“Well, it’s good to know that you don’t suffer from lack of representation, but to those of us who do, it is important. It’s depressing to see so much of the world’s stories ignore us, and uplifting to be acknowledged. It’s not about “filling a quota”, it’s about that acknowledgment (and generally characters written to fill a quota are pretty poor characters, because the writer clearly didn’t care enough to make them an actual character). To compare us with the homophobes who hate shows for outing characters is frankly insulting.”
I think this is chalked up to us simply being of different mindset abouts the necessity of representation. I don’t feel the need to have some kind of fictional representation of asexuals, atheists, insomniacs, autistic people etc to somehow justify my own existance as all of those things. As for the last bit the most I can say is I didn’t intend to insult, but if it becomes the end result then I’m not gonna backtrack on it because that’s frankly how I see you and until that changes (which you’re more than welcome to try and change like you are now) that’s gonna stick.
“Except we’re not in the middle. Not even close. We’re better than we were, sure, but we’re certainly not there yet, and claiming that there’s no problem, no inherent bias in the system, is pure fantasy. Once we reach a point of actual equal representation, then it won’t matter, but until then, please kindly stop pretending that this isn’t a problem, because it is.”
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this point either. The way I see it it’s only a problem to those who scream either “NOT ENOUGH MUH REPRESENTATION” or “PROPAGANDA UR GOING TO HELL.” To everyone else it’s either indifference or casual acceptance. It reminds me of this image I saw once of political spectrums were the far end yells insults at one another and everyone else in between goes “shut up shut up shut up ><”
Being gay now isn’t what it once was, in the western world we have equal rights in most places and in the places there isn’t equal rights isn’t going to change because you cram gay characters into a fictional story everywhere over on our end. Are there biggots still even in the western world? Sure. As much as some people think that being an atheist means you don’t have a morality because no god or as much as being right or left wing can be in some places like the one guy who was fired from Google because he had some right-wing perspective on something that had happened recently (can’t remember what). Biggots towards almost anything exist everywhere.
But hey, feel free to educate me. What problems and inherent biases exist in “the system” that keeps gays from having equal rights under the law from their straight/bi/insert counterparts? How does it compare to, for example, someone who’s an atheist or muslim or whatever in the Christian-majority America?
“Okay, history lesson time: the medieval period (or middle ages) ended in about 1500. Execution for homosexuality began in England and Wales (and, yes, you’re talking about England and Wales) in 1533 (following the Reformation) in the Renaissance period. Under the earlier Catholicism, all that was required was a penance. This may seem like a small point that I’m being unnecessarily pedantic about, but it does show that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about here, and maybe you should listen to those of us who do.”
I stand corrected on the details, but you’re pretty much ignoring the overall point there so you can chalk it up to “nup ur wrong lel.”
“I’ve seen straight sex scenes in many (many) movies that didn’t need them. And they’re not even there to remind us that the characters are straight. 
And I know you say you don’t like them either, but here’s the difference: You’re not complaining about those scenes being straight, just unnecessary, so don’t complain here; I’m sure there are threads about the necessity of romance you could be complaining on. The fact that you’re on here means you’re complaining about the gay scenes specifically.”
While my arguing of it does have an element of “don’t fall into the same trap;” okay, fair enough. I apologize on that one.
“Not “must”. “Should”. “Ought”, even. The problem is that all characters are straight by default. That’s the natural assumption, by viewers of any persuasion. To “become” a gay character, an assumed-straight character has to actually be revealed as gay, whether it’s relevant to the plot or not. This means that there’s always an inherent bias in the actual existence of these characters. A gay character has to shove their homosexuality down your throat to exist, straight characters just have to exist.”
I think it’s important to remember that homosexuals are a minority, that’s why they don’t show up as often as heterosexuals; realism. I wanna be clear: I’m not trying to invalidate homosexual representation or say that they are below straight people, what my point is is that there is a reason why people assume most others are straight from the getgo until corrected or else shown a sign to the contrary. You can do that without shoving it down your throat by making the sexuality relevant even for a split moment. Here’s how I see examples:
Right example #1: Someone hits on X, X declines and explains briefly that s/he’s gay.
Right example #2: X sees someone attractive of the same gender and briefly shows interest.
Right example #3: Homosexuality is relevant to the plot/character development and showing X and Y being intimate after X or Y has, for example, been trying to work through his/her issues due to reasons Z is a way of progressing both of those things and show that X/Y is overcoming the problem of Z.
Wrong example #1: X feels a need to constantly remind everyone around s/he’s gay or go well out of his/her way to act in a stereotypical gay fashion.
Wrong example #2: X sees someone of the same gender who’s attractive and the scene takes five minutes of showing off before moving on.
Wrong example #3: Homosexuality is not relevant to the plot/character development and is just there to be there, to be different and/or fill a quota and the time it takes to show some sex scene could be better spent elsewhere as it amounts to nothing in the end, it doesn’t benefit the story or give any character development.
“I do agree though. Gay characters shouldn’t be there just to be there; they should have an actual role in the story, something far too few writers seem to realise.”
This part, if nothing else, we’re in full agreement about.
“And please do think about it; the “doesn’t affect me” attitude doesn’t help any of us.”
More than that, I don’t think it should affect any of you either because in the end we’re talking about fiction. Not real life. When we’re talking fiction, a good story and character should be what’s more important; not identity politics. All trying to shove things in where it doesn’t belong or else blowing otherwise unimportant traits out of proportion in the name of identity politics accomplishes is annoying those who aren’t in on it and ruining a part of the story in the process. When we’re talking real life, it becomes a different story entirely as far as representation goes.
Anywhoodle, I think it best we start leaving it off. As I wanna see if you can convince me there is indeed a problem with the examples I asked for above (biases in the system etc) I plan for one more response to let you know how it goes before ending with my closing statement and letting the rest of the readers decide their own opinion on this discussion. Feel free to take your time if you need to look up examples and hope my views aren’t mistaken for malice by anyone reading it.