If you've spent any time on the internet in the past couple of years—especially in queer spaces—you might have heard the term queerbaiting being thrown around. The term highlights how mainstream media continues to capitalize off of queer people for their own gain, without actually representing them. Meanwhile, certain queerbaiting allegations have also been critiqued for prematurely pushing people out of the closet.
Essentially, queerbating is when a celebrity or media producer capitalizes on building an image and suspicion that they or one of their characters might be queer—without any intention of explicit confirmation. With an estimated $3.7 trillion purchasing power among LGBTQIA+ consumers, it is no surprise companies or celebrities want to make capitalistic gains off of being relatable to this demographic. Limited and poor representation of the LGBTQIA+ community in media has resulted in many queer people grasping onto any hint of representation, something these media companies know and definitely play to.
The increased social acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ community has unfortunately been followed by an increased usage of the queer identity as a marketing point. This is similar to rainbow washing in that queerbaiting is a performative action: it’s about appropriating queer culture for attention and support rather than genuinely participating in or contributing to that culture. Those who queerbait have the luxury of sitting on the fence about presenting themselves as queer; audiences who dig a little deeper can see all the hints and queer allegories planted by the celebrity, writer, or director—but when these are brought up, they can also be brushed over as “close friendship” or similar. Queerbating allows these celebrities or directors to literally have their cake and eat it, too: bending their narratives to what they can best capitalize off in the moment.
Linking with the issues of performativity: those who queerbait—like those who rainbow wash—are able to gain an audience and a progressive image by performing (quesitonably) queer identity while avoiding all the less-than-ideal realities that often come with publicly affirming such an identity. Despite facing possible homophobia or transphobia, there is always the opportunity to cop out of this performance by reinstating that it was just a misunderstanding of their established cisgender or straight identity.
What is also unfortunate is that queerbaiting—particularly in movies where writers have the choice to make their queer-coded characters explicitly queer—takes away from the possibility of real LGBTQIA+ representation, which still remains inadequate. The unwillingness to fully commit to these characters and their queer storylines completely ignores and invalidates the need for queerness in storylines and reinforces heterosexuality as the norm.
When it comes to celebrities as real people, in the real world—as opposed to fictional characters—the issue is a bit different. There is something deeply problematic in putting certain people in certain boxes and questioning the validity of their sexuality based on this. The people accused of queerbaiting are often asked to “prove” or “disprove” their sexuality despite there being no real metrics for queerness. Asking people—especially those whose identities remain undefined—to justify their belonging in queer spaces is exclusionary. These allegations also easily reinforce binaries and the monolithic discourses that exist even within the LGBTQIA+ community: you're either queer or you're not, and once you're something, you can’t change your mind.
Additionally, queerbaiting coupled with cancel culture can cause some celebrities to prematurely be pushed out of (or further into) the closet in order to address their queerbaiting allegations. It is undoubtedly important to call out celebrities who exploit a minority group and their views for career growth, but these allegations have, in certain cases, reinforced the “need” to label oneself and come out, which many across the community have been advocating against.
Not only do celebrities—who are still real people, believe it or not—have the right not to have to label themselves, but they also have the right to not publicly announce these labels. Kit Connor (from the recent show Heartstopper)for instance, was pushed out of the closet not long after his 18th birthday largely as a response to queerbaiting allegations and accusations that the show should have cast a queer person in his bisexual role. Queerbaiting should not be manipulated as an attack that forces celebrities to define themselves and announce these parts of themselves publicly.
Although the increasing frequency of allegations of queerbaiting speaks to the way in which the LGBTQIA+ community is still exploited for tokenism and capitalistic gain, the attempt to address this kind of exploitation should not cause harm regardless if those accused have or haven't yet defined their identity. The act of queerbaiting suggests to audiences that the need for authentic and explicit representation isn’t needed beyond the commercial gains it can provide. Meanwhile, third-party audiences deciding who is “really” queer and who is merely performing queer identity for media attention is also highly problematic. Canceling real people for allegedly queerbaiting can cause harm and perpetuate stereotypes about the LGBTQIA+ community and those in it. We can only hope that these debates can push audiences and creators to engage in a more productive dialogue on queer representation across the media.
Written by Ellen Gisto.