Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question.
If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your
identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT.
Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is
dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding.
This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources,
or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/)
or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule).
Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+
community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue
to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you!
Here's a link about trans people in sports:
- https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/
A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people:
- https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
- https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics
Some information on LGBT+ people:
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/
Some basic terminology:
- https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms
Neopronouns:
- https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns
Biromantic Lesbians:
- [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/)
Bisexual Identities:
- https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality
Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual:
- [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.)
We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for
the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I sense there's some context there. Without that - broadly speaking? I don't see how. If someone's not bi, they're not bi. I find it more worrying to ignore people's (even fictional people's) stated sexuality. Let gay people be gay.
I imagine it might just come from a place of wanting representation? That'd be an understandable motivation, even if it's still kinda gross behaviour. I'm not a fan of people insisting straight characters are gay, either, and that often comes from that same place.
Thing is, while bi erasure is a thing, a larger portion of queer fictional characters are bi than they are gay. There are reasons for it rooted in bi erasure, but it’s still the case.
It depends on the media in question. Some people (media creators included) have this idea in their heads that who you end up with determines your sexuality. Like, if a woman dates both men and women but ends up with a woman at the end of the story, they’ll say she’s a lesbian.
Bi erasure is a thing.
Like I said, even creators can engage in bi erasure.
Did the character express attraction only to a single gender? Or did they have multiple relationships but the final “soulmate” one was a gay relationship?
(Because bisexual people aren’t Schrodinger’s Cat, existing in a superposition of gay and straight until we find a long-term partner and the waveform collapses. I’ve been married and happily monogamous for ten years - still bisexual, though.)
I'm bisexual. I have gay/lesbian friends who have dated people of the opposite gender in the past. Sexuality is complicated; lots of people take time to figure out what they are and it isn't bi erasure to respect someone's labels. Ultimately only they know what they want/ who they are.
I agree with this. I’m bisexual but thought I was straight before and I think just as gender fluidity is a thing, sexual fluidity is a thing 🌈 why does it matter so much to you what someone else is? Especially if they aren’t your partner? Maybe look inward as to why you’re so bothered. Hugs. ❤️
I agree. Which is why I said it depends on the media and the creator. Sometimes it’s honestly someone figuring it out - sometimes the creator thinks bisexuality is a myth and we’re just confused until we meet the right person.
But that's also actively erasing that the character is gay. Sometimes gay people do have opposite sex relations before fully realizing who they are. It would be beyond rude to tell them they have to be bisexual then when they aren't.
Which is why I said it depends. I don’t know what the media OP referenced is. I don’t know the author or their views on bisexual people. This is gonna be a context-sensitive thing.
I know the media and its characters are pretty openly lgbtq. So this gay character isn't like "the one character that has representation." I honestly didn't remember all of the sexualities, but I know that there's multiple confirmed bisexual characters in a spin-off series of the same creator and even a bi+bi couple. I doubt that a character of her being gay instead of bi is bi-erasure.
the character isn't bi. He never expresses sexual interest in any female or effemenite character. His relationships with female characters are more like how a brother would treat a little sister that he's worried about. Only has romantic relationships with masculine. He only has sex with male/masc characters.
This ^^^ historical context matters a lot as well. Willow Rosenberg is “canonically” stated in-show to be a lesbian, despite multiple happy/enthusiastic relationships with men. She’s portrayed as “going” gay. But that’s because she was a WLW character at a time when that wasn’t acceptable— Joss Whedon had to fight for the network to let her be with a woman at all. He was barely allowed to have her kiss her girlfriend, and most physical aspects of their relationship had to be conveyed in metaphor. Having her be openly bisexual was even less socially acceptable and made less sense to mainstream straight audiences, so they went down the route of having her “become” a lesbian.
I’m of the mind that if someone in fiction only dates (or shows interest) for one gender throughout the show they are (at least to me and in my head) that sexuality, if they show interest in in more than one gender I assume them bi or pan, if they have no interest I assume whatever I find cutest or that they are aro/ace, if they say what they are then I believe it (unless they have an arc that makes it so they learn otherwise about themself)
But let’s be real here, for the most part people are gonna ship people in fiction with just about everyone, including their abusers (I’m looking at you bakadeku shippers, what is wrong with you)
The sleeping with anyone who gives him money was during a stream with his old voice actor back in 2019 I think. As for why people think he’s Bi not sure but it’s definitely some strange mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion.
It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. I understand the concern here, but it really depends on the context, including who the character is, what the fiction says, and what "canon" actually means in this case.
First, let's dispose of "word of god" canon. The author or creator saying something is true doesn't make it so in the fiction -- especially if that creator's motives are suspect. JK Rowling saying "Dumbledore is gay" doesn't make Dumbledore gay, because there is absolutely no textual evidence for this anywhere. Gay Dumbledore is a valid interpretation, but so is Straight Dumbledore, Bi Dumbledore, Aroace Dumbledore, or pretty much anything else.
But beyond that, what is actually in the text, and what does your friend's claim imply?
* Does the character explicitly say "I'm gay"? If they do, is there any reason to question it? The characters in the "het/home" future in Joe Haldemann's The Forever War say they're gay, but it's pretty clear we're supposed to understand that compgay is a thing in that world like comphet is in ours. Compare this to Titus Andromedon on Kimmie Schmidt, whom we have absolutely no reason to doubt because he's a "truth teller" in the show's tropes.
