Quote Originally Posted by Midareyukki View Post
Then they themselves don't know what they're asking.

It still doesn't mean that's representation.

Let them whine. You've seen other posts here in this website, do you think every single idea people have is good? If people don't think and care to know the topic and the concept, then it will never be done right.

But it also doesn't mean that it's wrong to ask for representation in general. Nor that it in itself is a bad thing. The reason I wrote all that is because I keep seeing people shut down the very idea without telling the people you're criticising "No, that's not how they should do it. No one in real life makes it their one unique trait to be gay, and neither should well-written fictional characters".

What they're asking for are token minority characters. Not representation. And we've been proven for the last 30 years how much of a bad idea those are.

So if people are going to criticise them, they should at least also know what representation really is. And why they shouldn't avert it entirely either. Because that's what I keep seeing. People see a bad interpretation of the concept, and deny the concept entirely.
Didn't expect to pop in and see someone reasonable. I heavily agree with you and your previous post. I just also agree that it seems many in earlier pages simply want token gay characters who exist for the sole purpose and traits that are stereotypically gay or otherwise. If there is a character built from the ground up with lore, backstory, struggles, humanization and they happen to be gay? That's fine. It's a normal person, honestly. But we actually do have a few representations like this already. Which means what's desired is your mentioned tokenism.

I still will not get over the fact that people mentioned being flamboyant or eccentric means you are absolutely gay, no discussion. If you are not flamboyant, you are absolutely straight. No discussion. I'm bewildered by the ironic bigotry.