LGBT representation in adverts/films/TV

[Scotrail12]

I was at a session with my personal trainer at the gym and he said that he'd taken his son to see Buzz Lightyear and disliked that the film included a lesbian couple. Apparently think it's too political and wants a non-political movie for his kid to watch and also believes that we have too much LGBT inclusion in TV/adverts/movies now, seemingly views it as tokenism.

What do you think? Do you think that LGBT representation in the media is over the top and forced?

Being gay myself, I don't like when it's overly forced or just for the sake of it but I'm sensing a bit of 'being gay is OK if kept behind closed doors' from him. I do think there is a certain amount of representation that is needed. I don't think it's political and if he is going to complain about a lesbian couple, surely the same applies to any straight couples in any kids movie?

 

[AlterEgo]

Inclusion in films needs to be very sensitively done. I haven't seen the Buzz Lightyear movie but if the couple are gay women and, you know, it doesn't feel forced or tokenised, I don't see the issue. Some women are gay and some live together and even marry, shocker!

It is possible to get this sort of thing wrong. 1917 had a random Sikh guy in a van, in some short scene serving with white British soldiers, whereas in reality Sikhs from India served mostly separately and very often got given worse missions than their English counterparts. That did feel like a directorial choice to try and say "hey look, Sikhs served, like others in the Empire did" without being truly historically accurate like the rest of the film took pains to be. Mendes didn't want to shoot a film about Sikh soldiers and it did just feel a bit like "hmm okay, not sure that works, I was fully immersed a moment ago and I just saw something which didn't make a whole lot of sense".

One of the issues with inclusion is that every filmmaker does feel obliged, in a perfectly understandable way, to BE inclusive, which means that very many films will now feature things like mixed race couples, gay people, gender nonconforming people, and so on - which means in the aggregate it can feel like there is over-representation in the media as a whole.

(In the latest Bond, Q is gay, which is fine - and actually not unexpected in that line of work! - but his boyfriend/husband appeared in a scene which didn't really need to make the cut and again, it felt tokenistic. Why does it matter if Q is gay? Is there any story behind that? Will we learn anything about the character? Also in the film, 007 is a black woman, great! Sounds interesting! What an unusual sort of person to be a 007! Does she have any of the normal 007 gadgets you would expect a 007 to have? No, she just fires guns, we learn nothing about her, her motivations, her unique abilities, the remarkable talent she might have had to be appointed 007 - tokenistic again.)

People like Laurence Fox who rail against "woke" and "PC" are fools, but the tightrope is quite narrow between "including minority characters" and "tokenism" and film makers don't get it right all the time.

 

[TheEdge]

@AlterEgo has hit the nail on the head really.

When its done well, any sort of representation just makes up another nuance of a character and it doesn't become a dog whistle to the idiots of the world who label everything they don't like as woke. Done badly it sticks out like a sore thumb and really looks like its been forced in quite a clumsy way.

I adore the Horizon games (the giant robot dinosaur ones of the last few years), they've managed it really really well. Two major characters in one of the games are revealed to have been together for a while (and it forms the basis of a big plot point), but its not telegraphed with a big flag and "look how gay these two are and how representative we are". All that matters is that there is some unrequited love, the fact its between two women isn't important, which makes it feel natural and not forced. They manage to do a similar thing with a matriarchal society and strong women, it has a grounded in universe reason and doesn't feel like its pandering.

 

[windingroad]

I was at a session with my personal trainer at the gym and he said that he'd taken his son to see Buzz Lightyear and disliked that the film included a lesbian couple. Apparently think it's too political and wants a non-political movie for his kid to watch and also believes that we have too much LGBT inclusion in TV/adverts/movies now, seemingly views it as tokenism.

Where to even begin! The fact he views the mere presence of a lesbian couple to be "political" speaks volumes about what his views are. Does he have the same problem with the (literally thousands) of family films which feature heterosexual romances? I suspect not.