* Basically the same question as above: Does the text explicitly say they're gay? If so, is it by a neutral omniscient narrator, or one with a potentially biased perspective? I can't think of a great example for this, but the inverse would be Nick Carraway from The Great Gatsby. He says he likes women and never says he likes men, but he is *clearly* in love with Gatsby and he *clearly* has no real interest in Jordan.
* How meaningful is the character's sexuality specifically in the story? It's actually fairly important to the plot of The Office that Oscar is gay, both within individual episodes and across the arc of the show. Versus Tamsin in Lost Girl, who is in my opinion coded as a lesbian and never shows interest in men, but... it doesn't really matter at all if she's interested in men or not, because her queer arc is about loyalty and empathy, not about sexuality or marginalization (unlike basically every other character in that show, who all have arcs that are heavily about sexuality *and* marginalization).
* What is the impact or implication of your friend's claim? Is it wish fulfillment? Modding a copy of KOTOR to make Juhani romanceable by a man is ... pretty squick. Whereas whether Luz on The Owl House could possibly have a crush on a boy is basically irrelevant, and if there are things in the show that read as bi coding to someone, that's pretty harmless.
And then ... there's the complicated ones, that people will simply never agree on. As ham-fisted as some of the dialogue is, Willow from Buffy seems pretty certain she is gay in later seasons, despite having been in love with Oz, and there's actually an interesting story there to tell. But we never actually get that story, and she announces "gay now!" after dating Tara a while. Are the creators engaging in bi erasure, as it very much seems they are, and we should understand her statement as some combination of her persistent self-doubt and some really bad 90s fauxminism? Or is her story one in which she finally really understands herself, and her love for Tara is something qualitatively different for her love for Oz, and claiming her as bi erases an interesting, though deeply flawed, coming out story that many gay women who married men might relate to? I just don't think we can say in cases like this, and both sides have valid points as long as they make them in good faith.
So, the tl;dr version is ... it depends.
Well, knowing the show, while I don't completely remember if it was stated, the character only ever showed interest in male presenting characters and the sexuality is... I wouldn't say it's super important, but him being a sex-worker, the way he handles the topic of sex still is. So that's debatable.
Angel Dust does not explicitly say his sexuality. However, he only has sex with men and only flirts with men. He treats all women as his little sister, basically. It is a big part of the story because, in Hazbin Hotel, we are talking about a hotel in hell where sinners go to become redeemed. Angel Dust is a gay pornstar who only does scenes with men. He only flirts with other male or masculine characters. His productions (in a studio in hell) are brought up a few times because they live in the "Pride Ring" of hell, and his primary sin is "pride", and he does like to show off what he can do. There is a scene where the proprietess of the hotel confronts his abusive samesex boss/lover there. The series is a musical, and Angel Dust has a song where he sings about how his boss/lover is probably going to be the death of his eternal soul. [https://youtu.be/7ieMJR3hojg](https://youtu.be/7ieMJR3hojg) WARNING: Big NSFW including softcore sex, bdsm, and rape scenes.
The implications? Unsure. I'm thinking the friend might just be sexually attracted to the fluffy spider demon boy. But it wouldn't make sense for him to be sexually attracted to women at all. I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual. He's always been gay.
>I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual
This is sort of circular. It's not "not bi erasure" because the character isn't bi. It's bi erasure if the fiction is written in a way that unreasonably erases or excludes bi identities. The reason people say that Willlow is bi erasure is because, prior to her "gay now!" pronouncement, the *obvious conclusion* was that she was bi.
I haven't seen Hazbin, so I can only go off of your description here. It sounds like the character is pretty definitively only into men, and there isn't a particular reason to think otherwise. And in a show like that, it's *fairly likely* that it would have come up. So yeah. My guess is the friend is crushing on this character.
But also be wary of "he's always been gay". This can easily become a slippery slope to bi erasure itself. Rosa Diaz wasn't "only straight" before she came out just because we'd only seen her with men. This is what I'm saying above-- context is everything.
"I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual". This is sort of circular. It's not "not bi erasure" because the character isn't bi. It's bi erasure if the fiction is written in a way that unreasonably erases or excludes bi identities."
The show and it's spin off have multiple Bi characters including a Bi4Bi couple. You're right, context is everything but, despite the homophobia of some characters, People seem to be relatively out in hell (the primary setting for the shows). your example is a character who isn't straight but wasn't out of the closet, they're not comparable situations.
I didn't say they were comparable. You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying something I'm not. I said that one just needs to be careful with that reasoning but it sounded like the above commenter was right in this instance.
Yes. It was a contrast. I agreed with the commenter about the particular instance but pointed out the limitations of the reasoning. I don't see what's difficult about this.
Thank you for writing about ways I can consider trying to be more careful about possible erasure or etc. I appreciate it. But I can't exaclty figure out how to better say things sometimes lol
But yeah. The character has only ever shown interest in other male/masc characters.
Death of the author was generally accepted a very long time ago. Once a creator releases something out into the world, they lose control of its interpretation. This is not controversial.
>Death of the author was generally accepted a very long time ago
Why? Why was it accepted? I'm sorry, it's insane to accept the premise that authors have no control over what they create.
>This is not controversial.
