Heteronormative Crusaders. This scenario is one that appears to be happening more often in The New '10s, possibly in line with progressive social change forcing more representation. Of course, not all representation is done well, and may even further be teasing queer audiences without substance.

What is today referred to as queerbaiting was once the only legitimate way to incorporate homosexuality into a work, for example in the play Rope, but is now often seen by fans as an excuse to avoid having representation whilst reaping the benefits of playing both sides, getting the queer and straight audiences happy to watch, and "punishing" the queer viewers by leaving them without a satisfactory storyline and exploiting their desire for one to keep them watching with only little chance of genuine queer characters.

One specific, 2010s, form of queerbaiting is the Bury Your Gays version that caused public outcry and even sparked campaigns against the trope. The queer character's death would occur shortly after either confirmation of their sexuality/gender or something significant related to this (first happening in Buffy the Vampire Slayer when Tara got shot after having sex with Willow). Thus, it further supports that the character is being killed or Put on a Bus for their queerness, both in universe and out, and is more meaningful in the way that the representation had only just occurred but has been taken away before it can be cemented and have an effect on the work.

See also: Homoerotic Subtext, Hide Your Lesbians.

Examples of commonly-discussed queerbaiting works, with descriptions and explanations, can be found in the Analysis tab.


Feedback: 225 replies

Jan 14th 2015 at 5:32:30 AM

I know it's similar to Bait-and-Switch Lesbians (though that's rather narrow in focus to Ho Yay-filled non-romantic pairings rather than the many facets of queerbaiting as a whole) and possibly a rather contentious YMMV/Audience Reaction trope, it has become a very hot button issue even beyond the LGBT community, with anaylsis over how prevelant it is in many of today's tv shows, movies etc, so I think it's worth it to bring the issue into greater focus, even if it doesn't work as a trope on this website.

Ill work on more examples a bit later on.

Jan 14th 2015 at 5:41:39 AM

This seems soapboxey and complainy to me. It just doesn't feel like a good fit for TV Tropes. I am not saying that this isn't a thing, I just don't see how it would work as a trope without immediately devolving into Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.

Also, I think the majority of the salvageable parts of this are covered by Get Back In The Closet, Hide Your Lesbians, and But Not Too Gay.

Jan 14th 2015 at 5:55:06 AM

Yeah, even though the term Queerbaiting become a more identifeable and distinguishable thing it's perhaps best discussed in forums and less of a concrete media trope, even though I don't think it's quite fully covered with all those tropes mentioned above. But yes I do agree it's perhaps fuel for Flame baiting and a lot of just complaining about shows that tick you off, which could really do more harm than good.

Jan 14th 2015 at 6:56:36 AM

Maybe this can be launched as a Useful Notes page? Including a "no examples, this just defines the term" note?

It's defintely a Thing, but the problem I've seen a lot on the interwebs is people being unable to decide where the line is between genuine queerbairing and people just being upset their ship isn't canon. The later tends to undermine the former A LOT and would attract a lot of editing wars. But because it is something in media with prevalence, we should at least have a page acknowledging it exists.

Jan 14th 2015 at 11:37:24 AM

This is one of the Tropes In Aggregate. As such, it's hard to determine whether a given work is guilty of it, unless the creators are uncommonly blatant.

Jan 14th 2015 at 8:24:37 PM

^ That seems to be about when a couple is confirmed to be gay but doesn't get to show public displays of affection. My understanding of queer baiting is it usually refers to when two supposedly straight people show ambiguous homosexual subtext, but nothing ever comes of it (with the creator intention of "baiting" people interested in seeing a queer relationship develop). It is pretty close to Hide Your Lesbians though, having looked closer at that one.

Jan 14th 2015 at 9:10:50 PM

In the end I agree using it as a trope is both a bit inaccurate because it is way too subjective, and doing so could do more harm than good as most of it could start rather bitter arguments over every example given if it's geniune queerbaiting or not, and it's hard to find concrete evidence anywhere. In honesty I actually wasn't aware of the Useful Notes page (noob), and I agree that's probably a better place for it in the long run as it at least gets the term (and the issue) some wider exposure.

Jan 14th 2015 at 9:49:38 PM

I vote to make it Useful Notes. If examples are allowed, it could make the page Flame Bait

Jul 18th 2016 at 2:05:05 PM

So... Is this Useful Notes worthy?

Jul 18th 2016 at 2:27:43 PM

This is Useful Notes worthy, and should make mention of But Not Too Gay (creators via Word Of Gay naming gay characters to get the LGBT Fanbase and then sidelining the characters and/or their entire sexuality, having them effectively straight bar name), Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss, Bait And Switch Lesbians. There would, of course, be an option to include a list of — or reference to — examples that are A. confirmed by the creators, or B. blatant in its use and with unanimously or near-unanimous agreement within fans and community that queerbaiting was at play.

Jul 18th 2016 at 2:55:01 PM

It's Bait And Switch Lesbians. It's also flamebait, given the way that some slash fans make claims of "queerbaiting" based on really tenuous Slash Goggles readings of things like "these characters exist in the same show".

Jul 18th 2016 at 10:50:41 PM

A less offensive term would be "queer tease" or "queer teasing work"

Aug 17th 2017 at 4:28:16 PM

I agree, this would make a bad Trope page.

Too much Flame Bait, too prone to Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, too similar to existing Tropes to be distinct, too subjective...

It might be fine as a Useful Notes page to define the term, but examples would be a Bad Idea

Apr 14th 2017 at 1:35:28 AM

Useful Notes sounds good, and if a work uses the term, it should only be used as a Discussed trope.

Apr 14th 2017 at 10:32:13 PM

^^^ Queerbaiting is an actual term that is used in LGBT circles, however; I don't see why we can't apply the name here. However, as ^^ says, it can get very YMMV. Fourthing no-examples Useful Notes.

Apr 15th 2017 at 7:18:53 AM

Even if this is made Useful Notes, it will only be linked when accusing something of Queerbaiting, which means this will only encourage Flame Bait complaints on YMMV pages instead of documenting conventions in media.

This just feels like an invitation for trouble.

Apr 15th 2017 at 8:43:14 AM

^ You're saying that if the term exists as a page (any kind of page) in our site, it'll lead to Flame War?

Apr 15th 2017 at 9:51:33 AM

I don't think this is likely to lead to Flame Wars, if only because in a situation where a troper could link the page in order to provoke someone they could type the word (without the page) and have the same effect, which clearly hasn't happened. The flamiest term around is Mary Sue, but people behave themselves with that page.

Apr 15th 2017 at 11:14:48 AM

The point of a Useful Notes page is to be linked when it is discussed in trope examples. As such, making a page for Queerbaiting will encourage and legitimize people who want to complain about it on the wiki.

Apr 15th 2017 at 11:18:50 PM

Useful Notes are not tropes, their primary purpose is to educate. This is a real-life thing that happens, and "people might not behave" is not a good reason to not have a page for it.

Apr 16th 2017 at 12:27:28 PM

Actually, I think that having a link to a Useful Notes page will be more productive to preventing flame wars. If it were included in a description or explanation with no link to educative information on the topic, people may not quite understand what is being said — which could lead to arguments and negative edits. With a link there, people will follow it, and hopefully an objective explanation full of facts in a neutral tone will quash any rising misbehaviour, and encourage them to, if they disagree with the inclusion of the term, debate it maturely. So, it might be more positive to have a page.

Apr 16th 2017 at 4:08:19 PM

If nothing else, it's a commonly used term used in analysing media. We need a definition.

Apr 17th 2017 at 6:01:27 AM

May I propose some re-writes, if nothing more to prevent Wall Of Text.

Apr 17th 2017 at 6:12:57 AM

Queer Baiting

In the world of newspapers, there is one definition of "queer baiting": to invoke homophobia as a means to suggest unreliability (e.g. "... an openly-gay ex-Olympic fencer").

