LGBTQ Roll Call
Jun. 7th, 2010 08:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neo_prodigy posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyWith June being LGBTQ Pride, I couldn't think of a better time to do a Roll Call celebrating exceptional LGBTQ characters in comics.
While there have been a number of LGBTQ characters, most of them at best have been relegated to minor characters and at worst deplorable homophobic queer minstrel shows.
And don't get it conflated.
Visibility is not progress.
If it were then the Rawhide Kid and Northstar would be progressive trailblazing characters.
So no, this isn't just my list of queer comic characters.
This is a salute to the elite characters who have provided me with a more than a few OH HELL YEAH! moments.
A list of characters and made me proud to be a comic book geek and an LGBTQ.
Also, if you haven't already, feel free to check out my recent post on No_Scans discussing Queer Tropes to better understand where I'm coming from on this.
That being said: ROLL CALL!!!!!!!
Batwoman
Jack Harkness
Ianto Jones
The Question (Renee Montoya)
Ozymandias
Black Cat
Daken
Destiny
Mystique
Rictor & Shatterstar
And by the by: The Greeks/Romans/Spartans were like TOTALLY GAY!!!!! (nsfw)
Victoria Hand
Richie Foley/Gear
Dani Baptiste
Tim Gunn
He's awesome and must therefore be included.
Catwoman (Holly Robinson)
Lafayette Reynolds
Scandal Savage
Hulkling
Karolina Dean
Wiccan
HE"S GAY HONEY!!!! Stop trying to recruit. Straight people: Always trying to push their heterosexual agenda on us God-fearing gays. ;D
Xavin
Achilles
DAYUM is my boyfriend sexy!!!!
Go ahead. It's okay to look.
THAT"S CLOSE ENOUGH.
I'm gonna need you to back away from my man, right the hell now.
Satsu
(Ultimate) Colossus
Not sure if the live-action movie version featured 616 Colossus or Ultimate Colossus.
It really doesn't matter because you're a fool if you think I"m about to pass up a chance to partake in some Grade-A beefcake like one Daniel Cudmore.
Willow Rosenberg
Tara MaClay
John Constantine
Xena
The Midnighter
Apollo & The Midnighter
Now, I'm willing to bet there are some gems out there that myself and others may not be aware of and/or should (re)consider checking out.
So if you have any recommendations of awesome exceptional prominent LGBTQ characters in comics then by all means, sharing is caring. Please post them away in the comments.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 12:15 pm (UTC)Except for the part where I didn't do that.
Regardless of whose fault it is (like you say, that belongs to the FCC and the Concerned Parents FOR THE CHILDREN that troll them), *the lack of visible queer characters is still a problem*. The creators may have done their best to sneak some breadcrumbs through, but we're still starving over here.
I'd think after your thread with
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 12:34 pm (UTC)Please re-read the comment again.
First of all, real life does affect fiction. Not being able to see that a bigoted society is still affecting said fiction = FAIL!!!!
"Except for the part where I didn't do that. "
I actually wasn't referring to you on that point.
"Regardless of whose fault it is (like you say, that belongs to the FCC and the Concerned Parents FOR THE CHILDREN that troll them), *the lack of visible queer characters is still a problem*."
Not disputing that at all. My point is the wrong folks are being called out. Rather than calling out the FCC for unjust regulations these folks are attacking the characters.
That's like criticizing a soldier for not being visibly out.
Saying yeah it's a cool a few bread crumbs got through but we're still starving and we need to fight the system that is starving us is one thing. Attacking the folks who are beating the system to feed us is another.
"I'd think after your thread with [personal profile] crabby_lioness about Northstar you'd be the LAST person to be all "geez what more do you want?!" when others aren't as ~uncritically satisfied~ with the same examples of queer representation as you are."
We both know that's not what I said at all, so please stop misquoting me. OF COURSE you continue to fight for better representation and progressive representation at that. Of course you continue to demand better. But acknowledge the good faith efforts while continuing to do so and point out said efforts so people understand the issue at hand and why said efforts can't be visible.
However determining something not to be authentically gay because they aren't allowed to be out to be out in society = FAIL!!!!!
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 12:52 pm (UTC)--*this* is what I meant by 'equating'. Apples, meet oranges! An IRL gay American soldier knows they're gay. There's an underlying, objective reality there that outside observers aren't aware of. With a fictional character? Not so much. Their universe is *defined* by being observed and interpreted, what with being fiction and all.