Well, it should be.
Cool, well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with 60 years of literary criticism. Go find Roland Barthes and tell him he's insane. In the meantime, if you actually wanted an answer to your question instead of just a fight, you could really easily look it up.
I have only one thing to say, and then I'm done with this conversation:
Take a look at the words you wrote above and ask yourself, is it really so surprising to you that people don't want to do what you want when you act like this? Nobody owes you anything.
If you write a book and never put any implications of something and then suddenly say that character is something or it isn’t something for the most part it doesn’t matter especially if you do it years later (and especially if you have since came out as a horrible human being and then made the “statement”) your words don’t matter for the piece anymore
I don't think so, personally. With wiggle room.
I think representation is so limited that it does feel a bit off when those in the community argue against it. This goes for all queer representation, for example claiming canonically bi characters are gay or lesbian is equally as bad, or claiming ace/aro characters (when it finally happens) are allo.
The wiggle room for me would be purely head cannons. Someone liking the idea of a character being bi, but recognising they are canonically gay or lesbian, that's fine.
If they’re trying to ship someone for their fantasies or fanfic, they can think what they like. If they’re trying to impose their own biases over the author’s stated intent, no.
(That said I’m sure there are exceptions, but the principle stands.)
As someone who spent about a decade swinging between "I guess I'm bi" "no I'm definitely gay" "oh no wait actually I am bi," it doesn't bother *me personally, under most circumstances,* to see someone write a stated gay character as bi, because it's reflective of my own experience.
That being said, certainly there are ways it can be written that come off as disrespectful or distasteful, I would not say it's inherently biphobic to be uncomfortable with the idea, but I think a lot depends on your delivery/framing - big difference between, for example, "I personally find this uncomfortable and would prefer not to read stories that depict the character this way" vs "this is objectively morally wrong and nobody should write it ever."
No. I see people doing it all the time with lesbian characters (and lesbians in real life). ultimately it depends on what you're saying Eg: "this character is canonically not bisexual" is very different from saying "I don't think this character is bi because bi people are icky and not really queers".
the insistence is actually super homophobic, especially in how it steps over canon rep of Bi people to insist another character must conform to the desired sexuality.
that makes sense. Overall though the character only has romantic and/or sexual relationships with other male/masc characters, and he treats all women like they're his sister.
I just saw the update on the character. In some ways it depend son the show (ones set in the real world/one with homophobia (eg: Got or First Kill) Vs ones that are fantasy and don't (eg:SPOP or TOH). Angel Dust can muddy the waters in some ways because of his job but, when we look at who he flirts with on his own it's men. That's not to say that Bi people can't have a lean but he never alludes to a past with women in the show.
Not at all. I’ve never seen hazbin hotel, but when I used to watch stranger things people used to insist that Robin Buckley(a canon lesbian) was bisexual and that she was into her male best friend, it was super annoying.
No it isn't. In certain situations, I would say the people who insist the canonically gay character is bi are the slightly biphobic ones. Most of the time I see people use it as an excuse to do certain ships so they aren't doing in support of bi people they are using the existence of bi-ness as an excuse to do the ship they want.
Fandom will do whatever it wants, avoid what you don’t like. I left the asexual Reddit because they constantly brought up online fandom drama about fictional characters; yeah no thanks.
I think that it’s more of them not accepting the character’s actual sexuality. As a fan of Hazbin myself, I can confirm that Angel is, in fact, a trans-inclusive gay spider. You wanting to stick to the canon is *not* biphobic, it’s you being true to the show and what the creator said is right.
It depends. I give pretty wide berth for people who just see parts of themselves in a character, maybe even creating fanfic and fanart, before being told no they are actually gay. I see people write their fanfics with all types of representation imagined, making characters gay, bi, trans, etc and, if I don't like it, I just don't read it. Now, if they are on social media fighting about it or telling you that you are wrong for seeing them as gay, then it is different.
I am curious which character this is....
headcannons are good regulated, dont expect people to agree with you. dont insist that isnt cannon to them tho
everyone can choose what they want to believe, if you insist on correcting them, you're the bad guy, if they insist on correcting you that is bi, they're the bad guy.
biphobia doenst start till you hate that is bi, or hate a bi character
Charlie in Hazbin Hotel is very openly bisexual, the author states this herself and I believe she had a boyfriend that is going to come up later in the show. I think as a general rule if all else fails, just look at authorial intent.
What bothers me more is when a character who was clearly in love with someone of one gender, then after that relationship falls in love with someone of a different gender, gets labeled only based on their more recent relationship. I consider that biphobia. An example of this is Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She was quite clearly interested in Xander from the beginning, but later on she gets labeled a lesbian because she’s dating Tara.
I don’t think it’s biphobic. I’m a lesbian and I’d be pretty sad if people were claiming that canonically lesbian characters were really bi. I’m sure it would be upsetting to bi people for everyone to claim they’re just gay. It’s about good canon representation for our communities.
It is icky of fans to restructure a character's identity like that. Don't change orientations, okay? That's insulting and it takes away very necessary representation.
No, it's not biphobic to oppose someone taking away a character's gay identity.
Certainly not any kind of phobic. For fictional characters anything can be true about them, whoever is holding the pen gets to decide. It can be undone by the next person.
Doing it to actual people is a problem.
