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

[ilthit]

I am so with you about not warning for characters who are in sexual minorities. That's just silly - like saying we're obscene just for existing.

I wouldn't list a fic gen, though, if it featured in the background a relationship with no canon basis. Depends on how prominent that relationship was, though - I did list a fic gen once which merely hinted at a non-canonical relationship that happened to characters who didn't even have speaking parts in the fic. I'll of course go by what this comm defines for anything posted on this comm, but this is how I'd break it up (example fandom Son of a Witch, spoilers below):

- Fic about Liir raising his daughter = gen
- Fic about Liir and Trism, in a relationship, raising Liir's daughter = gen (canon gay relationship, left hanging in the end of the book)
- Fic about Liir and Candle, in a relationship, raising said daughter = gen (canon het relationship, left hanging in the end of the book)
- Fic about Liir and um, Mother Yackle, in a relationship, raising said daughter = not gen (non-canon pairing)
- Fic about Liir and Trism's enduring love = not gen (centered on a romantic relationship rather than changing diapers)

I guess the reason I feel a non-canon pairing, even in the background of the fic, makes it not gen is because it's so easy to make a fic about child-rearing which is actually about the enduring love of your ship. I've done it myself.

[kindkit]

I think disallowing non-canon relationships would be hugely problematic in this context, since the vast majority of characters in the vast majority of fandoms only have heterosexual relationships in canon. Not allowing non-canon relationships for this fest would mean forcing singlehood on most of our main characters. This is a gen ficathon, but it's also pro-queer, and do we really want to create a rule that will allow very few same-sex relationships, but tons of het ones, to be mentioned in our stories?

[kindkit]

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.

This is fine as a policy, but could it be mentioned to writers, somehow, that specific warnings are much more helpful to readers than vague ones? If a story says, "Warning for potentially triggery content," that could mean a situation I absolutely don't want to read (rapefic) or it could mean one I have no problem reading (self-harm or domestic violence, for example). The vague warning leaves me needing to avoid, or beg a friend to screen, stories that might actually be no problem for me.

There are ways to hide warnings that are spoilers, such as the code given here by amadi.

[ilthit]

Well, as I said, it's fine by me however the comm defines it, that's what I'll go by - just thought to throw in my two cents on what I consider and don't consider gen.

But what you're saying could also problematic. I'd much rather we have more stuff about canonically queer characters - who need recognition - than be flooded by popular straight characters that we like to think are queer. But as long as the fic/etc is in a way about queerness outside of the context of a romantic/sexual relationships it's still on target, I guess, as just another way to interpret the character.

[ilthit]

I should add - I do get your point. For the purpose of this comm there probably shouldn't be a rule about not mentioning non-canonical relationships, just for the reason you state. If we take a canonically straight character and reinterpet him/her as queer, it could quite naturally bring out new interpretations of their friendships or past relationships, without having to make those the point of the story. I'm just worried the gen-ness of the story might get fudged - as I myself have been known to fudge it - by turning it into a subtle ship fic.

[torachan]

But a lot of people don't have fandoms where there are canonically queer characters. It's all well and good to say we should focus on canonically queer characters, but doing so is going to rule out all but a couple of the big fandoms and limit participation for many people who are not multifannish.

Not only that, but because of the way queer characters are treated in mainstream media, even if a character is canonically queer, they may not have any romantic relationships. In that case, sticking to only canon pairings would mean that any fics about these characters would be reinforcing the asexual way they're viewed in canon.

[torachan]

The vague warning leaves me needing to avoid, or beg a friend to screen, stories that might actually be no problem for me.

...Or you could ask the author? I'm pretty sure that most authors are willing to answer questions about warnings.

[torachan]

This is normally my definition of gen, too, but for the fest I'm willing to expand my definition to include all but the last (fics entirely focused on romantic or sexual relationships).

