A Heated Debate: Queerbaiting

The topic of "queerbaiting" has been debated heavily in recent years, particularly around the releases of two popular queer shows: Heartstopper (2022) and Heated Rivalry (2025). The conversation is far from a new one; it has been going on for as long as I've used the internet, having first encountered the debate back in the early 2000s when I first made a Tumblr account.

Queerbaiting is not well defined, and if it was I likely wouldn't be writing this post. The original usage described when an author would make implications about a fictional character having some queer identity but never confirm it officially in order to both attract a queer audience that will pick up on the subtext while also appeasing homophobic audiences that might leave the fandom if it were confirmed outright. In a more modern context, people often use it to mean any form of appealing to queer audiences simply to capitalize on them, while the "queer representation" remains minimal or even deceptive.

The Ancient Texts

The origins of the term queerbaiting are very valid and it brings to light an important issue that was very prevalent at the time, and is still more common than it should be. I first became aware of the concept around 2012 thanks to Tumblr when the Supernatural fandom was obsessed with the vaguely-hinted-at queerness of characters Dean and Castiel. While I never watched the show, I saw more than enough gifs to know the subtext was heavy but it was never explicitly confirmed that the characters were queer.

When any author or artist decides to intentionally make a characters' sexuality (or any other aspect of their identity) vague solely for the purpose of upsetting as few people as possible that needs to be understood as offensive. This is what the term was created to highlight, because it amounts to saying a queer character would be a detriment to the story if they were officially confirmed. Aside from the ways that it perpetuates harm and stereotypes in the real world, it is also a sign that your "art" isn't worth much. If you are only willing to create something that will be acceptable to everyone then you aren't creating art and you should not be considered an artist.

The problem is that gender and sexuality are not simple, so there are times and contexts where not being explicit about a character's sexuality or gender identity is not queerbaiting. The problem is when the author makes an intentional choice to not fully confirm it so they can have both the buy-in from the queer community and not ruffle the feathers of homophobic consumers, executives, or investors.

There are several scenarios that I can imagine where it may appear to be queerbaiting at first glance but the author may have only good intentions. I want to detail a few of these below before I go into the next section where we'll look at what happens when queerbaiting allegations are made towards real people instead of fictional characters.

Exhibit A: The Slow Burn

If the author is writing a story where a character slowly comes to realize their own queer identity there would likely be a lot of queer subtext that readers may or may not pick up on during the character's journey, depending on their own experience with questioning sexuality and gender. If the author doesn't want to spoil the ending in any way it is very likely that it could appear to be a story full of queerbaiting.

Exhibit B: Questioning

For a story about someone who questions their gender or sexuality but ultimately decides that they are in fact straight / cisgender it could be very easy to accuse the author of queerbaiting. While I don't think there's a need for a civil rights movement solely dedicated to straight people who question their sexuality, they definitely deserve to have stories that represent them (I'd also argue that anyone who seriously questions their sexual/gender identity is part of the queer community even if they decide they are cisgender and straight. That also gets into my belief that most people are queer in some way – but that is a different conversation).

Exhibit C: Background Identity

Not every queer person wants to live being extremely "out" about their sexuality or gender identity, and a story about a queer person that doesn't touch on their identity at all should not automatically be considered queerbaiting – especially if the character's identity has no real impact on the story being told.

These examples are not meant to say we need more stories without explicitly queer characters, there could never be too many loud and proud queer stories. This is just to point out that loud and proud is not the full spectrum of the queer experience in real life and therefore it shouldn't be the only type of story that is acceptable. The similarity across all the previous examples is that the author's intent matters but at the same time can be difficult to know. This is the underlying issue that persists in all conversations about queerbaiting, and not just in the fictional world.

In The Real World

Queerbaiting in the real world is what drove me to write this post because the conversations around the topic as it pertains to actors and other entertainment personalities are the ones that seem to lack any and all nuance.

When the book series Heartstopper was adapted into the Netflix series, the public conversation around actor Kit Connor's sexuality – and consequently his "right" to play a queer role on TV – was unhinged. Ultimately it led the actor to feel like he had no choice but to disclose that he identifies as bisexual, which is completely counter to the purpose of the queer liberation movement. The right to come out at your own time and in your own way is one of the most essential tenets of queer rights, and those rights shouldn't be thrown away simply because someone is an actor.

As I write this post, the world is discussing and hypothesizing about the sexuality of actors Hudson Williams and Connor Storrie due to their lead roles in the show Heated Rivalry. There do seem to be a lot of people speaking up against this speculation insisting that fans have no right to demand people come out, but the fact that it needs to be said says that the issue is still all too prevalent.

