Tapas and LGBT Sensitivity Failures

[azzy-m]

You know, I could be misinterpreting this, but: just because a creator and their story likes to put their LGBT content front and center doesn't automatically mean it is pandering, ESPECIALLY if that creator is LGBT+ themselves. I love stories that just let the LGBT+ characters appear casually, but it's not bad if the characters talk about their sexualities/gender/gender identity on screen. Actually, it can be a good thing!

Am I pandering by having a character talk about polyamory on screen? Am I pandering by having a character talk about his life before he transitioned? No. Things are, unsurprisingly, more complicated than "slapping LGBT genre on story + creator talking about the LGBT aspects of the story = pandering". It's a WILD generalization, and a dangerous one at that.

Can we LGBT creators create stories with gay and trans characters and promoting them without people bombarding us with "pandering!! PANDERING!!" because legit I like celebrating my, and others, characters, i like talking about those characters, please

[domisotto]

Well, on the inverse, there are people who actively seek out LBGTQ work that is written by the creators from the community that introduce the new themes and new outlook and represent the LGBTQ characters the way they live that truth and see it.

They specifically do not want to read stories written by the straight authors, because they don't like their way of portraying their leads.

So, the clearer the rules, the less potential to do something wrong, because nobody wants to intentionally do something wrong or be offensive or take the exposure away from the marginalized creators.

It's on Tapas to decide on those rules and prevent conflict and hurt as much as possible in their genre definition and advertising.

[KRWright]

I don't think the answer is outing everyone who writes in the LGBTQ genre. That's a massive safety issue.

[Junohugger]

Is this something LGBTQ+ creators have been asking for? A genre is a genre, not a marker of the identity of the creator. I'm certainly of the belief that the work is to be judged on its own merits rather than the identity of the creator. I also, as a gay creator do not want to be highlighted as a gay person, I want my work to be judged as it is. My work's gayness is out and proud, my own identity is no one's business. I have the right to keep it as such.

Can I ask you where you got the idea this is something LGBTQ+ people are asking for? I'm certainly not. It sounds like a really insensitive idea and not a solution to the problem in the slightest, especially considering the vitriol already expressed towards LGBTQ works in this thread alone, can you imagine if Tapas began tagging creators as such?

[domisotto]

But neither it is good for a straight writer to get popular specifically because there is a false assumption they are part of the lgbtq, particularly when the marginalized creators ask for the additional exposure.

[domisotto]

Is this something LGBTQ+ creators have been asking for? A genre is a genre, not a marker of the identity of the creator. I'm

My feed on Twitter has writers that talk about the lack of interest in their work because they are a part of the marginalized communities, that they are bypassed because they are told there is no audience for their work, etc. If people do not want that additional promotion, they can use other genres. GL was certainly welcomed by users on the forum here stating that it was a category they needed to highlight GL works existence and attract the audience's attention, and don't end up with the same disappointing result when the GL relationship is only temporary hot 'character development' to switcheroo into straight romance by the end (this one drives me nuts).

[Junohugger]

There is certainly a problem with that happening, yes, but I don't believe cordoning off the genre is a solution. We already have people who are saying they wont read LGBTQ+ work at all as they have bigoted preconceptions. It just means we'll be more segregated than we already are, I fear. There may very well be no solid solution to this problem, sadly. I know I've already lost a bit of hope today

[Kura]

Lack of inclusion of marginalized creators is a far different issue than labeling your story genre. Which really has nothing to do with the original post and is instead changing the topic to gatekeeping who and what can be placed under the LGBT genre?

I'm a little confused on where it is you feel this current conversation should be going and how it will benefit the conversation.

[domisotto]

I am sorry to be blunt, but the rubbish people are rubbish.

[Junohugger]

On that, we agree

[domisotto]

What I am saying is that I don't like the unwritten rules, because I don't want to break them. I reacted to the post that implied that the intent of the LGBTQ genre is to highlight the works by the community. If it is so, then it needs to be clearer. If it's not, that's fine. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[KRWright]

I think that not gatekeeping LGBTQ fiction is important though, as not everyone is out, and not everyone is 100% on their sexuality or gender all the time. Content should be critiqued, and representation should be for sure, but big rules on who writes what is not what's at play here. It's a far more nuanced issue that really gets down into the depths of a discussion of: Who holds the power and how are they using it?

If Tapas as a company is using its power over the market to steer content on the site that feature queer people towards tropes and ideas the community finds harmful, then that should come under serious critique. Similarly, if Tapas in an attempt to be progressive makes an overarching statement that "only X can write X", it's throwing another big power move into the works.

