What is Queer Baiting?

Imagine something that looks like it starts with the best of intentions but ends up getting worse: on the one hand you will recognize the damage and superficiality of what has happened but on the other hand they will tell you that you cannot complain too much because nothing is ever good for you. The conversation around Queer Baiting often revolves around this.

What does Queer Baiting mean? It is an English-speaking term, rather well known in the community LGBTQ+ especially overseas, which is slowly starting to make its way into our country. “Bait ”literally stands for“ lure ”, that is attract a queer audience while not offending the more conservative audience. It occurs above all in TV series or books, where there is mention of the alleged homosexuality of a character or the possibility of attraction between two, without explicitly or really confirming it (see the case of Sherlock which assumes a relationship between Holmes e Watson O JK Rowling speculating on homosexuality of Silent). But also in the world of entertainment and music, from Harry Styles that goes beyond the “rules” of gender expression o Achille Lauro kissing another man on the stage of Sanremo.

via GIPHY

The examples can be endless, but what is the real problem with Queer Baiting? Many * could tell us that Achille Lauro it has defined itself simply as fluid e Harry Styles you don’t have to label or confirm your sexual orientation or gender identity in anyone’s eyes * until you decide. On the one hand, it should be seen as a sign of progress: we need more representation LGBTQ+ on the screens, including stories and dynamics outside the cis-het, as of public figures who transcend the aesthetic codes of traditional masculinity. But the fine line from opportunity to opportunism is often short: queer baiting is first and foremost a strategy, an attempt to wink at the community without openly including stories or people from the community. It can entertain us, thrill us, but it remains a teaser of something that never happens or does not openly support the cause.

via GIPHY

The problem does not even lie in the individual artist or in that specific TV series, but in the fact that inclusiveness remains a facade: we become a queer share that tries to satisfy anyone without really taking into account or putting members or associations at the center of the narrative. LGBTQ+ (and no, the urgency to force a label on anyone has little to do with it!).

At the heart of queer baiting the question we should be asking is: we can really talk about progress if heterosexual and white cisgender people remain at the center of the narrative do they draw from the culture of others and rarely people belonging to the marginalized group in question? Playing with ambiguity without ever confirming or denying anything, queer baiting manages to capture the attention of a large slice of the public but does not offer substance or a concrete political position.

Queer representation continues to take place through the perspective of cis-het people, even more so if men, who represent what they know and project of that imaginary only and exclusively from an external and privileged lens. Of course, everyone * is free to express themselves and imply what they want without the urgency or moral obligation to declare themselves part of the community. But whether it helps to dismantle the codes of heteronormativity in the media or is it a lazy marketing strategy, the queer baiting problem would disappear if some stories were not always told or represented by a single category, but a real space and a word were given to people LGBTQ +, so you don’t forget them once the show is over.