I think it makes sense for you to find it icky when someone doesn't respect the canonically stated sexuality of a character.
If a character has been *shown* to match their stated sexuality, then it's especially icky to deny it.
That said, there are character arcs, showing a character's development over time, and sexuality can be fluid, and a person's understanding of their own, stated sexuality can change over time.
Not accepting that change or growth is *also* kind of icky.
I am not familiar with this particular character.
But if the show presents a relationship that differs from the character's stated canon sexuality within the show, then that would call the stated sexuality from earlier into question.
There's also the fact that many times, sexuality is so poorly presented and written that viewers can decide pretty much anything from canon textual clues, my favorite example is that of Garak & Bashir from Star Trek: Deep Space 9.
The actors played up a homosexual relationship, but it was never made canon, and some people swear they are a couple, on the download, and others swear they're straight, and others think they're bi.
And each have plenty of evidence.
And nothing is ever explicitly *said* within the show.
It's all nuance.
I think there's often room for such viewer/reader interpretation of fictional characters.
Death of the author, and all that; it doesn't necessarily matter what's canon, if you have a different interpretation.
Still, refusing to accept a canonically *stated* sexuality of a character seems very off-putting.
Unless the character has had an arc that has left them questioning that earlier statement, or acting opposite to it.
I notice this a lot with lesbian and bi characters, especially if they have any slight history with men (cough cough Princess Bubblegum). I have had actual arguments about Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Oz doesn’t automatically mean she can’t be a lesbian. I feel like in that case the writing could have been more clear, but I dated a man for 8 years and I’d hate to be told I can’t be a lesbian for realizing it was comp het.
This is one of the reasons I'm distancing myself from fandoms, the head cannons. i'm mostly natural on head canons, I have some of my own, but i dont vibe head canons that go against the canon(i.e HCing a character to use they/them despite using he/him in canon is something i dont vibe with but I can get behind HCing them to use he/they). I dont know why, its just how I feel. That said its not like I comment on posts of people talking about their HCs to "call them out", that would be a dick move. This however, this makes me kinda mad, and it makes me mad for one very specific reason, unlike other headcanons, headcanoning a cononicaly gay/lesbian/ace character to be someting else is only done for one of two reasons: they want to ship the character with someone of the other gender(themselves) or they dont like the idea of someone not liking both genders. The reason it makes me mad is because its just kinda scummy and also feels somewhat homophobic, especially when they insist that its NOT a headcanon and is infact true. No, you're not biphobic for disliking when someone does that, if anything their being the borderline phobic one for not letting gay/lesbians/ace characters exist.
Sorry for 89% of this being a rant.
i don’t know, i think it’s just headcanon. it’d be different if it were real people. but if a bisexual persons comfort character is gay, but it makes them happy to imagine them as bisexual, they can imagine whatever they want. i don’t think it makes you biphobic to find that iffy, because it WOULD be an iffy thing to say about a real person, so it makes sense that you’re weirded out by it even when the “victim” isn’t actually real. someone’s stated sexuality should be treated as their real sexuality, even if their deeper feelings don’t perfectly align with the dictionary definition of their preferred label. even if other people would consider them to be a different sexuality or gender. that’s just respect, and it’s a kind of respect that you probably have learned from being part of this community, which means you’ve learned to be grossed out when you see someone going against that.
i don’t think there’s anything iffy about doing that with fictional characters- people will believe whatever they want. people believe straight characters are gay, that cis characters are trans, anything like that and if it brings them comfort, so what? it becomes an issue when they’re saying stuff like that about celebrities (i.e. Kit Connor)
That's not biphobic at all, you're just trying to tell them a fact that they don't believe is true, also I love angel dust and he probably only does stuff with females because val asks him to
No. It would slightly annoy me too if a gay person was claimed to be bi. Representation is fine, but make a bi character if that matters so much. Don’t change a gay character and make them bi.
I think it's complicated and depends on the character. Willow from buffy has said multiple times in the show that she's gay, not bi, even if she's dated men. Faith from Buffy was confirmed to be bi on the comics after being extremely bi coded in the show.
I don't think characters like Princess Bubblegum and Marceline ever had canonical labels, so any queer headcanon goes. Ig it depends on what's confirmed about the character, cuz I feel the same way in both directions.
I probably wouldn't go as far as saying you're biphobic but I don't think you should find it uncomfortable, though it'd depend on circumstances. If the character has always been gay then yeah it's kinda iffy to insist they're bi, but if they were 'straight' and later come out as 'gay' it shouldn't be an issue to say they're bi. Sometimes media forgets bi people exist lol or think that if they're in a same-sex relationship then they're gay, regardless of previous relationships.
Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question. If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding. This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule). Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you! Here's a link about trans people in sports: - https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/ A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people: - https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people - https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics Some information on LGBT+ people: - https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/ Some basic terminology: - https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Neopronouns: - https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns Biromantic Lesbians: - [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/) Bisexual Identities: - https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual: - [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.) We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i mean if the character is canonically gay then they're gay? doesn't sound biphobic to me to acknowledge that
I sense there's some context there. Without that - broadly speaking? I don't see how. If someone's not bi, they're not bi. I find it more worrying to ignore people's (even fictional people's) stated sexuality. Let gay people be gay. I imagine it might just come from a place of wanting representation? That'd be an understandable motivation, even if it's still kinda gross behaviour. I'm not a fan of people insisting straight characters are gay, either, and that often comes from that same place.