[ilthit]

Well, like I said in another reply, for the purposes of this comm I guess you shouldn't really have a rule about excluding non-canon relationships, as focusing on an interpretation of a straight character as queer outside a relationship scenario would be on target with what I imagine this comm is about. I concede that point.

I'd like to say, though, that if you have no fandoms with non-straight characters, get more fandoms! Queer characters are out there and they're too often being ignored in favour of sexy straight boys. IMHO. But that doesn't mean that a gen fic about a queer Han Solo couldn't still be fantastic. I do realize a lot of fans are sci-fi/fantasy fans, too, and those genres still have rather few non-straight/cis characters (save maybe intersexed aliens).

[ilthit]

A character can be described as not-asexual without the fic focusing on their relationships, past or present. I'm not sure what sort of mainstream media characters you're thinking of. Off the top of my head, I come up with Will & Grace, Son of a Witch and Dark Angel (Original Cindy), and they were definitely not portrayed asexually.

[ilthit]

Agreed, for the purpose of this comm. I was more just delineating which fics I'd mark as gen and which not, when tagging my own work.

[torachan]

I personally do have fandoms with queer characters (or rather, I have sources I enjoy...they do not have fandoms except on the Yuletide scale), but while it's all well and good to tell people to go out and get some, that's not really helpful for this community.

[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've agreed on everything you said, I'm not trying to start a fight. Relax.

I have a personal wish that there was more fic for and attention paid to canonically queer characters. I DO NOT think canonically straight or assumed straight characters, reinterpreted as queer, should be excluded from this comm, and I concede that that approach could naturally lead to reinterpreting their canon relationships or mentioning relationships with OCs, and hence lead to non-canonical relationships being mentioned in gen fic on this comm, even though I'd normally mark those as not-gen if I was writing them myself.

Clear?

[torachan]

Um...I am relaxed and am not trying to start a fight, either. I didn't realise your comments were not meant to be replied to.

[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.

[dunmurderin]

Maybe it would be a good idea to offer a link to that bit of code as a potential resource for those who might want to use it?

[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.

[quinara]

I like the gen definition - it seems the right combination of vague and specific. :)

[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.)

[landshark]

I like what you've got here, and that you're keeping the definitions pretty loose to start with.

I noticed a lot of back and forth about whether or not to include non-canon pairings in the definition of 'gen' (for the comm and in general), and I just thought I would link to the entry that kicked off this whole thing (correct me if I'm wrong here), for anyone who hasn't seen it. (Maybe this could be added to 'memories' for the comm?)

http://thingswithwings.dreamwidth.org/65866.html
[contains several other good links as well]

Anyway, back to 'Gen': I think romance/relationships have a place here. I think of gen as being non-explicit (for the most part), kind of like...a romantic comedy? As opposed to regular slash which tends to be more like... Porno channel/bodice-ripper romance novel.

Maybe that's a weird analogy. I guess I picture gen as something you don't have to tuck under the mattress when Grandma comes to visit. lol

Hope this is helpful?

[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.

[fiercelydreamed]

*nods* I think that the distinctions you're drawing are pretty common ones, which was part of the reason I put this post up. Someone commented to the initial post on the comm with a link to a poll they'd done on the limits of gen, where the people who replied didn't have a double standard for queer vs. het couples but did judge canon and non-canon couples differently. And I think that there is potential for someone to post a shippy work here because they're looking for a way to get it out there and still be correct by the letter of my definition, but not the spirit. I think your comment and the discussion that stemmed from it really points out the value of me supplementing this definition with a strong request to creators that they really stop to think about whether they consider a work to be fundamentally gen before posting it here.

Also, let me just say that I'm so with you in hoping that the canonical sexual and gender minorities get some stage time in this comm too!

Thanks for weighing in -- it's really helpful for me to get a variety of opinions here.

[landshark]

I guess I left out that I think any romantic relationships should be secondary in a gen story. More on the comedy, less on the romance, lol.