In popular media, there is another: to portray queerness to attract an LGBT Fanbase, but never actually confirm it. Though the term seems pejorative, queerbaiting is not necessarily negative, but as a means to capitalise on both the queer and straight storytelling potential, and to retain as large an audience as possible. Basically, it's allowing the audience to see what they want to — and never outright denying nor confirming anything.

This is the queer preamble to a Ship Tease scenario, but it is not always surrounding a couple — in many cases, it may be the suspected belonging to the LGBT+ community of a single character. Queerbaiting may also be present in works where the suspicion has been resolved: confirmation either In Universe of out, either for or against. One of these resolutions is the Bait And Switch Lesbians trope: teasing a lesbian couple, but they're really just very close, straight, friends.

Apr 17th 2017 at 6:40:32 AM

It is most commonly associated with the television shows Supernatural and Sherlock, surrounding their male leads. In these cases, the characters are named as straight, but still given homoerotic interactions with each other — it is also most likely a conscious decision.

It is important for fans to remember that not all instances of perceived queerbaiting are a malicious effort on the part of the work's creators, that it may be unintentionally appearing that way, or just noticed by queer fans. Of course, there are many deliberate examples, some of which are covered by the trope Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss: the use of promoting a homosexual relationship to improve viewings, often between girls, and then never returning to the storyline.

Sometimes, though, the queerbaiting is actually part of a long game reveal. This is seen in the show The Legend Of Korra, where Korra and her female friend Asami grew increasingly close over two seasons, before getting together in the series finale as a way to evade censorship. You may just have to wait for it.

You may have noticed a gender divide here, and sad to say it is apparent: creators are much more open to showing actual queer women characters. This is probably because it will supposedly not alienate any part of the audience: it appeals to queer people and straight men, and both marketing and psychological research suggest that if the characters (no matter gender or orientation) are developed then female viewers will not care to not watch.

Apr 17th 2017 at 6:49:54 AM

The other forms of this kind of queerbaiting are to include gay characters in one of two ways: the Token Gay Stereotype, in the form of a Butch Lesbian or Camp Gay satellite relative, friend, or neighbor, and the Gay In-Name-Only, where a character, who could be a main character, is confirmed as queer, but the ramifications of this (same-sex attraction, interest in queer causes) are never seen — they might as well be straight, asexual, or alien for all the effect it has on the character and story. These are attempts at representation gone wrong, the first being to show queer people while still preserving the stereotype and difference, the second being practically the reverse of standard queerbaiting by taking a queer character and giving them wholly straight attributes, perhaps in an attempt to hide this sexuality. Either case could be purely accidental on behalf of the cast and/or crew, but may also potentially be an attempt to attract queer, and liberal, viewers whilst also placating Heteronormative Crusaders.

Apr 18th 2017 at 2:21:01 AM

It'll still need some editing, and there should be a section on the ...negative internet reactions to queerbaiting, but I think that's written in a satisfactorily neutral tone.

(find a full draft at my sandbox)

So, Useful Notes

Apr 18th 2017 at 8:43:59 AM

Slight nitpick; it's, ironically, very gay-centric; "queer" covers the entire LGBT spectrum, not just the G.

Apr 18th 2017 at 9:12:28 AM

As much as I think a trope like this is real, and needed, this is the sort of page that will inevitably get hijacked by reactionaries and applied to ANY page just because it has queer content.

If launched, we need to discuss serious ground rules to prevent that.

Apr 18th 2017 at 9:46:07 AM

So, is this a trope page or an Useful Notes?

Apr 18th 2017 at 10:01:17 AM

^^^ It's more complicated than that, though. You can be gay but not "queer," or trans* but not "queer." I wouldn't say a Straight Gay man is "queer," for example, nor would a fishy trans* person be "queer." My point is that, yes, "queer" is in no way specific to the G, but it is not at all specific to all gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, or trans* people. I understand that this article relies pretty heavily on the stereotypical LGBT set of characters, and the word "queer" typically falls in line with the stereotypes (an effeminate gay man could reasonably be labeled as "queer" whereas a Straight Gay man couldn't).

^ Honestly, I think this would be YMMV. Phrasing like "(non-)essential" and "intentions" are usually red flags for subjectivity.

Apr 18th 2017 at 10:43:42 AM

@ Pichu & King Zeal: Did either of you two read the comments before adding your own?

^ True, but missing the point, somewhat. Yes queer is separate from LGBT, but the issue was that the way laking's draft is worded, you would think that queerbaiting only applies to gay characters (indeed, it even specifically excludes asexuals at one point).

Apr 18th 2017 at 11:09:27 AM

Yes, I read them. My point stands.

This page being a Useful Note is no guarantee that what I described above will be prevented. Useful Notes pages are, and continue to be, linked on pages incorrectly all the time. And, on top of that, the aforementioned people I worry about (people who WANT to hijack the term for their purposes) are not going to give a damn what the description says. That, or they'll wait until no one's looking to subtlely edit the description. These are things I've SEEN happen here.

^^ I'm pretty sure I've seen Straight Gay men referred to as "queer" before. "Queer", in broad strokes, simply means "atypical". I've seen it used for almost EVERY area of the LGBTQAI spectrum, often by people who self-identify. This includes straight men with an Unmanly Secret like wearing copious makeup.

Apr 18th 2017 at 11:27:48 AM

^^ I read them a few months ago, not when I made my new comment. This seems like it would be a bit hard to trope properly. It's similar to Hide Your Lesbians and Bait And Switch Lesbians but creates a lot more arguments.

^ Ys, Straight Gay men are 'queer'. Anyone who is on the LGBT spectrum is 'queer', though whether they personally identify as such is a different story. The only part of the LGBT community that is up in the bag on whether they're queer or not is heteroromantic asexuals, but that's not a discussion for here.

Apr 18th 2017 at 6:21:08 PM

^^ Yeah, I'm sure Straight Gay men will be called "queer" by various people. That doesn't mean that is what "queer" connotes or is correct use. Many masculine gay men wouldn't be "queer." You said it yourself that it "simply means 'atypical.'" Also, what you said about straight men "wearing copious makeup" proves my point. "Queer" does not simply mean "gay" or "LGBT." The term does not include everyone under the sun as that would defeat the purpose of having such a term in the first place. (Also, people who self-identify could self-identify as anything, and so that's a moot point.)

This brings me back to ^^^. Queerbaiting would only apply to the stereotypical LGBT person. Otherwise, the "baiting" would include an accurate portrayal and thus wouldn't really be "queerbaiting."

^ "But creates a lot more arguments," which is why I suggest it being a YMMV.

Apr 18th 2017 at 6:46:28 PM

Nope, that's wrong.

As with most appropriated identity signifiers, it has a very flexible meaning because it greatly depends on what the group it refers to accepts as its meaning. People who self-identify CAN self-identify as anything when it's a term with no hard definition. And, despite what you're trying to say, "queer" does not have one.

If the people self-identifying themselves as queer are wrong, and the people who lovingly accept them as queer are wrong, and the original dictionary term is vague, what authority are you deferring to define the term?

Apr 18th 2017 at 8:01:03 PM

Also, nobody needs to be stereotypical for something to be queerbaiting. It just has to heavily, purposefully tease at the possibility of characters being LGBT or having LGBT relationships only to end up defaulting to heteronormativity, at least in the case of characters who matter.

Apr 18th 2017 at 10:00:51 PM

<modhat> This is a pre-existing term. While the people who invented it perhaps didn't pick the best word, the TLP is not the place for a discussion on the exact definition of queer. If we're making a Useful Notes page, please just focus on defining the term as it's used in the wild.

