Queerbaiting: The Danger of Misuse
People holding hands under a rainbow. Credit: cottonbro studio on Pexels
In the media over the last few years, representation of queer characters has become far more common, which means stories involving characters in the LGBTQ community are being told after years of the heteronormative status quo. While this is huge progress for the LGBTQ community, instances of characters having their identities or motives vaguely queer-coded deliberately to bait the audience also have tangible consequences.
This phenomenon is known as queerbaiting. Although the term is used for fictional individuals and scenarios, the concept has broadened to include real individuals, with more harm than good being done through the misappropriation of this label. Since the idea of queerbaiting has leaked into conversations around real individuals, it is worth looking into what queerbaiting is and is not, and the consequences of the idea itself being placed onto real people.
First, it is important to look at the history of the term. An article from ealth.com contains the definition from Ricky Hill, Ph.D., research assistant at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine that states, “Queerbaiting is a marketing tactic that nods at queerness but never actually delivers queerness.” Movies, television, books and other forms of media can contain queerbaiting.
It is important to distinguish queerbaiting and queer-coding. Queer-coded characters are implied to be queer through the character’s behaviors and overall plot of the media, whereas queerbaiting involves characters implied to be queer but with no actual delivery It is a tactic to draw viewers in on a false promise of queer representation in the media.
At its core, queerbaiting is a term used to describe fictional characters. However, it is now being used to describe real people. Celebrities have been accused of queerbaiting from many angles with real-world consequences for these individuals. Most recently Kit Connor, an 18-year-old British actor starring in the Netflix show “Heartstopper,” was accused of queerbaiting from the character that he portrays in the show. The show is a coming-of-age film that follows two friends, Charlie (Joe Locke) and Nick (Kit Connor), that find they have feelings for each other. The show offers queer representation in the form of a relationship between the two main characters, and in Connor’s real life, he was seen holding hands with a female co-star on the set of the show, which sparked social media to accuse Connor of queerbaiting.
Connor responded to these allegations in September on his now-deleted Twitter page saying, “I’m bi. Congrats for forcing an 18 year old to out himself. I think some of you missed the point of the show. Bye.” This is one recent example of how the internet misused a term that led to someone having to defend themselves while simultaneously being forced out of the closet.
Harry Styles is another public figure who has had allegations of queerbaiting levied against him. Criticism of Styles comes from his recent role as a queer character in the movie adaptation of the book “My Policeman,” along with comments about the nature of queer sexual relationships though he has only ever had public relationships with femme-presenting individuals. He also hosts an LGBTQ safe space at his concerts where he helps fans come out and worked with the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network (GLSEN) in the past to raise money for protecting LGBTQ youth in schools.
Although Styles has had these criticisms brought against him, he said that he is unlabeled in an interview with Better Home & Gardens Magazine in April 2022. Styles reiterated this in an August 2022 Rolling Stone interview, saying that having labels on one’s identity feels backwards. However, he also states in the Rolling Stone piece that was worried about being a “hypocrite” by maintaining private aspects of his life like his sexuality whilst having one of the most open spaces for queer individuals at his shows. Styles, as private as he is, does address the subject of his sexuality while not wishing to disclose more than he is comfortable with, which is his right as an individual.
The elephant in the room with queerbaiting allegations is this: Why is it anyone's business how someone identifies? Moreover, it is problematic to assign a term designed to describe fictional characters and situations in media to a real person who has ownership and autonomy over their identity, especially in a public space. Calling into question a person's sexuality can be incredibly invalidating, especially since sexuality can be fluid and changing. To say someone is queerbaiting assigns one's sexuality to a standard that tends to be rigid, although sexuality is more of a spectrum.
With that being said, the idea of queerbaiting in and of itself is not unfounded. There are examples of queerbaiting in the media, but the distinction is that these are characters in a fictional universe, not real people. It is a term that requires nuance and can do real harm when used inappropriately.
Although representation in media involving queer characters and stories has finally become more common, nuances in this representation exist with queerbaiting being used outside of its original purpose. Going forward, it is wise to recognize the origins of this term, how and why it is used and what consequences exist for its misuse.