Queer Coding vs Queer Baiting
The difference between queer coding, queerbaiting and just general clickbait
Recently something has been happening on social media…
Across Twitter and Instagram, the term ‘queerbaiting’ is being thrown around, in my opinion, carelessly but also inaccurately. It’s time to explore the difference between queer coding, queerbaiting and just general clickbait.
What is Queer Coding?
Let’s get some things straight…or, not exactly. The first thing that needs to be addressed is that while the lines can seem thin, queer coding and queerbaiting are not interchangeable. Just as most terms do, the etymology of queer coding has changed throughout the years. Whereas queerbaiting always has and always will be about one thing; viewership.
So, what is queer coding? In its simplest terms, queer coding is when characters are not explicitly stated to be queer but are written or portrayed with a subtext that could lead an audience to believe they are. Unfortunately, much queer coding can rely on outdated stereotypes, i.e. female characters are presented as masculine and male characters are presented as feminine. Of course, within the queer community, there are individuals who will be able to identify with these characters. But, as queer representation has evolved, subtext has become more nuanced. Queer characters of today are not defined by gender stereotypes but instead through the relationships and interactions (both romantic and platonic) that they have with those around them.
If you look back through literature, characters with queer subtext have always existed. Whether they were created by a closeted artist or a quiet ally, queer-coded characters have graced our pages for generations. However, queer coding as we know it today in TV and film came about in response to The Hays Code (established in 1930). Among many other restrictions, The Hays Code prevented films from portraying any representation of homosexuality. So, writers and directors had to get creative without portraying any of their characters as explicitly queer. In part, this led to the birth of the queer-coded villain that we still see in film and TV today. While many members of the LGBTQ+ community (including myself) have often enjoyed and related to queer-coded villains, the lasting impact these characters have had on society’s view of the community has not always been positive.
Here is where many people start to confuse queer coding and queerbaiting. While queer coding can bring harm, it is often unintentional. Queer-coded villains during Hays Code era Hollywood established a pattern that films would continue to follow to this day. Any negative impact created by queer-coded villains in the last few decades cannot always be passed off as unintentional but it can be recognised as ignorant. Of course, ignorance has been known to cause as much harm as intention but in comparison to queerbaiting, it’s the intention behind the creation of the character that makes the difference.
What is Queerbaiting?
Unlike queer coding, queerbaiting is never for the sake of the queer community. In fact, it either takes advantage of the community’s desperation for representation or provides faux allyship for cis heterosexual individuals. Queerbaiting is similar to queer coding in the way it offers hints of queerness but the main difference is that queerbaiting will never offer any actual representation. Usually, it will be used to create buzz around a certain piece of media and ultimately create harm for queer individuals who either feel cheated or misrepresented.
While queer coding can be traced as far back as the beginning of the 1900s (but arguably further), queerbaiting is a relatively new term. In the 2010s, it was popularised by fandoms and is intrinsically linked to “ships.” Audiences have rooted for characters in film and TV to become couples for aeons but something happened in the 2010s that the media world sought to exploit. “Shipping” can refer to two characters of the opposite gender but, more often than not, “ships” are queer. Whether the characters are or not is irrelevant to under-represented LGBTQ+ individuals who hungrily eat up the queer crumbs left by queerbaiting writers.
Portrayals of queerbaiting have changed since the 2010s. At one time, the relationship between two characters in a show would become increasingly queerer without ever actually stepping foot outside of the closet. This is because directors and writers would take note of the fandoms building around these characters and cash in by feeding into the fantasies. But, by the end of the show’s run or film franchise, these characters were never explicitly declared as queer therefore no true LGBTQ+ representation was ever portrayed. Now, many writers skip directly to queerbaiting by intentionally creating characters that serve no other purpose than drawing in LGBTQ+ viewership. Herein lies the harm and exploitation present in queerbaiting.
It’s controversial but even “ships” that are so obviously queerbaiting are enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ community. As a community that has often had to find its own representation in straight-laced media, we have almost become conditioned to prefer queer subtext to genuine queer representation. While this is not true for every LGBTQ+ individual, it is enough for even the community itself to confuse queer coding for queerbaiting. And in the last few years, this is why we have even seen queerbaiting used outside of the fictional world.
Can Real-Life People Queerbait?
With the brief history of queer coding vs queerbaiting out of the way, it’s time to talk about the circumstances that breathed life into this blog post: can real-life people queerbait? To answer this question, let’s look at three recent examples social media has called out for queerbaiting: Kit Conner, Jonathan Van Ness & Antoni Porowski and Harry Styles.