Apr 19th 2017 at 4:22:23 AM

Since @rightyo hasn't been in ykttw for a few months, and the current draft is very subjective, would anyone object if I pasted my rewrite here and let you all go wild with how to edit that to good standard? I noticed the comment on it being more gay-centric, and where it is in the draft, but I think you're better to judge where it needs rewriting.

Apr 19th 2017 at 11:36:45 AM

Yeah, even if it still needs more tweaking, I'd say your proposal is better written and a lot clearer than the one currently in the OP.

Apr 19th 2017 at 11:58:39 AM

That page image is TERRIBLE, if not only for the fact that it paints LGBT people as gullible as long as you dangle "representation" in front of them.

Apr 19th 2017 at 1:27:35 PM

^ would an image of a queerbaiting trailer work? Because I know everyone's being going mad over the new Supergirl one (shows Kara/Lena, Lena's ex-boyfriend, angry Kara, all with the inter titles "how far would you go for love"), like here.

EDIT: This image is better, but has youtube tags. (Also, may not be the best example since Supergirl did such a good job of Alex's [the second lead's] Coming Out Story.)

Edit 2: I've made a version of that set without tags, how's it look?

Apr 19th 2017 at 1:58:06 PM

If the work hasn't even come out yet, does it even qualify?

Is Queerbaiting when works tease LGBT content at all, or is it when they tease it and then don't deliver?

Apr 19th 2017 at 2:00:53 PM

I have absolutely no idea what's supposed to be going on in the page image.

Apr 19th 2017 at 2:10:08 PM

^^ I don't think that's for me to answer (I thought trailer because that doesn't rely on dialogue to show the effect, and I guess the trailer counts as a work in itself). In my opinion, when there's overtly queer undertones that are never acted upon, that's queer baiting. I think if the teasing is known of by the creators and still explicit, even if they plan on doing something about it, it could well be seen as queer baiting — and it is a fan-reaction, a fan-term, so this shouldn't be ruled out.

Apr 19th 2017 at 2:17:38 PM

If following through with the bait and providing good representation are irrelevant, then this page is redundant since I don't see how it's any different from invoking LGBT Fanbase.

Apr 19th 2017 at 2:38:21 PM

^ Because this is Useful Notes? And maybe they are relevant, since "it could be seen as" doesn't mean "this is".

Apr 19th 2017 at 4:13:27 PM

Supergirl might not be the best example for a page image, since it has an actual queer romance in the series and Kara and Alex are sisters.

Not to mention the caption (and the part in the article about a gay character who "might as well" be asexual) implies that asexuals aren't examples of queer representation. These are Unfortunate Implications we'd best avoid (parts of the LGBTQ community trying to gatekeep asexuals and other less well represented parts of the community is a fairly contentious issue).

Apr 19th 2017 at 4:53:56 PM

^ I figured that it was at least better than the other one (and it's Lena in the image, not Alex). The caption is a pun on the fact that the episode it's from is called "Ace Reporter", but I'll cut the bit in the description (and the 'or alien', because it's hard to make Rule Of Three work with two).

Apr 19th 2017 at 5:00:02 PM

I'm going to repeat again that as someone who has no familiarity with Supergirl the illustration is completely incomprehensible to me.

Apr 19th 2017 at 5:29:32 PM

You don't need knowledge of the show, it's the juxtaposition. It shows "how far would you go", a picture of an angry Kara, a picture of Lena kissing a man, then "for love", a picture of Kara and Lena in an intimate position. It's suggesting that Kara's upset at the kiss and goes to extremes to get Lena for herself, but they're just friends. But, yeh, Supergirl has great queer representation so it's a bit unfair to make it the image.

Apr 19th 2017 at 5:33:25 PM

Oh, so the woman with her face obscured is the same woman as in the last panel? And the blonde girl is supposed to be mad watching them despite the fact that the background is different? It's really hard to tell.

Apr 19th 2017 at 8:14:49 PM

This is definitely related to Ship Tease and Will They Or Wont They, but for queer couples.

Apr 19th 2017 at 8:23:42 PM

Yeahhh, I have no idea what's going on in that image. All I see is a woman, a guy and a girl kissing, and two girls sitting together. I couldn't form what links the three images together.

Apr 19th 2017 at 10:35:25 PM

"I think if the teasing is known of by the creators and still explicit, even if they plan on doing something about it, it could well be seen as queer baiting — and it is a fan-reaction, a fan-term, so this shouldn't be ruled out."

So...just advertising LGBT content at all is a "trope" now? That seems unfairly alienating to LGBT people. Are works like Get Out and Cloak And Dagger "Interracial Baiting"? Are they "Heteronormative Baiting"?

If this is page is just "The show actually shows LGBT content in its advertising, therefore it's baiting LGBT people specifically", that is such an insulting Double Standard that I can't hit the nuke button fast enough.

Apr 19th 2017 at 11:01:36 PM

Yeah, reading through the page again it seems rather needlessly broad. The draft encompasses:

  • Deliberate Homoerotic Subtext that's never followed up on (which is the definition I usually hear)
  • A character who seems to be LGBT but isn't really
  • Including actual LGBT representation as a publicity stunt and then forgetting about it
  • Teasing LGBT content...and then actually following through, because it was just normal Ship Tease
  • Including a character who's too stereotypically LGBT
  • Including a character who's LGBT but not LGBT enough

This really seems like just a list of ways that LGBT representation might not be good enough, rather than the common use of the term which refers to creators not providing representation they promised either explicitly or implicitly. See Wikipedia.

Apr 20th 2017 at 3:31:01 AM

As a Useful Notes page, it should really describe every kind of thing that fans can perceive as queerbaiting.

However, I understand that some of the ideas are easily covered by tropes and for some to single out a queer version is quite offensive, so do you want it to be:

  • Deliberate Homoerotic Subtext that's never followed up on
  • A character who seems to be LGBT but isn't (the above but minus a couple, and it could be teasing trans* or other queer identities)
  • Get rid of the inclusion of Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss
  • Get rid of the Ship Tease part
  • Get rid of the "character who's too stereotypically LGBT" (just bad representation)
  • Including a character who's LGBT but not LGBT enough (because with works moving to almost needing confirmed queer characters, this is what is happening more)

Apr 20th 2017 at 11:37:13 AM

Eh, the word "queerbaiting" has a definition. The fact that fandoms tend to misuse it a lot, usually for shipping reasons, doesn't change that. Even then, teasing representation and not following through is by far the most accepted usage of the term pretty much everywhere you go.

I would say that the page would best be limited to the first two bullets, as the last is easily covered just by linking to But Not Too Gay and But Not Too Bi.

Apr 20th 2017 at 12:16:47 PM

^ Ok, what do you think now. I have kept some of the But Not Too Gay part, but shortened it. It still covers two short paragraphs, I'm trying to work out how to integrate them.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 10:00:57 AM

I think the article does look better. Not sure that I would link to Buzzfeed, though, given a) their reputation for fluff and clickbait and b) the fact that article is so topical it'll be outdated by this time next year. Also, that image is no better: without context, they just look like a bully and a victim.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 10:21:41 AM

^ guess it'll go pictureless, then.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 3:02:55 PM

How about doing a picture from Rizzoli and Isles, given how notorious its publicity is for implying that the characters are liable to start shagging at any moment?

Apr 22nd 2017 at 3:04:08 PM

Do we really want specific examples on the analysis page? Personally, I think having examples at all is a temptation to people who would start engaging in "the fact that my personal slash ship hasn't been made canon is proof that everyone involved with this show is homophobic scum" posturing.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 3:16:40 PM

^ Fair. How about making the main Queerbaiting page into a disambig for the related tropes. (and for the image idea, this is the first thing that comes up for a "rizzoli & isles promo" search, any good?