Pointing out problems as embodied in a particular character is not the same as *blaming* the character. Just like it's not Northstar's *fault* he's "an avatar of straight privilege", but that's still, you know, something wrong with him as a character.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 01:08 pm (UTC)This is true, however with a fictional character they're defined by the creators: the writers/artist, the producers who push them out etc.
Depending on what venue they're in, they're also defined by adhering to regulations. And said character can easily be changed due to public pressure, advertising demands, etc.
Now if say Dumbledore and Gear were on a primetime HBO series rated TV-MA where the dynamics and regulations were different and they were still being handled in this manner, that'd be a whole other story.
The point is the bigotry of society defines both fiction and reality. Just as many folks know that if they want to get a good job or not be discriminated against, they have to remain in the closet and be invisible.
Just as creators know that if they want an LGBTQ character to be featured in a cartoon that expressly forbids them, they have to handle them with nuance and care.
Is that the way it should be? Hell no. It's fucked up. And I'm with you on that.
"There's a difference between pointing out that a character has problems that are a part of MUCH LARGER problems is not the same as *blaming* the character."
That's the problem. The characters are being blamed and the MUCH LARGER problems are being ignored and dismissed. That's what's so infuriating.
I'm not saying the war is done, the victory is there and we should all celebrate and go home.
The issue is that these are extraordinary characters who can't be out due to unjust rules, regulations and society's oppression.
Said society has already taken away so much from LGBTQs that I'm gonna stand tall and I'm not going to allow them to take this from me as well....you know, while I continue to demand more.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 02:08 pm (UTC)I don't know anything about Gear, but why would Dumbledore be prevented from being gay because he was a character in Harry Potter rather than on an HBO series? Are you saying that the dynamics and regulations of the HP series prevented him from being gay in the books?
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 02:44 pm (UTC)I can only imagine what would've happened if it was revealed in mid series that one of the characters turning on children to witchcraft was an icky homosexual. There would've been an outcry to kill him off or he probably would've been revealed as Voldemort's boss.
As a former teacher, I had to stay in the closet else I would've been faced with the inevitable pedophile charges/sexual harassment.
It's unfortunate and fucked up, but Rowling probably made the smartest play in handling Dumbledore.
I'm not saying that's the way it should be and I still stress that we need to fight for better but ignoring the dynamics and the challenges and the realities will stump us everytime.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 03:28 pm (UTC)Both middle grade and YA fiction have included gay characters for years. Lawsuits from people trying and failing to make some money off the billionaire and fundamentalist Christians attacking HP for the kind of sorcery seen in lots of middle grade and YA fiction already because it was a cultural phenomenon didn't prevent its success at all.
I can only imagine what would've happened if it was revealed in mid series that one of the characters turning on children to witchcraft was an icky homosexual. There would've been an outcry to kill him off or he probably would've been revealed as Voldemort's boss.
Rowling handled the outcry in response to her interview announcement that he was gay pretty easily. I don't see how some readers not liking him being gay would cause Rowling to change her plot to make Dumbledore the bad guy--which would produce a far greater outcry.
As a former teacher, I had to stay in the closet else I would've been faced with the inevitable pedophile charges/sexual harassment.
I believe it--but I'm not seeing how it applies to this question. (Don't meant that to sound to dismissive. I honestly don't see who in the HP situation is the equivalent of the teacher who might lose his job if parents accuse him of being a pedophile/sexually harassing students.)
It's unfortunate and fucked up, but Rowling probably made the smartest play in handling Dumbledore.
I just can't agree. I think she had a chance to take a character widely admired for other reasons (even if I personally don't like the guy!) and say that this was also part of who he was. Instead she left it out of the books, which in the end are the things that make up the actual story.
I don't really see any challenges or realities in this particular situation that prevented her or the publishers from saying the character was gay in canon. Even if it was risky at this point to say that a trusted adult character was gay in children's fiction, this of all series should have been secure enough to take the risk as guaranteed mega best sellers.
In fact, in interviews Rowling didn't say anything about being silenced. She claimed that she "would have told us all sooner if she knew we'd care," but that she left it out because it had nothing to do with the plot (even though it actually had as much to do with the plot as any number of the dozens of het relationships in the books).
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 04:18 pm (UTC)In regards to the teacher comment, my point is that people fear gays even more when we're remotely near children. So a story about a gay teacher teaching witchcraft to children is gonna be right-winger's wetdream.