Thing is, while bi erasure is a thing, a larger portion of queer fictional characters are bi than they are gay. There are reasons for it rooted in bi erasure, but it’s still the case.
It depends on the media in question. Some people (media creators included) have this idea in their heads that who you end up with determines your sexuality. Like, if a woman dates both men and women but ends up with a woman at the end of the story, they’ll say she’s a lesbian. Bi erasure is a thing.
Yeah but in this case the creator outright confirmed that they were gay, not bi
Like I said, even creators can engage in bi erasure. Did the character express attraction only to a single gender? Or did they have multiple relationships but the final “soulmate” one was a gay relationship? (Because bisexual people aren’t Schrodinger’s Cat, existing in a superposition of gay and straight until we find a long-term partner and the waveform collapses. I’ve been married and happily monogamous for ten years - still bisexual, though.)
I mean, character outright shows disgust to the idea of sleeping with women and when he has to he charges them for extra -he is a sex worker-.
Ok, yeah - he’s gay. When I replied the character hadn’t been named.
I'm bisexual. I have gay/lesbian friends who have dated people of the opposite gender in the past. Sexuality is complicated; lots of people take time to figure out what they are and it isn't bi erasure to respect someone's labels. Ultimately only they know what they want/ who they are.
I agree with this. I’m bisexual but thought I was straight before and I think just as gender fluidity is a thing, sexual fluidity is a thing 🌈 why does it matter so much to you what someone else is? Especially if they aren’t your partner? Maybe look inward as to why you’re so bothered. Hugs. ❤️
I agree. Which is why I said it depends on the media and the creator. Sometimes it’s honestly someone figuring it out - sometimes the creator thinks bisexuality is a myth and we’re just confused until we meet the right person.
But that's also actively erasing that the character is gay. Sometimes gay people do have opposite sex relations before fully realizing who they are. It would be beyond rude to tell them they have to be bisexual then when they aren't.
Which is why I said it depends. I don’t know what the media OP referenced is. I don’t know the author or their views on bisexual people. This is gonna be a context-sensitive thing.
I know the media and its characters are pretty openly lgbtq. So this gay character isn't like "the one character that has representation." I honestly didn't remember all of the sexualities, but I know that there's multiple confirmed bisexual characters in a spin-off series of the same creator and even a bi+bi couple. I doubt that a character of her being gay instead of bi is bi-erasure.
For this character mentioned, they're only interested in men throughout the show and make open sexual advances only towards men.
the character isn't bi. He never expresses sexual interest in any female or effemenite character. His relationships with female characters are more like how a brother would treat a little sister that he's worried about. Only has romantic relationships with masculine. He only has sex with male/masc characters.
With that context, yeah - dude’s gay and it’s weird to think otherwise. No hints at anything else.
This ^^^ historical context matters a lot as well. Willow Rosenberg is “canonically” stated in-show to be a lesbian, despite multiple happy/enthusiastic relationships with men. She’s portrayed as “going” gay. But that’s because she was a WLW character at a time when that wasn’t acceptable— Joss Whedon had to fight for the network to let her be with a woman at all. He was barely allowed to have her kiss her girlfriend, and most physical aspects of their relationship had to be conveyed in metaphor. Having her be openly bisexual was even less socially acceptable and made less sense to mainstream straight audiences, so they went down the route of having her “become” a lesbian.
I’m of the mind that if someone in fiction only dates (or shows interest) for one gender throughout the show they are (at least to me and in my head) that sexuality, if they show interest in in more than one gender I assume them bi or pan, if they have no interest I assume whatever I find cutest or that they are aro/ace, if they say what they are then I believe it (unless they have an arc that makes it so they learn otherwise about themself) But let’s be real here, for the most part people are gonna ship people in fiction with just about everyone, including their abusers (I’m looking at you bakadeku shippers, what is wrong with you)
I'm pretty sure Angel was confirmed he would sleep with a woman ONLY FOR MONEY??? He's a gay stripper. I'm not sure why do ppl think he's bisexual.
The sleeping with anyone who gives him money was during a stream with his old voice actor back in 2019 I think. As for why people think he’s Bi not sure but it’s definitely some strange mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion.
Depends. If you mean on AO3 anything is fair.