Apr 22nd 2017 at 3:25:01 PM

How about you put that promo image, labelled "In the ads", and then put a second panel of one of the ladies with a man labelled "In the show"?

Apr 22nd 2017 at 4:08:38 PM

^ how about just the image with some witty caption about what it's selling or False Advertisement or something?

Apr 22nd 2017 at 4:34:18 PM

Not really. And with your suggestion, it'd look more like Never Trust A Trailer instead.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 4:45:09 PM

If an image is just a picture and the caption has to tell you how it applies, then it's Just A Face And A Caption.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 4:50:45 PM

It could stand without a caption, but if something funny can be thought of to add to that, why not.

Apr 22nd 2017 at 5:47:26 PM

No, it cannot stand without a caption because there's nothing within the image itself that suggests that this is bait and they're not really lesbians.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 3:29:39 AM

^ welcome to the idea of queerbaiting.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 10:06:22 AM

Queerbaiting is actually already a trope; it's a redirect for the poorly named Bait And Switch Lesbians, which also covers male examples, apparently. There's entries for Supernatural and Sherlock on the page and the description refers to Queerbaiting directly.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 10:31:58 AM

Technically queerbaiting can also cover baiting LGBTQ characters without any actual relationship teased, though. e.g. if it was heavily implied that a character might be transgender, or attracted to the same sex, or there's a vague Word Of Gay, but no follow through.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 12:33:53 PM

Really? I've never heard it used that way.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 1:20:34 PM

Welcome, once again, to the very loosely-defined definition of "queer".

Apr 23rd 2017 at 2:48:50 PM

To say it's bait but "without any actual relationship teased" doesn't seem correct at all.

Apr 23rd 2017 at 5:30:55 PM

We don't need more PC complaining tropes.

Apr 24th 2017 at 5:58:39 AM

If ya'll hadn't noticed... Useful Notes. To try to curb the complaining by having a comprehensive definition present.

Apr 24th 2017 at 11:03:44 AM

^^^ Basically it's not just relationships that can be teased as "bait", as there are plenty of ways to imply a character's LGBTQ without implying they're attracted to another character. For example, a character could be queerbaited by having it mentioned they changed their name from a birth name that's more common with the opposite sex, frequently injecting some sort of medication (as oestrogen and testosterone typically are for HRT) and other signs that they're a transitioned transgender person to the point where it's not meant to be a coincidence, but have it turn out to be a case of A Boy Named Sue, a medical condition and just happening to be androgynous.

^^ To prevent that, we would first need to know what a "PC complaining trope" is.

Apr 24th 2017 at 12:00:12 PM

^ So LGBT implications through (1) relationship hints that don't go anywhere or (2) hints that a character is transitioning (or has already transitioned) when they are not actually transitioning? My concern is about concrete or obvious examples. I think what you've just said in ^ would be a pretty obvious example (if I've understood you correctly).

^^^ I think I get what you mean, but as long as any new such tropes aren't duplicates or obvious redundancies, I don't think it's really a problem.

I'd like to reiterate Fighteer's question from ATT, though, just to make sure it's addressed by people participating in this discussion: "What useful information would this article provide to writers? How not to queerbait?" I'm also not sure if the current version of the draft provides such information...

Apr 24th 2017 at 1:17:13 PM

Gray areas are always going to be a problem in Real Life Double Standard-based tropes because people who perpetuate these Double Standards (whether on purpose or by accident) get better, or more discreet, about doing so. What if, by next year, the new trend is to show an actual gay couple onscreen in a pilot episode, but then one of them reveals it was just an "experiment" (or any other reason to end things, really), breaks up with their partner, and that's the last time any queer relationship comes up?

Sure, technically it "had a gay couple" but then discarded it for the rest of the series.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:52:30 AM

Hey. Responding to the ATT and comments here — would scrapping examples be a good idea? And, if we were to define the term and then elaborate on how it's seen as present in works and how to steer around queerbaiting, does that give for useful info to writers?

Apr 25th 2017 at 6:07:32 AM

My solution would be to do the same thing I did for Women Are Delicate and Men Are Tough:

Make this a Missing Super Trope that lists and indexes other tropes which can be used for (or accused of) queerbaiting. For example, Experimented In College, Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss, But Not Too Gay, etc. The description could thus be focused on explaining how the tropes in question work together and are separate from the standard Homophobia Index.

It would also prevent the queerbaiting trope from being defined too narrow since, as I said above, people WILL find new ways of doing it subtly.

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:06:11 AM

What about the main page (currently a redirect to Bait And Switch Lesbians) being turned into that kind of index — I do think that for people to not abuse the ideas that a "here's how we're objectively defining it" link could be useful, unless your idea includes having that on a Super Trope-cum-info page?

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:54:40 AM

Yeah, the main page being turned into an index is, in my opinion, the right call. Again, though, we have to be REALLY careful about "objectively defining" the trope because it WILL be an Evolving Trope in the future.

My suggestion would be to follow the example of Unfortunate Implications and make it so that any pothole to the page requires a credible source, primarily from LGBTQ journalism, critics or fans. note 

Apr 25th 2017 at 9:35:57 AM

I thought the reason Unfortunate Implications requires sources is because the trope would become so common (e.g. everyone finding unfortunate implications in everything) that it would become meaningless without outside sources (e.g. this specific person finds unfortunate implications in this particular thing in the work). I don't think Queerbaiting would have that same issue. And saying that "queer opinions win over non-queer opinions by default" means that we would need to define "queer" all over again, especially since the pre-existing term is confined to "homosexuals" whereas the previous discussion seemed to be of the opinion that it isn't confined at all (or at least not nearly as confined as the pre-existing term).

Apr 25th 2017 at 10:26:38 AM

Maybe needing some link (even to tumblr...) may help differentiate from things like Homoerotic Subtext, which sees things like "there are two women stood next to each other". That may be subtext, but it's not going to be queerbaiting.

Apr 25th 2017 at 12:06:40 PM

^^ Again, I am 99.99999% sure that without proper precautions, this page will be used for "queer content I want to complain about".

What I specifically said in the note was: "Primarily" meaning that non-LGBTQ sources are allowed, but to avoid Opinion Override, if queer consensus differs from non-queer consensus, then queer consensus wins by default." Prefacing that statement with LGBTQ was intentional on my part.

I'll once again repeat that queer (in colloquial speech) is not "confined to homosexuals". As you can see, even dictionaries disagree on what it means. Which is why I am using the entire LGBTQAI word salad to cover as many reasonable definitions of "queer" as there are. As I said here, it doesn't matter how we define the term; misuse will stem from what the layperson believes "queer" means. And, as shimaspawn agreed above, the layperson's meaning (broad though it may be) is what we should use.

Apr 25th 2017 at 1:10:09 PM

The term "queer" is derogatory, leading to Unfortunate Implications. Should the title be modified?

Apr 25th 2017 at 1:41:26 PM

Well, I mean so is Fag Hag. But like it, it's a preexisting term and concept, though. We could try to come up with our own name for the concept, but in the process, we lose the common recognition.

Apr 25th 2017 at 1:53:53 PM

I really don't see how this is going to be anything but Flame Bait and/or drama importation. This is a very touchy issue on both sides and the name is deliberately inflammatory for that very reason. I just don't see what this page could actually offer our site other than a potential ground for arguments.

Apr 25th 2017 at 2:13:54 PM

There's always going to be flames (do bear in mind we already have tropes which cover aspects of the idea of queerbaiting), and to say that dealing with queer content will bring drama is getting close to wanting to erase queer content so there's nothing to complain about. I respect you all, and that might be reading too much into it, but the more people keep saying that having a page will only cause drama the more it's starting to get offensive. (Reading through my comment: I'm aware it's not the content that causes problems, it's idiots who can't handle it, but we can just revert their edits if they make stupid ones; I'd be following the page and related tabs myself for that any way.)