The worst part about both of these situations is that I cannot think of two better pieces of queer representation in media. Heartstopper is the first mainstream queer coming-of-age story where the characters are multi-dimensional, with their sexuality being one of many aspects the show explores. Heated Rivalry similarly portrays all of it's characters, not just the main two, in a non-reductive fashion exploring many aspects unrelated to their queerness. The show is also written and directed by an openly gay man as well as based on books written by a bisexual women. Yet even this explicit queerness in the creative roles behind the project are not enough to satisfy some "fans".

Let's consider a few scenarios that could exist when it comes to a creative project involving queer stories:

• The studio executives refuse to green light a project with explicit queer characters and the director/producer chooses to include queer subtext as a half measure
• A director / producer wants to tell a queer story but worries the movie/show would be banned in certain countries that they want to reach, so they choose to not be explicit about a character's identity
• An actor auditions for an explicitly queer role because the role is very inspiring to them as a someone still in the closet
• An actor auditions for an explicitly queer role because a close friend of theirs who is queer really loved the role/project and encouraged them to audition despite being cis/straight

These are all scenarios where one could easily claim queerbaiting, but the intentions of the creatives do not align with the malicious intent required. This again underlines the fact that queerbaiting comes down to the intention, which is impossible to determine. This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate issues with these projects - just that the term queerbaiting does not accurately convey what your criticism really is.

If a closeted actor wants to play an openly queer role they should not have to come out. Whether they want to play the role because it could help them be more comfortable with eventually coming out or if they know they always want to keep their identity private they have every right to play the role. Similarly, if a straight actor wants to play a queer role, understands the necessary cultural and emotional aspects of the characters identity, and can accurately portray them then they should also be able to do so. Plus imagine the legal and ethical repercussions that would come from requiring every actor to declare their sexuality when they audition. How do they prove it? Is that public information? What happens when an actor realizes their sexuality might have changed?

Regardless of the situation, queerbaiting refers to the intentional choice of making subtle references to a character being queer but refusing to make it explicit in order to capitalize on the queer audience. Queerbaiting does not and cannot apply to real people – and even if it did you would need to read someone's mind and prove that they know with 100% certainty they are not queer yet still try to appear as if they are. Life just isn't that straightforward. Queerbaiting isn't a useful concept to describe a real person's relationship with their sexual or gender identity.

The issues actually upsetting people in these situations has nothing to do with that actor as an individual and consequently it makes no sense to take that anger out on the actors themselves. While it is easier to get mad at one individual than it is to direct your anger at nameless people behind the scenes who perpetuate systemic issues, the only way for things to get better is to direct the anger into a cause or initiative that can actually affect change.

The primary reason behind people demanding only openly queer actors play queer characters is the lack of queer actors being considered for roles, whether the character is queer or not. Despite Hollywood being known as a haven for queer people, there has never been a number of queer roles that even comes close to how prevalent or common queer identity is in public. While definitive data on the topic is nearly impossible to collect, low estimates say 10% of the population in the USA identify as queer, with some numbers showing that in younger generations (where it is considered less taboo) the number can be as high as 30%. Either way there are many projects where not even one of the named characters is queer, and the total number of queer characters across all movies and TV is definitely not ten percent, let alone thirty.

If there was a proportional number of queer roles then queer actors and fans would not feel like the limited opportunities for representation are being taken by non-queer actors. It would also help if executives and directors / producers were more open to queer actors playing straight roles because at the end of the day they are actors and have the same capability to play a straight role as a straight person can play a queer one.

Without going too deep into bean soup whataboutism, there is of course nuance to this conversation. There are certainly situations where an actor could be complicit in the erasure of queer stories, but it is important to remember that in the grand scheme of how the Hollywood machine works, it isn't up to the actor. Most of the time, being mad at an actor for something in a movie or show is like being mad at a retail worker about the company's return policy. Some actors have the financial freedom to only work with ethical projects, or could make demands of a director, but the majority of actors do not have this freedom.

In a perfect world everyone involved from studio executives to actors to crew members would be well educated in queer liberation and the importance that a well told story can play in it, but there has to be some recognition that this is nearly unattainable. This doesn't mean it cannot be the end goal that we work towards, but there needs to be more nuance and understanding until that ideal world becomes a reality or else it only makes it harder to get there.

The most important thing to remember is that no one is forcing you to watch a show or movie and just because something doesn't represent your experience doesn't mean it is bad representation overall. Don't recommend it to your friends or family, and if someone you know well does watch it you can talk about the shortcomings you feel it has. Not everything needs to be a boycott and we definitely need to stop these pressure campaigns that force people to disclose their sexual / gender identity.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to the cottage.