You make some strong and valid points, but as a gay storyteller who's caught hell in both his professional and personal life for daring to present our stories, I can't co-sign.
But that's cool. We can agree to disagree.
And I'm hopeful that the movies will follow through where the books didn't (for whatever reason).
Read: If I don't get my hot man on man gay wizard sex on the big screen, I'm raising unholy hell. ;D
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 05:47 pm (UTC)This am Bizarro logic. Once HP is established as a global-phenom cashcow, JKR has carte blanche to do whatever the fuck she wants, she's the richest woman in Britain and no publisher is going to tell her 'no'. If she'd introduced gay themes in the first book she might've had trouble selling it at all, but by book four or five, come on.
Of course, it would still get expurgated to hell in some translations (much like Hogwarts being a co-ed school).
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 06:37 pm (UTC)"she might've had trouble selling it at all, but by book four or five, come on."
And how many established high profile A-list celebrities and sports stars ARE STILL in the closet no matter how much of a global cashcow they've proven to be?
"Of course, it would still get expurgated to hell in some translations..."
Yeah like the English translation.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 06:49 pm (UTC)(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 06:51 pm (UTC)(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 02:15 pm (UTC)How are they being ignored or dismissed? You're the one who was epically misquoting and dismissing other LGBTQ's concerns(honestly I can't believe the oppressive bullshit *you're* pulling here) since they aren't shutting up and *appreciating those breadcrumbs*. You can celebrate them, not everyone has to.
When a character is symptomatic of a bigger problem pointing it out in the character *is* pointing out the problem at large. It wouldn't *be* a problem with the character if it happened in isolation! And not everyone spells everything out exactly literally(this is so-and-so's fault; it's not as bad as having nothing; qualifying-ad-nauseam...) when they're pissed.
tl;dr: Accusing someone of "blaming the character" makes no goddamn sense. Are you "blaming" Northstar when you say he sucks?
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 02:40 pm (UTC)No. What I'm replying with is someone doesn't get to qualify that someone isn't authentically gay they aren't visible in a system that doesn't allow them to be. Demand more than breadcrumbs? You're preaching to the pastor, but cutting your nose to spite your face and ignoring the issue at hand is the problem.
"When a character is symptomatic of a bigger problem pointing it out in the character *is* pointing out the problem at large."
That hasn't been what's happening here. If someone had said, these are breadcrumbs but institutional oppression that's keeping them as breadcrumbs is fucked up, that would've been a whole other issue.
"Accusing someone of "blaming the character" makes no goddamn sense. Are you "blaming" Northstar when you say he sucks?"
I'm blaming Northstar the character in the same way I blame Amos & Andy as well as the people pushing the avatars of these examples of bigotry.
Otherwise kickass characters who can't be gay because of an oppressive system are an entire issue altogether.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 06:45 pm (UTC)Conflating the two like you did, while supporting the conflation with a long, condescending mansplanation of queer oppression to other queer people, in order to dismiss everyone else's experiences that differed from yours--a dismissal which did basically amount to "HDU not be satisfied", you hypocrite--that was utterly insulting, privileged and homophobic.
(frozen) Re: The Privilege of Visibility
Date: 2010-06-09 07:00 pm (UTC)The comment got made that invisible gays aren't authentic and don't count. That comment was destructive, hurtful and homophobic for too many of us who have had to be invisible in order to survive. I called out said bigotry which is encouraged on this forum.
This bullshit of "you can't bring real issues into this debate because that's not fair" just illustrates how full of fail your stance truly is.
Then you tried to conflate me calling out bigotry in Northstar with me calling out the REAL issues of why there's minimal LGBTQ representation.
Next you tried to cry that it's okay for you to say hurtful things because you're pissed and we're supposed to mind read what you really meant. But rather than conceding that "Yeah, I meant to say x, or you're right I just didn't convey that because I was so upset but you're correct though." You want to consider to co-sign and dismiss institutional homophobia to save face.
You have continuously dismissed queer oppression because they aren't visible to your perception and when it's been pointed out what the true issues are you're dodged and deflected with this bogus self righteous indignation. Like claiming how insulted you are is going to make your dirt righteous. Or probably you're outraged because you're being called on your shit.
Go back and reread before replying or you know what, just don't. And save the name-calling and the insults. You've spewed enough hurtful bile for one post.
(frozen) Mod Freeze
Date: 2010-06-09 07:06 pm (UTC)