Apr 25th 2017 at 2:31:54 PM

We can't be there to revert every edit. And if this trope gets popular, we could be looking at hundreds or thousands of wicks across the site. (That's an extreme case, but it's a risk one takes anytime a trope is launched.) Policing one or two idiots isn't a problem. Policing a site full of trope decay or trope hijacking very much is a problem.

And really, you should not feel offended. All pages, including tropes and YKTT Ws, are community projects. I've had more tropes rejected than I can count, and I've had several that needed major revisions before or after launch.

Apr 25th 2017 at 3:39:46 PM

^oh, not about the draft, I meant offensive edging on homophobic (i.e. having gay stuff causes drama, so we shouldn't have it for that reason). It's not even my YKTTW.

Ideally, people will only pothole to "Queer Baiting" over one of the tropes in the most apt of situations. It shouldn't have examples, so that will be one preventative measure.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:11:23 PM

I don't think it's offensive to point out that a this will likely lead to drama since it is HEAVILY tied to shipping and one of the proposed fixes for it is to link to outside sites which only increases the odds of importing drama.

And again, for what? I genuinely don't know why at the potential upside to it is in terms of value to the wiki and how that outweighs the potential drama.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:21:16 PM

Like a lot of people have likely said, it's too sore a subject in current media outlets and real life. I feel like real life examples would leak in or a Flame War would break out over this.

To simplify, this may become more about malicious examples than the non-malicious, and people may take it personally if they're not well acquainted with how TV Tropes runs. Could maybe warrant Useful Notes, but otherwise it fits in more as an example of Flame Bait.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:23:02 PM

The new Power Rangers movie pissed me off so much with this. Trini is said to be LGBT, but whether she is bisexual or a lesbian is never made clear. Is she neither? Does she have no established identity of sexual orientation? Is she some kind of rapidly-changing omnigay person? The ambiguity basically makes her an outcast who fits in with no one. I think there's something to this trope concept.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:32:12 PM

The Power Rangers thing made me wonder whether vacillating between the characteristics of various sexual orientations and never fitting in is what is meant when people use the term "queer" in an LGBT context. That seems to be the case.

Apr 25th 2017 at 4:55:16 PM

What if we made the proposed Useful Notes, but then also a YMMV page. Like, ideally the assortment of tropes should cover it, but since people may be digging for their examples and may go down the targeted route perhaps having an objective option open would steer the potential drama to a place where (if they at least word it right) it's acceptable.

Apr 25th 2017 at 5:00:24 PM

Has that been done before? It sounds like a long shot, but it's something.

Apr 25th 2017 at 6:01:05 PM

Just a reminder: we already have this one. Queerbaiting is a redirect for Bait And Switch Lesbians, which covers the concept of platonic, same-sex relationships being teased as sexual ones.

Apr 25th 2017 at 6:09:01 PM

^we don't "have this one", the term is just a redirect for something which is only part of the actual whole. Not to mention that Bait And Switch Lesbians is typically when there is irrefutable founding (like, they actually do kiss or almost go there initially) and female-only. Plus, it doesn't in any way try to define it.

Apr 25th 2017 at 6:51:32 PM

TV Tropes has to do with media, not the social sciences. The Wiki doesn't need to define this term. That said, there is potential to have this as a Useful Note if it can be framed in such a way as to be useful to writers.

I would also like to point out that Bait And Switch Lesbians, like other tropes, can be gender switched. You could just as easily write an example as "Bait And Switch Lesbians: Male variant with Bob and Charles in... yada yada yada." Moreover, it's a trope — not a YMMV article — so it does need an objective action in the work in order to apply (such as kissing as you've mentioned).

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:08:41 PM

@tyrekecorrea: An Unspecifically Unsttaight trope really might not be a bad idea.

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:39:04 PM

I don't know, that does seem like a double standard to me. When a character shows interest in the opposite sex, nobody demands that the creators clarify if they're straight or bi/pan/ace/etc. It seems kind of othering to imply that all LGBT+ characters need to be categorized and labelled.

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:42:07 PM

People don't change sexualities in real life, and sending messages to the contrary hurts people. That's half the point of this discussion.

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:48:52 PM

Whilst you all get in your opinions... everyone did seem to like the idea of some index or super trope. Here's some of the tropes I think would be appropriate to list on one of those: Bait And Switch Lesbians, Ho Yay, Homoerotic Subtext, No Bisexuals, Bait And Switch Lesbians, But Not Too Gay, Ambiguously Gay, Word Of Gay, Romantic Two Girl Friendship, Experimented In College, Hide Your Lesbians, Never Trust A Trailer, Aborted Arc.

Apr 25th 2017 at 7:59:13 PM

Why are you saying "everyone." People obviously disagree here. Don't only count the people who agree with you.

After participating in this discussion for a while, I seriously think that this is just too much of a Flame Bait. Even if this does get launched, there seems to be disagreement on so many fronts for this article that I can't imagine it would survive very long in the wild before causing problems.

Apr 25th 2017 at 8:06:23 PM

^ I'm not saying "everyone" is for every suggestion, but "everyone" who reacted to either index or super trope idea thought it was better. There is a lot of disagreement, hence the first ("all get in your opinions" — a recognition there is no consensus) part of my comment, but not for the index/super trope idea, which is why I thought to expand on it. Surely the comment isn't that hard to parse that I need to dissect my every word for you?

Apr 25th 2017 at 8:10:23 PM

Cool off. Not everyone who disagrees with a suggestion is going to respond simply to disagree whereas people who do agree are probably going to respond. This is why we have a "do nothing" option in Page Action crowners.

Do you see how this trope is Flame Bait?

Apr 25th 2017 at 8:52:44 PM

As much as I like to be the guy with the good opinion of people, and I wouldn't say it's flame bait, there is a wide open space for misuse. And with that comes the problems. And there are, sad to say, lots of tropers who will ...passionately debate... in perhaps not the nicest or most appropriate of ways. This is not, you know "asking for it", but it would be another page they can link to, and would possibly take on some of the problems that related contentious pages do. But that just means we've got to make it steel-clad.

Don't worry, I'm usually cut-throat with bad ideas. But I am in support of some kind of page along these lines, so that we can try to deflect issues arising.

Apr 25th 2017 at 10:54:47 PM

" Not everyone who disagrees with a suggestion is going to respond simply to disagree whereas people who do agree are probably going to respond. This is why we have a "do nothing" option in Page Action crowners"

Then they need to speak up here. YKTTW doesn't work by crowner, so if people have issues to resolve in the trope before it's launched, they need to speak up about it or else that opinion doesn't exist. Arguing that there's lurking disagreers can be contested by saying there's also lurking agreers. Agreement, or disagreement, which isn't voiced has no meaning here. Even bombs vs hats isn't an ironclad rule. Successful tropes have been launched with majority bombs, and crappy ones have been launched with a million hats.

"TV Tropes has to do with media, not the social sciences. The Wiki doesn't need to define this term."

TV Tropes CAN be about social science insofar as it overlaps with media. Gender Dynamics Index, Homophobia Index, Feminism, and Ethical Hedonism, are examples. Until this YKTTW gets a hard nuke, we need to define the trope name, whatever we call it. If this gets launchedn with "queerbaiting" as a title, then the description will by default have to define the term as it will be used. The wiki not being about social science has nothing to do with it.

Apr 26th 2017 at 2:56:01 AM

Actually, by labeling themselves, people can find a community they fit into. It's kind of like stand up comedy; if we laugh at ourselves first, nobody can touch us

Apr 26th 2017 at 2:58:57 AM

Hmm... The definition is so finicky that this thing was asking for a nuke.