Personally I think these kinds of views are precisely why this sort of representation is essential. Your personal trainer isn't used to seeing people be explicitly gay in film and TV, which is why he's having this reaction. If he had grown up in a culture which confidently showcased love in all its forms, it wouldn't even be worthy of comment. His child will be less likely to have this kind of reaction as, thankfully, they are seeing gay people on screen.

One of the issues with inclusion is that every filmmaker does feel obliged, in a perfectly understandable way, to BE inclusive, which means that very many films will now feature things like mixed race couples, gay people, gender nonconforming people, and so on - which means in the aggregate it can feel like there is over-representation in the media as a whole.

I think it only feels that way because until very recently there was very little (if any) representation for most of the groups you mention. It's definitely true that representation has significantly increased, relatively speaking, but I think it's a stretch to say there's actually an over-representation in any real sense. In fact I think it's very likely that if you compared raw data (ie. population proportion vs. cultural representation) you'd find most minority groups are hugely under-represented still, and certainly when it comes to significant roles.

If we take gay/bisexual people as an example, I'm sure you can point to a reasonable number of films or series that cater specifically to that market (ie. things like gay romances/coming of age stories, etc). But how many mainstream action/adventure/thriller films (ie. films where sexuality is not the main plot point) feature an explicitly gay lead character? Pretty much none of them, still. So I think it's important that films normalise gay relationships in background characters so that we can eventually get to a place where they can occasionally take centre stage and it's not a big deal.

Why does it matter if Q is gay? Is there any story behind that? Will we learn anything about the character? Also in the film, 007 is a black woman, great! Sounds interesting! What an unusual sort of person to be a 007! Does she have any of the normal 007 gadgets you would expect a 007 to have? No, she just fires guns, we learn nothing about her, her motivations, her unique abilities, the remarkable talent she might have had to be appointed 007 - tokenistic again.

I do agree that this sort of thing is tokenistic if that's all minority groups ever get to do (ie. remain safely in the background) but isn't there a place for it nonetheless? Most films have background characters without much depth, and they go completely unnoticed if they're straight and white. I think representation has a place at all levels.

 

[simonw]

I was at a session with my personal trainer at the gym and he said that he'd taken his son to see Buzz Lightyear and disliked that the film included a lesbian couple. Apparently think it's too political and wants a non-political movie for his kid to watch and also believes that we have too much LGBT inclusion in TV/adverts/movies now, seemingly views it as tokenism.

What do you think? Do you think that LGBT representation in the media is over the top and forced?

Being gay myself, I don't like when it's overly forced or just for the sake of it but I'm sensing a bit of 'being gay is OK if kept behind closed doors' from him. I do think there is a certain amount of representation that is needed. I don't think it's political and if he is going to complain about a lesbian couple, surely the same applies to any straight couples in any kids movie?

Personally, I'd be looking to get a new personal trainer. Not that I have one and I'm not LGBT.

I'm not sure why anyone would think it acceptable to hold such views, let alone to express them to a "customer" .

 

[Sorcerer]

As something of a writer myself (that meaning that I've written two novels but still not got around to publishing them as well as doing my own personal comedy scripts between friends), I like to make a subtle but important distinction between gay characters and characters who happen to be gay. Gay characters are characters whose defining traits are being gay and are pretty much in there to send a message or fill a quota whereas characters who happen to be gay are characters to whom being gay is only part of who they are, not all of who they are. A personal issue for me though is that as an author, I want to be inclusive, I want to have LGBT characters, but in the context of the story sexuality really doesn't play a part in anything, and as it so happens most of the characters will only be perceived as heterosexual because that seems to be the default assumption for readers in the absence of a defined sexuality. So while I want to be more overtly inclusive I don't want to throw it in their when it's not relevant to the story in some way or another. I suppose the final draft might be able to fix this in some way or another, and I will certainly try my best to do so.