The Curious Case of Kit Conner
Kit Conner has joined many celebrities in saying goodbye to Twitter but the departure wasn’t really on his own terms. Since rising to stardom for his role as Nick Nelson in Netflix’s adaptation of Alice Oseman’s Heartstopper, his own sexuality has been under scrutiny. Since straight actors have arguably been robbing queer actors of LGBTQ+ roles since the dawn of time, a certain level of curiosity was understandable. Human beings are curious creatures and while it might not be somebody’s business, we can’t always help wondering things about people – no matter how personal these things might be.
Fleeting thoughts about someone’s sexuality are not harmful until they pass from mind to mouth. Or, in 2022, mind to entitled Twitter account. A recent picture of Kit Conner holding hands with his female co-star Maia Reficco prompted fans to accuse Kit of “queerbaiting” and led to his subsequent Twitter exit. In interviews, Kit has repeated the mantra of many celebrities who have fallen under the queerbaiting debate: he doesn’t want to label his sexuality. As the differences between queer coding and queerbaiting have taught us, context and intention are vital. So, when it comes to accusing real-life people of queerbaiting, context cannot be ignored. Kit Conner has recently turned 18 and expecting a teenager to have anything figured out at that age is cruel.
Even if his age was of no relevance, in the case of Kit Conner and queerbaiting, the verdict is: not guilty. In his short time as a queer icon for fans (due to his character’s sexuality in Heartstopper), he has shown genuine support for the LGBTQ+ community. Accusing him of queerbaiting due to a picture of him holding hands with someone of the opposite sex invalidates a whole sub-community within the LGBTQ+ community. Of course, Kit could be bisexual, pansexual or simply a teenager who doesn’t need the pressure of an entire community resting on his shoulders.
All Queer Eyes on Jonathan Van Ness & Antoni Porowski
Recently, Queer Eye stars, Jonathan Van Ness and Antoni Porowski have had the announcement of their new business overshadowed by accusations of queerbaiting. Leading up to the announcement, Jonathan and Antoni released Instagram and Twitter posts suggesting they had something big to tell their fans. These posts were accompanied by pictures of the two looking coupled up. So, when the news of their pet food business was released, it was met with upset social media users throwing around the term ‘queerbaiting.’
Jonathan’s response to one of these accusations is a key part of determining if the posts were actually queerbaiting: “Seeing folx be mad about two queer people making a joke to launch biz are the same critics who have nothing to say about queer issues impacting queer people. Don’t say trans bills, the overturning of Dobbs, the threat to marriage equality… but yes be mad about pet food.”
Queerbaiting is used for viewership but it’s important to note that it is rarely ever LGBTQ+ individuals creating these pieces of media. Usually, if they are not fighting for explicit representation then they are doing their best to show it with queer-coded media. Therefore, you can be annoyed that two of your Queer Eye faves aren’t really dating but to accuse two openly queer individuals (who have both done much to support and represent the LGBTQ+ community) of queerbaiting misunderstands what it actually means. Verdict: clickbait not queerbait.
There’s No One Direction for Harry Styles’ Sexuality
For most of his solo career, Harry Styles has been accused of queerbaiting. Whether it is his flamboyant style, refusal to publicly disclose his relationships, or even his recent film roles – everything about the celebrity screams ambiguity. For his fans, it has created a safe and accepting place for them to be themselves – whether they are LGBTQ+ or not. But for many within the LGBTQ+ community, it feels as if he is profiting from the acceptance that they themselves are not receiving.
Similarly to Kit Conner, Harry has often said he doesn’t see the point in labels. Some argue that being 28 (a decade older than Kit) means Harry has more of a responsibility to his fans to clarify his sexuality. But people often forget that the singer has been under a queer lens since his days in One Direction (if you know, you know). So, it could be argued that Harry’s refusal to disclose his sexuality could even be an act of rebellion for the years he was unable to explore it due to constantly being under the public eye.
The debate of Harry Styles and queerbaiting has more in common with the Queer Eye situation than the Heartstopper star. Whether you like it or not, it’s impossible to say for sure what Harry’s intentions are behind his decision to not disclose his sexuality one way or another. There’s no denying that he has benefitted from LGBTQ+ support during his solo career so it’s understandable why non-fans in the community believe he is queerbaiting. But, unless the day arrives that Harry does decide to disclose his sexuality, the verdict is: just because something he says or does is ambiguous is not clear-cut evidence that he is queerbaiting.
Regardless, if you are an LGBTQ+ individual who feels cheated by any of these or similar situations, this conclusion does not invalidate your feelings. We are allowed to disagree with representations of our community without labelling this representation as queerbaiting.
Originally published on WordPress on September 19th 2022
Despite the etymological difference between the terms, I appreciate the debate is not entirely binary. So, please feel free to leave your thoughts on the topic here. All I ask is that you keep it respectful.
If you liked this post then make sure to check out…
In Love With All Of These Vampires: Vampirism's Place in the LGBTQ+ Community