Apr 26th 2017 at 3:03:23 AM

Why not lop off everything but the first two paragraphs of the description, call it Pandering to the LGBT base, and make it a subset of Queer as Tropes?

Apr 26th 2017 at 3:17:07 AM

I think that we should continue this discussion, because as I say, queerbaiting does happen, and as recently as this year, it did happen, to the detriment of all whom it touched. I feel strongly that we contribute to the elevation of media by fleshing it out. It's very injurious. We shouldn't hide the fact that it happens. With some cleaning up for a clearer read, it would at least be a great contribution as a Useful Notes page.

Apr 26th 2017 at 4:29:26 AM

^^ that would definitely be asking for arguments.

Apr 26th 2017 at 4:40:16 AM

How so? It's still a credit to media consumers to discuss it. Every argument can't be avoided, and there's a great learning opportunity here.

Apr 26th 2017 at 4:55:27 AM

The name phrasing, since Pandering To The Base gets a lot of creator-directed hate.

Apr 26th 2017 at 5:16:49 AM

@King Zeal:

"if people have issues to resolve in the trope before it's launched, they need to speak up about it or else that opinion doesn't exist."

I was just responding to an obnoxious comment. I know YKTTW doesn't work the same as TRS, and that wasn't my point. My point was that you shouldn't count only the votes that already agree with you.

"TV Tropes CAN be about social science insofar as it overlaps with media."

Yes, I already said that "there is potential to have this as a Useful Note if it can be framed in such a way as to be useful to writers." Simply overlapping with media isn't enough to really say we need this.

I still think this is just Flame Bait and that we therefore do not need this article.

Apr 26th 2017 at 5:35:26 AM

If it's flame bait, it can just be a page without examples.

Apr 26th 2017 at 5:40:39 AM

I can't comment on whether or not a comment is "obnoxious" or not. That's a personal judgment, and we've had enough disagreements.

If there's "potential to have this as a Useful Note", then whether or not we "need" this (What the heck is a trope we "need" anyway?) is rhetorical. The point of YKTTW is to bring out the best potential in a proposal and see if anything comes out from it.

Constantly repeating the question of whether we need this or not isn't getting us anywhere, because there's no consensus.

Apr 26th 2017 at 5:41:19 AM

If it's just phrased in a way like "Oh, by the way, this happens. Here's what to look out for in the broadest sense." it can be a credit to TV Tropes as a useful notes page. I'm sure there are plenty of other pages that would have also counted as flame bait otherwise.

Apr 26th 2017 at 6:05:08 AM

^^^ I think he's talking about when people link to it on other pages, Useful Notes don't have examples.

Apr 26th 2017 at 5:52:21 AM

@King Zeal Are you a defeatist? We have all of the useful notes pages because it's been determined that someone has a need for each. It gives me an idea for a useful notes page which can truly be a credit to TV Tropes. Excuse me. I'll be back.

Apr 26th 2017 at 7:19:43 AM

Part of my problem is that this is suuuuuuuuper... Unfocused.

It is shooting to be a supertrope, a Useful Notes, and YMMV item seemingly at once.

So I ask again, what is the intended value of this page? Whether we "need" it or not may be contentious but I cannot see its value, partially because it's so unfocused.

Is it "a guide on how not to queerbait"? Is it "a repository of Queerbaiting works"? Is it "a definition of Queerbaiting?"

Apr 26th 2017 at 7:29:51 AM

^^ What in the world are you talking about?

^ I gave my suggestion. An exampeless, indexing Missing Super Trope, built around the premise of "marketing works toward an LGBT Fanbase but not following through".

Wording and specifics subject to improvement.

Apr 26th 2017 at 7:42:48 AM

I mean that like all of the Useful Notes pages, it is an acknowledgement of a concept's existence and impact on the creation and dissemination of media, which gives this potential as an analysis page.

May 31st 2017 at 8:53:48 PM

It seems ready for launch

Jun 1st 2017 at 2:47:55 PM

Think we need to add that, at least until recently, this was one of the ways Bury Your Gays was used: first they dropped the bomb that one of the characters was gay, and then they killed him off or got him/her Put On A Bus on a permanent basis.

Jun 1st 2017 at 5:44:55 PM

@marcoasalazarm was going to suggest that; because, especaially, with the media about it

Jun 2nd 2017 at 6:54:27 AM

Holy Bombs and Hats Ratio, Batman!

Jun 2nd 2017 at 4:10:18 PM

This is probably quite close to launch, and I will put it on a Useful Notes/ page. The Main/ page that is created from the launch, I suggest, be used as an index of sorts for tropes relating to queerbaiting - there are many - as well as any other pages on the matter.

Jun 3rd 2017 at 7:49:22 AM

Does anyone else think it distasteful to launch this page during pride month just for the sake of it?

Jun 3rd 2017 at 7:49:22 AM

Does anyone else think it distasteful to launch this page during pride month just for the sake of it?

Jun 3rd 2017 at 7:53:49 AM

@marcoasalazarm It's also worth mentioning that a common way to go these days is to portray LGBT people as idiots instead.

Jun 3rd 2017 at 11:02:14 AM

Given the insane amount of bombs, this is nowhere near launch, bucko.

Jun 3rd 2017 at 7:14:23 PM

Most of those bombs are from back when it was a shambles (a few months ago it was in bad shape and had 17 bombs) — so not relevant.

@tyrekecorrea — I think you're reading way too much into it being launched during pride month if you're seeing anything there

Jun 4th 2017 at 6:16:57 AM

@lakingsif Is there such a thing?

Jun 4th 2017 at 6:16:57 AM

@lakingsif Is there such a thing?

Jun 4th 2017 at 6:16:57 AM

@lakingsif Is there such a thing?

Jun 4th 2017 at 4:42:35 PM

Pages made, hitting launch. If I'm right, it'll just archive the yk. If not, I'll just revert the main page.

Jul 31st 2017 at 2:30:36 PM

Bump for return to TLP — also, to whoever keeps discarding it, please stop. You haven't contributed to discussion and it at least has more hats than bombs.

Aug 1st 2017 at 7:37:29 PM

I know that this has pretty much all been discussed, but I vote yes to this as a Useful Notes page, with a list of tropes that tend to appear alongside it (Bait And Switch Lesbians, Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss, etc.). With a few blatant exceptions, this is way too subjective a term to include examples.

Aug 2nd 2017 at 11:44:58 AM

I thought it was a Useful Notes? It shouldn't have examples, like most Useful Notes. We have Hide Your Lesbians for that anyway.

Aug 2nd 2017 at 7:36:54 PM

Should this get a crowner? It feels like a never-ending debate at this point about whether it's a Useful Note or not.

Aug 3rd 2017 at 1:32:05 PM

^ that's probably it. Options:

  1. Useful Note
  2. Useful Note, and a list of tropes
  3. Useful Note, and some examples
  4. Useful Note, and tropes and examples
  5. This as a Main/ page to act as an example-less YMMV

any other crowner options?

Aug 3rd 2017 at 2:16:56 PM

Crowner, open to all to add options.

Aug 3rd 2017 at 2:31:04 PM

Should point out that Bait And Switch Lesbians seems to be being used as the trope for queerbaiting, even if that's a bit beyond the scope of its description. Seems to be that the name (though it contains 'bait', this is distracted from, unlike in the word 'queerbaiting') and the fact that it's in Main/ is stopping people from going wild with being flamey or overly subjective. Splitting this away from that trope might not be so disastrous, especially if we come up with a good name for the trope side of it (YMMV.These Arent The Gays Youre Looking For is my suggestion, especially since Mark Hamill has previously confirmed "if Luke seems gay to you, then he's gay" — with a description that expands on "fans see subtext but are pretty sure it's never going to be confirmed/it's forever ambiguous").