Now for me, I'm not gay, and I've only met about one or two gay people in my life, but I consider myself a straight ally, as do a lot of writers, and for all the controversy surrounding JK Rowling, making Dumbledore gay was actually the right way to do it because not only did his backstory not exclude the possibility but it was strengthened by it because of how he basically followed a tyrant because he was in love with him. But being gay isn't shown as a flaw and it isn't his only defined personality trait, and it most certainly isn't irrelevant to his story. All things considered it's vastly superior to an offensively stereotypical flamboyant high-pitched-voice male which is the laziest way to write a character whose gay. For what it's worth I'd almost argue that no representation is better than token representation but that's not really for me to decide. I'd rather let gay people decide that for themselves.

(In the latest Bond, Q is gay, which is fine - and actually not unexpected in that line of work! - but his boyfriend/husband appeared in a scene which didn't really need to make the cut and again, it felt tokenistic. Why does it matter if Q is gay? Is there any story behind that? Will we learn anything about the character?)

As a matter of fact I don't remember picking up on Q being gay in the latest Bond film, but then I did miss a small part of it and haven't watched it again since the cinema. Still I do think it's kind of a nice inclusion even if it doesn't add much to him aside from a bit more personal depth. Going by my personal definitions, Q isn't a gay character, he's a character who happens to be gay.

 

[Scotrail12]

I'm not sure why anyone would think it acceptable to hold such views, let alone to express them to a "customer" .

Not the first time. Quite consistently hear 'anti-woke', alt-right stuff from him.

 

[simonw]

Now for me, I'm not gay, and I've only met about one or two gay people in my life,

Unless you live life as a recluse, I would seriously doubt that statement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

Not the first time. Quite consistently hear 'anti-woke', alt-right stuff from him.

Well it's your choice, but I wouldn't personally continue to employ him, or if you dont, I would ask the gym to assign someone else.

He seems to act in an unprofessional manner, from what you have said.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

Not the first time. Quite consistently hear 'anti-woke', alt-right stuff from him.

Well it's your choice, but I wouldn't personally continue to employ him, or if you dont, I would ask the gym to assign someone else.

He seems to act in an unprofessional manner, from what you have said.

 

[Sorcerer]

Unless you live life as a recluse, I would seriously doubt that statement.

For a lot of it I did actually. In some ways it was regrettable but this isn't the place to discuss it because it's not relevant to the subject matter.

 

[DelayRepay]

Not the first time. Quite consistently hear 'anti-woke', alt-right stuff from him.

It might be time, in that case, to find a new personal trainer. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, but should not be expressing that opinion to customers.

Now for me, I'm not gay, and I've only met about one or two gay people in my life, but I consider myself a straight ally

I have no idea how many gay people I've met, because I don't tend to ask. I know some friends are gay, I know a work colleague is gay because I've met his partner. But I have no idea whether other work colleagues are gay or not simply because the subject hasn't been mentioned. It's natural, but wrong, to assume people are straight unless they tell you otherwise.

This is the thing with TV - there will be some characters where their sexuality is important to the storyline, but there are others where it is irrelevant and only mentioned in the name of inclusivity.

 

[simonw]

For a lot of it I did actually. In some ways it was regrettable but this isn't the place to discuss it because it's not relevant to the subject matter.

Apologies, it was meant lightheartedly.

 

[Sorcerer]

I have no idea how many gay people I've met, because I don't tend to ask. I know some friends are gay, I know a work colleague is gay because I've met his partner. But I have no idea whether other work colleagues are gay or not simply because the subject hasn't been mentioned. It's natural, but wrong, to assume people are straight unless they tell you otherwise.

I think to us most people's sexuality just doesn't register because we don't really feel the need to know. At a stretch it might be somewhat important to know whether a woman I was dating was bisexual or heterosexual but again, that is just a stretch. So perhaps I have met more gay people than I realise, and with that said the one person I do remember, I actually only heard about him being gay because someone else brought him up when talking about sexuality and inclusion. As for assuming people are straight unless told otherwise, I don't think this really comes from a position of malice more so than social conditioning. When the majority of people are heterosexual we don't give it much of a second thought. Whether or not that's right or wrong or nature vs nurture is a whole other discussion by itself.

