Discussion post: defining "gen."

[fiercelydreamed]

The discussion of how to define sexual and gender minorities is still going, but in the interest of keeping things moving toward the posting of actual works, I thought I'd put up the second of the definition posts. I've already gotten some questions and suggestions on this one, so the timing seems right. 

For the purposes of the community, here is the definition I'm considering:

Gen: a work that does not foreground romantic or sexual relationships and where the creator does not consider those relationships to be the point of the work.

To be clear and give you all some further food for though, by my judgment this definition does not exclude the following:

• Stories where characters are in romantic or sexual relationships. Romantic or sexual partners are part of the everyday lives of sexual and gender minorites, so it doesn't make sense to me to impose a rule that characters must be single. It's possible for a work to acknowledge and allow space for these relationships without romantic or sexual themes dominating the work. Similarly, for fanfic (which is all about transformation and interpretation), it doesn't make sense to me to have different rules for canon and non-canon relationships. 
• Stories with explicit sexual content. I would encourage all creators of work with explicit sexual content to think hard about whether you truly consider that work to be gen, and I will ask you to warn for such content so that those who wish to avoid it can do so. However, I can think of examples where a work would contain sexual content without being focused on such content, particularly if sexual scenes or references take up little space in the work itself.
• Stories with other content appropriate for mature audiences. I can imagine some people taking "gen" to mean "appropriate for all ages," but I don't intend to limit it in that way on the comm. However, as with the previous note, I'll ask creators to warn for content that is dark, violent, or that they think some readers might find disturbing or triggering. 

While I'm on the topic of warnings, and without wanting to reproduce some of the very intense arguments that have occurred on the subject elsewhere:

• For the purposes of this community, inclusion of a character who is a sexual or gender minority DOES NOT require a creator to warn for "adult content." This policy connects directly to my intention that this community will challenge certain beliefs: that it is a right to be protected from the sexual or gender minority identities of others, and that such identities are inherently threatening or always sexually expressed. 
• While I will ask creators to warn for certain kinds of content, my tentative plan is to allow creator discretion as to how specific those warnings will be. I will ask creators to specify if a work has sexual content (and probably whether the content is mild or explicit), but not what the exact nature of that content is. Similarly, I will ask creators to warn for dark, violent, or potentially triggering content, but I will leave it up to a creator's discretion whether to provide further details in the headers. I will ask all creators to be considerate of others and to warn as specifically as they are willing to do so. I will also ask those viewing works on this community to be mindful of their own limits and take responsibility for their choice to view works with potentially explicit or triggering content. 

Thoughts? Questions? Examples you want to run by me as test cases? Proposed modifications? Concerns? To repeat my disclaimer from the previous post, this definition and the proposed policies are intended to be functional and useful for this community. I'm not proposing it as a universal that everyone should accept, just a guideline that will help people develop, post, and enjoy works in this space.

I've been really gratified by how thoughtful and respectful the discussion on the comm have been so far, and particularly impressed by how every time someone has raised a question or concern, someone else has come up with a really good idea for how to address it. Thanks, everyone -- I already feel really good about what we're doing here.

Comments

[torachan]

But even your example of X raises a child with Y cannot be done with queer characters unless the source has two queer characters in a relationship, which limits things even further because a lot of sources with queer characters do not have those characters in relationships.

I mean...Ugly Betty is a show that has a larger than average number of queer characters, but over three seasons we've seen Marc have one boyfriend who was mostly offscreen and only showed up in a handful of episodes. Justin is written as bizarely asexual for a teenager, coded as gay but never even having a crush on another kid (or even mentioning a celebrity is attractive, at least Marc gets that much!), much less having a boyfriend. Alexis never had any relationships and was then written off the show.

Even if the point of the story is not about the character's romantic relationships, just the very act of mentioning them being in a relationship or having had a relationship would mean going into non-canon territory.

[ilthit]

I don't really have anything new to add to this. Like I said, for the purposes of this comm I don't think we should have a hard and fast rule about not mentioning non-canonical relationships as long as they're not the focus of the fic. Do what you want. In my own journal I'd mark them as pairing fic and therefore not gen, but that's my business, not a rule I wish to enforce on anyone else.

[quinara]

Ugly Betty is a show that has a larger than average number of queer characters, but over three seasons we've seen Marc have one boyfriend who was mostly offscreen and only showed up in a handful of episodes. Justin is written as bizarely asexual for a teenager

Um, I get your point, but you seem to be setting up a few unsettling dichotomies where queer =/= asexual =/= teenager. I'm not sure that's necessary.

[torachan]

I'm sorry if that's how it came off. That's not what I meant. It would be one thing if they were deliberately writing Justin as asexual, but it's clearly that they (probably the network rather than the writers) are uncomfortable with having a young teenager be gay, so instead they dance around the issue, coding him with every stereotype imaginable, but never mention him having any interest in guys.

It's obvious that because the show airs at 8pm, they don't want to have a kid be gay, because that's an "adult concept" and not appropriate for children. (Like how the movie Ma Vie en Rose was rated R because it was about a transgender kid, even though there was nothing remotely sexual about the movie and it should rightly have been rated G.)

[quinara]

Yeah, that whole character is pretty problematic (since this way he ends up being a wacky comic relief character more than anything - if Ugly Betty can be said to need comic relief...). I only wanted to point out that him being a teenager doesn't automatically disqualify him from asexuality. :)

[torachan]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used the word asexual, because I didn't mean to refer to an actual sexuality, but more to the concept/history of how queer characters have been (and still are)...neutered, I guess. Relegated to the sidekick, comic relief, villain, etc. Even when they're the main characters, they are often not allowed any romantic relationships.