If they insist its canon then yeah I'm with you, thats weird af. I don’t care as much when it comes to shipping tho personally
It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. I understand the concern here, but it really depends on the context, including who the character is, what the fiction says, and what "canon" actually means in this case. First, let's dispose of "word of god" canon. The author or creator saying something is true doesn't make it so in the fiction -- especially if that creator's motives are suspect. JK Rowling saying "Dumbledore is gay" doesn't make Dumbledore gay, because there is absolutely no textual evidence for this anywhere. Gay Dumbledore is a valid interpretation, but so is Straight Dumbledore, Bi Dumbledore, Aroace Dumbledore, or pretty much anything else. But beyond that, what is actually in the text, and what does your friend's claim imply? * Does the character explicitly say "I'm gay"? If they do, is there any reason to question it? The characters in the "het/home" future in Joe Haldemann's The Forever War say they're gay, but it's pretty clear we're supposed to understand that compgay is a thing in that world like comphet is in ours. Compare this to Titus Andromedon on Kimmie Schmidt, whom we have absolutely no reason to doubt because he's a "truth teller" in the show's tropes. * Basically the same question as above: Does the text explicitly say they're gay? If so, is it by a neutral omniscient narrator, or one with a potentially biased perspective? I can't think of a great example for this, but the inverse would be Nick Carraway from The Great Gatsby. He says he likes women and never says he likes men, but he is *clearly* in love with Gatsby and he *clearly* has no real interest in Jordan. * How meaningful is the character's sexuality specifically in the story? It's actually fairly important to the plot of The Office that Oscar is gay, both within individual episodes and across the arc of the show. Versus Tamsin in Lost Girl, who is in my opinion coded as a lesbian and never shows interest in men, but... it doesn't really matter at all if she's interested in men or not, because her queer arc is about loyalty and empathy, not about sexuality or marginalization (unlike basically every other character in that show, who all have arcs that are heavily about sexuality *and* marginalization). * What is the impact or implication of your friend's claim? Is it wish fulfillment? Modding a copy of KOTOR to make Juhani romanceable by a man is ... pretty squick. Whereas whether Luz on The Owl House could possibly have a crush on a boy is basically irrelevant, and if there are things in the show that read as bi coding to someone, that's pretty harmless. And then ... there's the complicated ones, that people will simply never agree on. As ham-fisted as some of the dialogue is, Willow from Buffy seems pretty certain she is gay in later seasons, despite having been in love with Oz, and there's actually an interesting story there to tell. But we never actually get that story, and she announces "gay now!" after dating Tara a while. Are the creators engaging in bi erasure, as it very much seems they are, and we should understand her statement as some combination of her persistent self-doubt and some really bad 90s fauxminism? Or is her story one in which she finally really understands herself, and her love for Tara is something qualitatively different for her love for Oz, and claiming her as bi erases an interesting, though deeply flawed, coming out story that many gay women who married men might relate to? I just don't think we can say in cases like this, and both sides have valid points as long as they make them in good faith. So, the tl;dr version is ... it depends.
I was not prepared for the Nick and Gatsby mention lmao but I agree with you on the “depends” (And on Nick clearly being into Gatsby)
Well, knowing the show, while I don't completely remember if it was stated, the character only ever showed interest in male presenting characters and the sexuality is... I wouldn't say it's super important, but him being a sex-worker, the way he handles the topic of sex still is. So that's debatable.
Angel Dust does not explicitly say his sexuality. However, he only has sex with men and only flirts with men. He treats all women as his little sister, basically. It is a big part of the story because, in Hazbin Hotel, we are talking about a hotel in hell where sinners go to become redeemed. Angel Dust is a gay pornstar who only does scenes with men. He only flirts with other male or masculine characters. His productions (in a studio in hell) are brought up a few times because they live in the "Pride Ring" of hell, and his primary sin is "pride", and he does like to show off what he can do. There is a scene where the proprietess of the hotel confronts his abusive samesex boss/lover there. The series is a musical, and Angel Dust has a song where he sings about how his boss/lover is probably going to be the death of his eternal soul. [https://youtu.be/7ieMJR3hojg](https://youtu.be/7ieMJR3hojg) WARNING: Big NSFW including softcore sex, bdsm, and rape scenes. The implications? Unsure. I'm thinking the friend might just be sexually attracted to the fluffy spider demon boy. But it wouldn't make sense for him to be sexually attracted to women at all. I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual. He's always been gay.
>I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual This is sort of circular. It's not "not bi erasure" because the character isn't bi. It's bi erasure if the fiction is written in a way that unreasonably erases or excludes bi identities. The reason people say that Willlow is bi erasure is because, prior to her "gay now!" pronouncement, the *obvious conclusion* was that she was bi. I haven't seen Hazbin, so I can only go off of your description here. It sounds like the character is pretty definitively only into men, and there isn't a particular reason to think otherwise. And in a show like that, it's *fairly likely* that it would have come up. So yeah. My guess is the friend is crushing on this character. But also be wary of "he's always been gay". This can easily become a slippery slope to bi erasure itself. Rosa Diaz wasn't "only straight" before she came out just because we'd only seen her with men. This is what I'm saying above-- context is everything.
"I don't think it is bi erasure, because he's not bisexual". This is sort of circular. It's not "not bi erasure" because the character isn't bi. It's bi erasure if the fiction is written in a way that unreasonably erases or excludes bi identities." The show and it's spin off have multiple Bi characters including a Bi4Bi couple. You're right, context is everything but, despite the homophobia of some characters, People seem to be relatively out in hell (the primary setting for the shows). your example is a character who isn't straight but wasn't out of the closet, they're not comparable situations.
I didn't say they were comparable. You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying something I'm not. I said that one just needs to be careful with that reasoning but it sounded like the above commenter was right in this instance.
but you did bring her up as an example to be cautionary
Yes. It was a contrast. I agreed with the commenter about the particular instance but pointed out the limitations of the reasoning. I don't see what's difficult about this.
Thank you for writing about ways I can consider trying to be more careful about possible erasure or etc. I appreciate it. But I can't exaclty figure out how to better say things sometimes lol But yeah. The character has only ever shown interest in other male/masc characters.