Apologies, it was meant lightheartedly.

Oh don't worry about it, no offence taken.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a matter of fact I don't remember picking up on Q being gay in the latest Bond film, but then I did miss a small part of it and haven't watched it again since the cinema. Still I do think it's kind of a nice inclusion even if it doesn't add much to him aside from a bit more personal depth. Going by my personal definitions, Q isn't a gay character, he's a character who happens to be gay.

Ah that’s an interesting distinction. What’s the difference? A character who happens to be gay is only incidentally gay, which doesn’t affect the story, but a gay character is fundamentally gay and their LGBT status is a key part of the story?

(Yes Q is gay, he is shown at home making dinner for his male partner. It’s very brief!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

For a lot of it I did actually. In some ways it was regrettable but this isn't the place to discuss it because it's not relevant to the subject matter.

You will have met lots of gay people, but it’s just not a subject that comes up in much polite conversation. You would in most circumstances have to get about 50 sentences deep with me before I told you about my girlfriend, for example, and many gay people will keep that information much deeper still for fear of judgment.

 

[Sorcerer]

Ah that’s an interesting distinction. What’s the difference? A character who happens to be gay is only incidentally gay, which doesn’t affect the story, but a gay character is fundamentally gay and their LGBT status is a key part of the story?

Well with my use of the term, a gay character is largely defined by their homosexuality. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's done for storytelling purposes rather than tokenism. I think my original definition focused too much on the latter even though on second thoughts it might seem a bit narrow. After all, if you're telling a story about Alan Turing his homosexuality is going to be key to his story. A character who happens to be gay pretty much fits in with what you mentioned in that it doesn't affect the story, or at the very least is part of who they are rather than all of who they are. Kung Jin from Mortal Kombat for example is homosexual but it's only a part of who he is, but it still plays a role in that he's a bit of a distant jerk because it's lead to him being rejected, and that in itself is more to other character's reactions to his sexuality rather than the sexuality itself. But he has more to his story than just that too. It's kind of a more personal distinction though rather than an objective one, and I only make it due to being a bit of a writer myself. I don't think this sort of difference matters to most people though as long as they get a good character which should ultimately be the aim regardless of their sexuality.

(Yes Q is gay, he is shown at home making dinner for his male partner. It’s very brief!)

I think that was the scene I walked out for a bit so thanks for shedding light on it for me.

You will have met lots of gay people, but it’s just not a subject that comes up in much polite conversation. You would in most circumstances have to get about 50 sentences deep with me before I told you about my girlfriend, for example, and many gay people will keep that information much deeper still for fear of judgment.

I can definitely believe this really, and honestly I don't even find it disheartening if they want to keep it to themselves because it's mostly likely not a reflection of who I am as a person but rather the fact that there's long been a stigma around it that hasn't quite gone away. You just never know how understanding people will actually be sometimes, so if this person doesn't know me too well I can't expect to be told, especially when a lot of people fear coming out to their own parents.

 

[DelayRepay]

After all, if you're telling a story about Alan Turing his homosexuality is going to be key to his story.

Doesn't that depend on the story you're telling? Most likely if I was telling a story about Turing, the key would be that he was a mathematical genius. His homosexuality would be a side issue - unless the story was the shameful way he was treated by this country as a result.

 

[Sorcerer]

Doesn't that depend on the story you're telling? Most likely if I was telling a story about Turing, the key would be that he was a mathematical genius. His homosexuality would be a side issue - unless the story was the shameful way he was treated by this country as a result.

You're right, it would depend, and if you wanted to only do a story about him cracking the enigma code it might not be as relevant, but in any story about him I would personally expect the parts of his life after the war to be a key part of the story in it's ending stages because his shameful prosecutions are an important lesson in this country's history in my opinion, so to leave them out would be kind of doing a bit of a disservice. But yes, you are correct in saying that it would depend on the story you're trying to tell about him.