Aug 4th 2017 at 6:08:56 PM

Exacerbating started out as a useful notes page because people simply refused to acknowledge the fact that it has a strong enough presence in media to treat it as a trope its own right, and therefore refused to add examples. the benefit of having the page was that it enabled us to discuss the fact that Queerbaiting goes far beyond the scope of Bait and Switch Lesbians.

Aug 4th 2017 at 6:10:55 PM

Sorry. I meant to say "Queerbaiting."

Aug 5th 2017 at 7:55:22 AM

Personally, I've found that it works quite well as a supertrope, so...

Aug 5th 2017 at 7:57:00 AM

@lakingsif Why the Star Wars reference?

Aug 5th 2017 at 2:30:07 PM

^ one, pretty accurate reflection of the idea (they might be gays, but since they're not going to show it explicitly and it's not going to be confirmed, it's not what fans are looking for) and because Mark Hamill gave a really good speech for fans saying that if they saw Luke as gay then, for them, of course he's gay.

Aug 5th 2017 at 5:12:27 PM

It seems rather overspecialized in my book, but whatever.

Aug 5th 2017 at 5:18:33 PM

As far as trope names go, I think it makes too much light of the subject.

Aug 6th 2017 at 5:39:39 AM

I couldn't think of anything better, do you have any ideas? (Also think it's better to base it in audience reaction than creator intention)

Aug 6th 2017 at 5:43:16 AM

The crowner has had 30 votes and I'm going off the grid later today, so I'll bring the only two suggestions currently in the positive here:

  • "A supertrope/index, with a description of Queerbaiting, a list of tropes which can potentially be used as part of Queerbaiting, and explanations for the rationale behind same."
  • "A Useful Note page with both a list of tropes (may be on separate index) and some examples discussed"

Both are pretty similar, and so it comes to the question of do we keep all the proposed info on one page, or keep the info, index, and example parts separate?

Aug 6th 2017 at 6:09:57 AM

I don't know, man, but it doesn't seem right to use a label that's more in line with pop culture for a serious and harmful concept that's been present for decades.

Aug 6th 2017 at 6:18:16 AM

The top bullet represents what the Queerbaiting page used to be before it was pulled. Because this is such an impactful concept, I find it more serviceable to go into detail.

Also if the data is separated it will be that much harder for people to see not only how the concepts of queerbaiting are connected, but also the scope of its impact.

Aug 6th 2017 at 9:48:13 AM

^ single page it is. Main.Queerbaiting? And if the YMMV trope as a separate concept (Super Trope to Bait And Switch Lesbians, basically) gets more votes we can revisit that.

Aug 6th 2017 at 10:35:53 AM

You think that a YMMV page is the wisest way to go? Queerbaiting does happen, whether people notice it or not? the question is what form it takes, and that's why the page is supposed to exist.

Aug 7th 2017 at 5:46:16 PM

Check it out: it's a trope page with some of the qualities of an index. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Bowdlerise

Aug 10th 2017 at 8:48:37 AM

"A Useful Note page with both a list of tropes (may be on separate index) and some examples discussed" clearly means the Useful Notes/ namespace.

Aug 10th 2017 at 11:25:03 AM

Yeah, but a page like the example I shared above works just fine.

Aug 10th 2017 at 2:55:22 PM

Why don't you take it to Ask The Tropers. This discussion has gone on ad nauseam, and even though we had a crowner to try to end it, you are still going on about it.

Actually, I think I will take it to Ask The Tropers because this is getting ridiculous.

Aug 14th 2017 at 1:26:31 PM

Well, that crowner doesn't have that many votes so I would hesitate at taking conclusions from it.

This discussion so far has mostly been between two tropers. Perhaps both of them need to pause and let other people express their stance.

Myself, I am not convinced that Queerbaiting merits an Useful Notes page, it seems a bit out of scope for us. And it's too diffuse and complaining prone for a trope, probably. I'd recommend to scrap this TLP.

Aug 14th 2017 at 9:23:14 PM

This sounds like possible Flame Bait with the name. I vote for discarding it, too.

If anything, this should be YMMV, not Useful Notes.

Aug 16th 2017 at 1:40:00 AM

I agree with the above two. That and to trope this we'd need explicit knowledge that the creators intended to tease a relationship and not deliver rather than people just taking Subtext and running with it. We've got a similar issue with Ho Yay and Homoerotic Subtext being used interchangeably.

Aug 17th 2017 at 7:46:39 PM

What other stance? This conversation's been going on for months. If people feel a certain way about it, they need to pipe up or calm down. This should be settled by now, and I reckon those of us who feel strongly enough to take initiative should make the call, because our hearts are in it.

Aug 17th 2017 at 7:49:10 PM

Thing is, not everybody that gets to express an opinion knows what they're talking about. That's why talent shows which allow public votes have judges.

Aug 17th 2017 at 7:51:29 PM

Does it really take explicit knowledge of characteristics and intent identify a tease? It doesn't seem like we hold Ship Tease to this kind of scrutiny.

Aug 17th 2017 at 7:57:30 PM

Are you really trying to figure out what to do with the trope or just dispose of it?

Aug 19th 2017 at 8:24:31 AM

No, we think that this thing is too foggy and controversial to make a good trope. "Tease" is often speculative.

Aug 19th 2017 at 7:01:15 PM

How about votes to make a Main.Queerbaiting page into a disambig for related tropes, since there are several that fall under it

Aug 20th 2017 at 11:22:30 AM

I like the definition + index idea. I do think there's a valid use for an index of tropes like Bait And Switch Lesbians and, But Not Too Gay, and other "we gotta be careful with this LGBT stuff" tropes.

Maybe a new YKTTW of this as an index? Without the baggage and hats/bombs?

Also not quite sure why the descriptiom mentions specific examples i.e. Supernatural if this is exampleless

Aug 20th 2017 at 11:56:10 AM

I think this is too controversial and flame baity to make a good page, I'd say scrap it.

Aug 20th 2017 at 2:19:09 PM

I don't mind personally, I have noticed myself, but other queers might be offended. It's most common in music, Western music, be that American like Lady Gaga, David Bowie, Madonna, Beyonce etc. or European like Eurovision...just Eurovision. In music is not a negative thing, these people and shows are adored world wide but outside of music, they are associated with bad/cringy tv shows. Like, anything on CW bad. This is a negative for sure, that section will just be complaining. Movies will depend on time, the older movies will be negative, the newer ones are better.

Aug 25th 2017 at 7:14:53 PM

I think discussion of scrapping the idea is giving up too easily. If things are left to loose, definition and serious discussion won't be possible at all. Whether or not people are capable of seeing it or choose to see it, queerbaiting happens, to great and damaging effect. it must be completely defined, objectively discussed, and examples of it enumerated in detail.

I think the page we had was pretty good.

Aug 27th 2017 at 2:42:45 PM

Argument to keep: it's a thing that happens in media that is growing in prevalence, we could do with a 'this is bad'/info page. Argument against: flame bait/show-bashing potential

Sep 1st 2017 at 7:27:17 AM

It's definitely growing in prevalence.

Sep 3rd 2017 at 5:59:11 AM

The only way this would be OK is as a Mary Sue like explanation page.

Sep 3rd 2017 at 8:45:25 AM

I could get behind a Mary Sue like explanation page, with explanations of the history of the term, a list of some of the controversies and the relevant tropes, an interpretations section, and a "this is not queerbaiting" section. But it would need the Flame Bait banner, and it would need a totally new draft.

Sep 5th 2017 at 11:39:06 PM

That's a good compromise:)

Sep 5th 2017 at 11:39:06 PM

That's a good compromise:)

Sep 6th 2017 at 5:41:25 AM

^ a totally new draft is a good idea either way, this one has ay too much history. i agree no examples, but it could still be an index

such as Discount Lesbians, But Not Too Gay, Bait And Switch Lesbians, But Not Too Bi, Get Back In The Closet, Word Of Gay

Sep 6th 2017 at 7:43:25 AM

I don't think something this foggy makes for a good index.