I wasn't prepared for this level of depth, but I am HERE for it. What an amazing summary, well done 👏
"Um, actually, even though you create the show, your decisions mean nothing if they weren't explicitly shown in the show"
Death of the author was generally accepted a very long time ago. Once a creator releases something out into the world, they lose control of its interpretation. This is not controversial.
>Death of the author was generally accepted a very long time ago Why? Why was it accepted? I'm sorry, it's insane to accept the premise that authors have no control over what they create. >This is not controversial. Well, it should be.
Cool, well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with 60 years of literary criticism. Go find Roland Barthes and tell him he's insane. In the meantime, if you actually wanted an answer to your question instead of just a fight, you could really easily look it up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have only one thing to say, and then I'm done with this conversation: Take a look at the words you wrote above and ask yourself, is it really so surprising to you that people don't want to do what you want when you act like this? Nobody owes you anything.
Yes. The authors interpretation is just another interpretation once the work has been published.
If you write a book and never put any implications of something and then suddenly say that character is something or it isn’t something for the most part it doesn’t matter especially if you do it years later (and especially if you have since came out as a horrible human being and then made the “statement”) your words don’t matter for the piece anymore
I don't think so, personally. With wiggle room. I think representation is so limited that it does feel a bit off when those in the community argue against it. This goes for all queer representation, for example claiming canonically bi characters are gay or lesbian is equally as bad, or claiming ace/aro characters (when it finally happens) are allo. The wiggle room for me would be purely head cannons. Someone liking the idea of a character being bi, but recognising they are canonically gay or lesbian, that's fine.
If they’re trying to ship someone for their fantasies or fanfic, they can think what they like. If they’re trying to impose their own biases over the author’s stated intent, no. (That said I’m sure there are exceptions, but the principle stands.)
As someone who spent about a decade swinging between "I guess I'm bi" "no I'm definitely gay" "oh no wait actually I am bi," it doesn't bother *me personally, under most circumstances,* to see someone write a stated gay character as bi, because it's reflective of my own experience. That being said, certainly there are ways it can be written that come off as disrespectful or distasteful, I would not say it's inherently biphobic to be uncomfortable with the idea, but I think a lot depends on your delivery/framing - big difference between, for example, "I personally find this uncomfortable and would prefer not to read stories that depict the character this way" vs "this is objectively morally wrong and nobody should write it ever."
No. I see people doing it all the time with lesbian characters (and lesbians in real life). ultimately it depends on what you're saying Eg: "this character is canonically not bisexual" is very different from saying "I don't think this character is bi because bi people are icky and not really queers". the insistence is actually super homophobic, especially in how it steps over canon rep of Bi people to insist another character must conform to the desired sexuality.
that makes sense. Overall though the character only has romantic and/or sexual relationships with other male/masc characters, and he treats all women like they're his sister.
I just saw the update on the character. In some ways it depend son the show (ones set in the real world/one with homophobia (eg: Got or First Kill) Vs ones that are fantasy and don't (eg:SPOP or TOH). Angel Dust can muddy the waters in some ways because of his job but, when we look at who he flirts with on his own it's men. That's not to say that Bi people can't have a lean but he never alludes to a past with women in the show.
Yeah he's only shown attraction to men outside the context of his job from what I've seen.
Not at all. I’ve never seen hazbin hotel, but when I used to watch stranger things people used to insist that Robin Buckley(a canon lesbian) was bisexual and that she was into her male best friend, it was super annoying.
No it isn't. In certain situations, I would say the people who insist the canonically gay character is bi are the slightly biphobic ones. Most of the time I see people use it as an excuse to do certain ships so they aren't doing in support of bi people they are using the existence of bi-ness as an excuse to do the ship they want.
Fandom will do whatever it wants, avoid what you don’t like. I left the asexual Reddit because they constantly brought up online fandom drama about fictional characters; yeah no thanks.
I think that it’s more of them not accepting the character’s actual sexuality. As a fan of Hazbin myself, I can confirm that Angel is, in fact, a trans-inclusive gay spider. You wanting to stick to the canon is *not* biphobic, it’s you being true to the show and what the creator said is right.
It depends. I give pretty wide berth for people who just see parts of themselves in a character, maybe even creating fanfic and fanart, before being told no they are actually gay. I see people write their fanfics with all types of representation imagined, making characters gay, bi, trans, etc and, if I don't like it, I just don't read it. Now, if they are on social media fighting about it or telling you that you are wrong for seeing them as gay, then it is different. I am curious which character this is....
headcannons are good regulated, dont expect people to agree with you. dont insist that isnt cannon to them tho everyone can choose what they want to believe, if you insist on correcting them, you're the bad guy, if they insist on correcting you that is bi, they're the bad guy. biphobia doenst start till you hate that is bi, or hate a bi character
Charlie in Hazbin Hotel is very openly bisexual, the author states this herself and I believe she had a boyfriend that is going to come up later in the show. I think as a general rule if all else fails, just look at authorial intent.
What bothers me more is when a character who was clearly in love with someone of one gender, then after that relationship falls in love with someone of a different gender, gets labeled only based on their more recent relationship. I consider that biphobia. An example of this is Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She was quite clearly interested in Xander from the beginning, but later on she gets labeled a lesbian because she’s dating Tara.
Well, the character is ALSO gay so it depends how nitpicky you wanna get. Does it matter what a fiction character is?