 

[AlterEgo]

Doesn't that depend on the story you're telling? Most likely if I was telling a story about Turing, the key would be that he was a mathematical genius. His homosexuality would be a side issue - unless the story was the shameful way he was treated by this country as a result.

That Turing was gay and appallingly treated by the country he served so well would be a fundamental part of his story. If you were doing a biopic of him, you’d have to confront that issue in a pretty major way, surely?

 

[Requeststop]

I'm Gay. I'm not a Lesbian, I'm not Bisexual and I'm definitely not trans-sexual. Whereas I have a lot of sympathy for the problems of others I dislike being called LGBT. As to the Q word! Well Like many others of my age I(We) fought to be rid of the Q word and have the word "gay" made acceptable. Now, mostly through God dammed Americanisms I suppose, we are being forced to accept the Q word as a matter of pride. I cannot and will never accept the Q word as being normal. Tom Robinson in his song sings the words, "Sing if your Glad to be Gay" not "Sing if your Glad to be LGTBQI+".

 

[najaB]

Being gay myself, I don't like when it's overly forced or just for the sake of it but I'm sensing a bit of 'being gay is OK if kept behind closed doors' from him. I do think there is a certain amount of representation that is needed. I don't think it's political and if he is going to complain about a lesbian couple, surely the same applies to any straight couples in any kids movie?

To put it simply, I don't want to see gay characters in movies, any more than I want to see disabled characters, Muslim characters or black characters.

What I want in films are characters who gay, characters who are disabled, characters who are Muslim, characters who are black, etc.

In other words, characters who are in the film/tv programme because they are well written and move the story along - and who also happen to be a member of a protected* group - rather than characters who are there just to tick a box.

*In terms of equality law.

 

[duncanp]

To put it simply, I don't want to see gay characters in movies, any more than I want to see disabled characters, Muslim characters or black characters.

What I want in films are characters who gay, characters who are disabled, characters who are Muslim, characters who are black, etc.

In other words, characters who are in the film/tv programme because they are well written and move the story along - and who also happen to be a member of a protected* group - rather than characters who are there just to tick a box.

*In terms of equality law.

And it is perfectly possible to have actors who are gay portraying straight characters, as well as actors who are straight playing gay characters.

Not many people are aware that Wilfrid Brambell, who played Albert Steptoe in Steptoe And Son was gay.

The character of Albert Steptoe would sometimes use derogatory language which we would regard today as homophobic and completely unacceptable.

But this was in the time before homosexuality in England & Wales was decriminalised, and many gay people hid their homosexuality by using homophobic language and behaviour.

 

[AlterEgo]

And it is perfectly possible to have actors who are gay portraying straight characters, as well as actors who are straight playing gay characters.

Not many people are aware that Wilfrid Brambell, who played Albert Steptoe in Steptoe And Son was gay.

The character of Albert Steptoe would sometimes use derogatory language which we would regard today as homophobic and completely unacceptable.

But this was in the time before homosexuality in England & Wales was decriminalised, and many gay people hid their homosexuality by using homophobic language and behaviour.

Wilfrid Brambell was not an especially closeted man for his time! He was arrested in the early 1960s for cottaging. It was well known he was a gay man.

 

[najaB]

And it is perfectly possible to have actors who are gay portraying straight characters, as well as actors who are straight playing gay characters.

While it is definitely possible, I have to say that my preference is that - where the protected characteristic is integral to the story and the character - that it be portrayed by someone who has/is that characteristic.

Both from the perspective of representing that group numerically, but also because they are less likely to play into any stereotypes of the group. It's inevitable that a straight actor playing a gay role i s- even with the best will in the world - going to have a natural tendency to "act gay", in the same way that a white person playing a black role is going to try to "act Black", an atheist/Christian playing a Muslim is going to try to "act Muslim", etc. Not because they are have any ill will but just as an attempt to bring the character to life through their acting.