Sep 6th 2017 at 7:53:50 AM

^ What do you mean "foggy?" It was well defined before it got dragged back to the drawing board. Do we still have the source code? I would find it a bit more understandable if we could tinker with it, rather than restarting this whole thing from scratch.

Besides, I'm afraid Water Blap's idea doesn't do justice to the scope and resulting harm of Queerbaiting.

Sep 6th 2017 at 7:55:09 AM

The history of this page is good and helpful.

Sep 6th 2017 at 11:51:35 AM

It is not well defined. When you are trying to trope a pre-existent term you end up with the issue that such terms have many meanings and it ends up a jumbled mess.

Sep 9th 2017 at 6:43:09 AM

That's a silly thing to say. The reason why we have been able to come up with Useful Notes pages for everything else is because we have encountered them in our real lives and been able to establish definitions for them. Queerbaiting was very well defined on the page we had: It's the LGBT community being made to suffer because the sexualities of fictional characters and even real people is not clearly defined, depriving the audience of the security of the knowledge that there is a community with which they can identify.

All we have to do is maintain a list of tropes with the power to do that (which we had), and we've got it.

I don't understand why you guys were so quick to torpedo such beautiful, discussion-advancing work.

Sep 9th 2017 at 7:59:12 AM

^ The point I think Septimus was making is that when you have a pre-existing term (say Green Lantern Ring) and then you give it a single definition for this Wiki, other people who have heard of the term elsewhere may not know the nuances or specifications of our Wiki and misuse the term. Generally, this misuse will continue until the term has been used in so many different ways all over the place that a thread needs to be made to go through every mention of the term and do damage control.

Sep 10th 2017 at 11:26:27 AM

An index and a description of the history under a flame banner is still possible. We could keep to one of two things: the broadest definition (intentionally or otherwise portraying LGBT people, relationships, issues negatively in general) or to the strictest (directly inferring a character as queer without intentions to address this or any LGBT issues, whether done innocently or maliciously) — but for the sake of clarity, it shouldn't be anywhere in between.

Sep 10th 2017 at 11:26:27 AM

An index and a description of the history under a flame banner is still possible. We could keep to one of two things: the broadest definition (intentionally or otherwise portraying LGBT people, relationships, issues negatively in general) or to the strictest (directly inferring a character as queer without intentions to address this or any LGBT issues, whether done innocently or maliciously) — but for the sake of clarity, it shouldn't be anywhere in between.

Sep 13th 2017 at 8:54:05 AM

The term was already so well-defined that it served as its own damage control.

😑 You threw out the old source code, didn't you?

Well, damn, guys. We can't get anything done if we keep going around in circles.

Sep 13th 2017 at 10:39:55 PM

No I have the source code, but I feel like most people actually contributing to discussion want, and put forward valid arguments for having, a different page. Rather than explaining the term, to have a generic description, index of tropes that can be used to do it, and some history so it's undeniably without bias.

Sep 24th 2017 at 10:01:02 PM

You do? What do you define as contributing? From what I can tell, the arguments for having a different page aren't valid, and people only seem to want things a certain way. I think the page made the best contribution as it was before.

Can I have the source code then? I think it contributes a lot to the discussion of sexuality in media, and I value it highly.

Nov 14th 2017 at 4:23:24 PM

Bump. The crowner currently shows consensus to not have a queerbaiting page (courtesy link). 11 for, 3 against (3.66:1), with 14 votes and a net of +8.

EDIT: Update (11/14): 13 for, 3 against (4.33:1), 16 votes and net +10.

Nov 16th 2017 at 6:44:13 AM

Update Bump:

The crowner has been stable since my last update on the 14th. It is now the 16th and the option in the lead is still "no queerbaiting trope" and it is still at 13 for and 3 against.

Nov 16th 2017 at 7:43:07 AM

Is the standard 7 days or something? How long to wait?

Nov 16th 2017 at 8:12:25 AM

Since it's unlikely to gain 10 votes against that option in a few days' time, I think it'll be fine to call after it's been stable for three days. Which would make the "due date" tomorrow. That's just my opinion, though.

Nov 17th 2017 at 4:59:43 PM

Update (11/17): "No Queerbaiting page" is now at 15 for and 4 against (3.75:1) with 19 votes for net +11.

Nov 18th 2017 at 8:26:44 AM

Queerbaiting is a very big and real thing with a powerful and growing negative impact. If we dispose of the queerbaiting page, it'll be denying it happens at all.

I want the source code of the original page.

Nov 18th 2017 at 8:57:36 AM

TV Tropes is not a Wiki to list every negative thing in the world. It is here to define tropes in story-telling in a well-defined and objective way. I don't think Queerbaiting is well-defined enough to objectively separate examples and non-examples.

Nov 18th 2017 at 10:07:34 AM

i really like this page too and i was hoping it would get made but ill accept the results of the poll. Maybe Queerbaiting could be a redirect to Hide Your Lesbians or The Homophobia Index? Since it is a common term and would probably get inbounds

Nov 18th 2017 at 11:36:22 AM

I think redirect might be a good idea. It acknowledges the existence of the concept, but links it to tropes that are well-defined by consensus.

Nov 18th 2017 at 12:24:06 PM

The claim that "If we don't make this page then we're denying it happens" is invalid. We don't have pages on people sitting in chairs, but we don't deny that people sit in chairs. Moreover, we have the "Too Rare To Trope" concept because some things are just too rare to trope despite otherwise being tropes. We don't deny that those things happen simply because we don't have a page for them. I would argue the point further, but frankly the positive argument is just an assertion so I don't feel obliged to offer a more comprehensive negative argument.

Moreover, as Dust Snitch said, we are under no obligation to document every negative thing in the world. I'd like to add, though, that because the queerbaiting page is necessarily negative, it is less likely to get through TLP in the first place. You, tyrekecorrea, admitted yourself that it has a "powerful and growing negative impact." That seems to agree that this is necessarily negative, and it also implies that it's a politically charged, current, hot-button issue. We don't normally trope hot-button things anyway.

Concerning your (obssessive?) demands for the source code... I don't understand what having "the source code of the original page" will do. It would, what, help you recreate the draft. You implied earlier (24 Sept. 2017) that anyone who disagrees with you about this draft is "not contributing" to the discussion, and I can't help but suspect that you'll use "the source code of the original page" to needlessly recreate the draft if (probably "when") this draft is discarded. So, I think it's fair to ask: What are you planning to even do with the source code if you get it?


Regarding the redirect idea, I searched Google for "queerbaiting tvtropes" and Hide Your Lesbians and Bait And Switch Lesbians already come up on the first page. If it does become a redirect, I think it ought to go to just The Homophobia Index instead.

Nov 18th 2017 at 12:37:29 PM

Oh, i forgot about Bait And Switch Lesbians. I think that is basically what most people use it to mean- basically it looks like its going to have LGBT representation, but then it doesnt. (although it's hard to say because as mentioned, queerbaiting is a nebulously defined term). i support that as the best choice for redirect

Nov 18th 2017 at 1:18:34 PM

As it's not as well-defined as any individual trope, I think redirect to Homophobia Index would be the best choice

Nov 21st 2017 at 1:09:56 PM

The crowner's been at 15 for and 5 against since the 18th. Bumping to give it another day, at which point I'll discard this and bring up the redirect discussion to the locked pages thread.

Nov 23rd 2017 at 12:45:28 PM

No change to crowner. Discarding now. I'll request the redirect later. Feel free to beat me to it.

Jun 9th 2018 at 11:58:13 AM

^ Crowner is still leaning towards "No page".

Top