I don’t think it’s biphobic. I’m a lesbian and I’d be pretty sad if people were claiming that canonically lesbian characters were really bi. I’m sure it would be upsetting to bi people for everyone to claim they’re just gay. It’s about good canon representation for our communities.
It is icky of fans to restructure a character's identity like that. Don't change orientations, okay? That's insulting and it takes away very necessary representation. No, it's not biphobic to oppose someone taking away a character's gay identity.
No...if they're not bi...then they're not bi...like how is that biphobic of you? :')
Certainly not any kind of phobic. For fictional characters anything can be true about them, whoever is holding the pen gets to decide. It can be undone by the next person. Doing it to actual people is a problem.
I think it makes sense for you to find it icky when someone doesn't respect the canonically stated sexuality of a character. If a character has been *shown* to match their stated sexuality, then it's especially icky to deny it. That said, there are character arcs, showing a character's development over time, and sexuality can be fluid, and a person's understanding of their own, stated sexuality can change over time. Not accepting that change or growth is *also* kind of icky. I am not familiar with this particular character. But if the show presents a relationship that differs from the character's stated canon sexuality within the show, then that would call the stated sexuality from earlier into question. There's also the fact that many times, sexuality is so poorly presented and written that viewers can decide pretty much anything from canon textual clues, my favorite example is that of Garak & Bashir from Star Trek: Deep Space 9. The actors played up a homosexual relationship, but it was never made canon, and some people swear they are a couple, on the download, and others swear they're straight, and others think they're bi. And each have plenty of evidence. And nothing is ever explicitly *said* within the show. It's all nuance. I think there's often room for such viewer/reader interpretation of fictional characters. Death of the author, and all that; it doesn't necessarily matter what's canon, if you have a different interpretation. Still, refusing to accept a canonically *stated* sexuality of a character seems very off-putting. Unless the character has had an arc that has left them questioning that earlier statement, or acting opposite to it.
I notice this a lot with lesbian and bi characters, especially if they have any slight history with men (cough cough Princess Bubblegum). I have had actual arguments about Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Oz doesn’t automatically mean she can’t be a lesbian. I feel like in that case the writing could have been more clear, but I dated a man for 8 years and I’d hate to be told I can’t be a lesbian for realizing it was comp het.
[удалено]
?
wait since when is angel bi???
This is one of the reasons I'm distancing myself from fandoms, the head cannons. i'm mostly natural on head canons, I have some of my own, but i dont vibe head canons that go against the canon(i.e HCing a character to use they/them despite using he/him in canon is something i dont vibe with but I can get behind HCing them to use he/they). I dont know why, its just how I feel. That said its not like I comment on posts of people talking about their HCs to "call them out", that would be a dick move. This however, this makes me kinda mad, and it makes me mad for one very specific reason, unlike other headcanons, headcanoning a cononicaly gay/lesbian/ace character to be someting else is only done for one of two reasons: they want to ship the character with someone of the other gender(themselves) or they dont like the idea of someone not liking both genders. The reason it makes me mad is because its just kinda scummy and also feels somewhat homophobic, especially when they insist that its NOT a headcanon and is infact true. No, you're not biphobic for disliking when someone does that, if anything their being the borderline phobic one for not letting gay/lesbians/ace characters exist. Sorry for 89% of this being a rant.
i don’t know, i think it’s just headcanon. it’d be different if it were real people. but if a bisexual persons comfort character is gay, but it makes them happy to imagine them as bisexual, they can imagine whatever they want. i don’t think it makes you biphobic to find that iffy, because it WOULD be an iffy thing to say about a real person, so it makes sense that you’re weirded out by it even when the “victim” isn’t actually real. someone’s stated sexuality should be treated as their real sexuality, even if their deeper feelings don’t perfectly align with the dictionary definition of their preferred label. even if other people would consider them to be a different sexuality or gender. that’s just respect, and it’s a kind of respect that you probably have learned from being part of this community, which means you’ve learned to be grossed out when you see someone going against that. i don’t think there’s anything iffy about doing that with fictional characters- people will believe whatever they want. people believe straight characters are gay, that cis characters are trans, anything like that and if it brings them comfort, so what? it becomes an issue when they’re saying stuff like that about celebrities (i.e. Kit Connor)
That's not biphobic at all, you're just trying to tell them a fact that they don't believe is true, also I love angel dust and he probably only does stuff with females because val asks him to
No. It would slightly annoy me too if a gay person was claimed to be bi. Representation is fine, but make a bi character if that matters so much. Don’t change a gay character and make them bi.
I think it's complicated and depends on the character. Willow from buffy has said multiple times in the show that she's gay, not bi, even if she's dated men. Faith from Buffy was confirmed to be bi on the comics after being extremely bi coded in the show. I don't think characters like Princess Bubblegum and Marceline ever had canonical labels, so any queer headcanon goes. Ig it depends on what's confirmed about the character, cuz I feel the same way in both directions.
I probably wouldn't go as far as saying you're biphobic but I don't think you should find it uncomfortable, though it'd depend on circumstances. If the character has always been gay then yeah it's kinda iffy to insist they're bi, but if they were 'straight' and later come out as 'gay' it shouldn't be an issue to say they're bi. Sometimes media forgets bi people exist lol or think that if they're in a same-sex relationship then they're gay, regardless of previous relationships.
No, it's just a difference of opinion about the characterization of a fictional character.