 

[CardiffKid]

Personally, I'd be looking to get a new personal trainer. Not that I have one and I'm not LGBT.

I'm not sure why anyone would think it acceptable to hold such views, let alone to express them to a "customer" .

Seconded.

 

[py_megapixel]

To put it simply, I don't want to see gay characters in movies, any more than I want to see disabled characters, Muslim characters or black characters.

What I want in films are characters who gay, characters who are disabled, characters who are Muslim, characters who are black, etc.

In other words, characters who are in the film/tv programme because they are well written and move the story along - and who also happen to be a member of a protected* group - rather than characters who are there just to tick a box.

The question, though, is whether your default position is that characters should be fully able-bodied heterosexual cisgender white Christians by default, with any deviation from that only being because it helps to move the story along.

I have no issue with characters who just happen to be gay, even if the plot doesn't require it - but they should always be well-written and fit in properly. (You wouldn't add a character "just to be straight" so why bother with one "just to be gay")

 

[najaB]

As for assuming people are straight unless told otherwise, I don't think this really comes from a position of malice more so than social conditioning. When the majority of people are heterosexual we don't give it much of a second thought. Whether or not that's right or wrong or nature vs nurture is a whole other discussion by itself.

I don't think it's wrong - as the saying goes: if you hear hoofbeats you're going to assume it's horses rather than zebra.

The question, though, is whether your default position is that characters should be fully able-bodied heterosexual cisgender white Christians by default, with any deviation from that only being because it helps to move the story along.

No, not at all and I hope that my post didn't come across that way. My position is that characters should be written to be whatever makes the story work or the characters and their interactions more interesting and realistic. If being non-white/cis/hetro/Christian helps then crack on. Just don't write in a gay character to meet a quota.

 

[HullRailMan]

I'm Gay. I'm not a Lesbian, I'm not Bisexual and I'm definitely not trans-sexual. Whereas I have a lot of sympathy for the problems of others I dislike being called LGBT. As to the Q word! Well Like many others of my age I(We) fought to be rid of the Q word and have the word "gay" made acceptable. Now, mostly through God dammed Americanisms I suppose, we are being forced to accept the Q word as a matter of pride. I cannot and will never accept the Q word as being normal. Tom Robinson in his song sings the words, "Sing if your Glad to be Gay" not "Sing if your Glad to be LGTBQI+".

Exactly this!
the use of the Q word is deeply offensive to me and many other gay people, not least because most ‘Q’ people are same-sex attracted, ie straight.
the LGBT etc alphabet soup is all driven by gender identity activists who have effectively hijacked the gay rights movement. Sexuality and gender identity are two wholly unconnected issues, there is no logical reason to link them, yet we’ve seen gay men forced away from ‘pride’ events just for stating this.
All the gay people I know just want equality, nothing more. We don’t need to feel ’reprsented’ in the media or anywhere else, and we certainly don’t need to see rainbow flags everywhere.

 

[GusB]

Not many people are aware that Wilfrid Brambell, who played Albert Steptoe in Steptoe And Son was gay.

Wilfrid Brambell was not an especially closeted man for his time! He was arrested in the early 1960s for cottaging. It was well known he was a gay man.

Every day is a school day! I had no idea that Wilfrid Brambell was gay.

the use of the Q word is deeply offensive to me and many other gay people, not least because most ‘Q’ people are same-sex attracted, ie straight.

"Queer" doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor do any of the other derogatory words used to describe us. I once walked into a pub (with my dad) and heard someone mutter "Gaylord"; my first thought was "Lord of the Gays - Yay!" I've no idea why they thought that - perhaps I was better dressed

 

[Scotrail12]

On holiday just now but having read the responses to the thread, I think I'll need to start looking for a new PT when back home.

 

[johnnychips]

On holiday just now but having read the responses to the thread, I think I'll need to start looking for a new PT when back home.

What’s a PT?

 

[najaB]

What’s a PT?

I presume "personal trainer":

I was at a session with my personal trainer at the gym...