But individual creators? Not so much. Like sure, you can get a bad review on your work for representational issues, but it's not the same game as a company striding into a debate that not even people within the community can agree on and saying "this is for you" and "that is for them". And the thing is, that if individual creators are intentional and seek to do good rep, then generally people have little issue with the "writing outside identity" thing. If your audience rejects your work though, then that's on you to fix.

[Kura]

I see.

Well there aren't really unwritten rules by the websites standards, LGBTQ genre is there for creators to use for their series if they have the content and are comfortable putting it under that label. I believe the commenter that brought up using the tag did so to highlight that it's also used for LGBTQ creators who use it for that reason, that's it's NOT just coming out stories or stories that revolve around gay trauma and pain. It's not meant to be exclusive but to be open to the idea that, yes, you can have a LGBTQ story about lesbians fighting a dragon, or a rag tag group of superheroes that gathered together as a queer found family but are still doing superhero things. It's to highlight that LGBTQ stories can be anything, and just because it's under LGBT instead of 'Fantasy' or 'Action' does not make it any less fantasy, nor does it make the author more pretentious for going under that genre. (I mean you can select 3 genres now, so it's perfectly reasonable to have it as a Fantasy, Action, LGBTQ story now)

[domisotto]

That's how I understood it to date.

[KRWright]

One of the things I also just want to address is that LGBTQ readers tend to be real genre hoppers as well. People's libraries are really diverse in genre, and people read everything from SFF to Literary to Contemporary Romance to Horror. As LGBTQ works are still harder to find in physical locations and on sites that have more curated approaches to content (streaming sites, hollywood, TV, trad publishing), people turn to find rep in these spaces.

BL is also very much about that. There's actually a whole host of content in the BL tag that isn't really romance-driven primarily but actually is a mash of genres. It's something else to consider when we discuss this, because it shows how the tag is used and what for.

Basically, people aren't looking for specific types of stories per se, but specific types of representation within the story.

[colorgoat]

EXACTLY......Defending fetishizing tropes toward gay men and calling content by the lgbt community the REAL pandering here in the same breath is so transparently gross. We're allowed to tell whatever stories we want, whether it's lgbt characters casually existing or whole stories about coming out. If that makes people uncomfortable, they need to reevaluate themselves big time.

[ratscout]

You know, sexuality isn't something I'm ever hyper-focused on when creating. When I'm creating a character, I don't think about their sexuality immediately--I think about what the character's goal is, how the character fits in with the theme of the story, and their sexuality might come into focus as a result of that. And whenever I decide, "This character is straight." Or, "This character is gay." I always try to think of ways to examine their sexuality in a more interesting way than just, "OMG, these two are so hot together I can't wait to get to my smut scene!" For example, what individual challenges do straight characters face? What about gay characters? Can I tie their sexuality into the story in a way that humanizes a gay person or a straight person instead of fetishizes them? Does it even matter what their sexuality is in the type of story I am creating?

I think that's the problem with the LGBTQ stories on Tapas. A lot of people just outright admit their stories are smut, y'know? And lo and behold, people who are into different types of smut flock to Tapas to indulge in said smut. It's not a real shocker. People who are creating these stories are not looking to incorporate LGBTQ characters into their stories in unique or fascinating ways, they just want to write a story where they can get to the smut. XD Now, I don't think we need to judge people who only come to Tapas looking for that kind of stuff, but it does give Tapas like, a really weird kind of image. Because some of the stories on here honestly look like they could be rated PG13 (there's like bright colors, hot-looking teen guys in safe--well, hot to normal chicks, I guess--but romantic poses, etc.) and then you click on the story and you find out there's like, hardcore porn in there. Like, the key popular genre is definitely BL, but a lot of the stuff in the BL category really is kinda fetishizing, and in my opinion, sometimes even demeaning to gay individuals. That's why I refuse to indulge in that genre despite the fact that it would get me the clicks.

Maybe Tapas should just have an entirely lewd category (straight and gay porn allowed)? That way peeps who are looking for the hardcore stuff can have it, and those who are looking for a more interesting experience with LGBT characters can still look to the LGBTQ/romance category? Honestly, I still think it's kinda silly that Tapas separates the BL and LGBTQ genres. Seriously, just commit and have a smut for all sexualities genre LOL.

[spadedigsbutts]

(They don't have a smut category anymore because of apple store Rules that have rolled out in the last few years thats why so much social media has cracked down on porn)

[ratscout]

Well that stinks, I think it would solve a lot of the problems people have with the genre on the site. XD C'mon Tapas. Commit to the lewd category. LOL. There's no way you can possibly contain all the porn anyway.

[KRWright]

I think a better way to do it would be to just have AO3 style filtering and input for that type of system though where LGBTQ is sprinkled through the genres. Right now, Tapas couldn't cope with it and work would just be harder to find.