Category talk:Non-heterosexual individuals

Clarification for certain characters

As I brought up in Talk:Ninth Doctor, we could really do with some way to discuss whether or not a character belongs here, as it is not obvious for every character. WaltK ☎ 21:47, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

Rose Tyler

Why is Rose Tyler in this category – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.1.226.230 (talk).

I don't know. The category was added to her page by User:Doctorpenguin some time ago. They were questioned about it and, as far as I can tell, have not replied in the six(ish) months since then.

That being said, while I'm going to remove the category for now, it's worth noting that although she isn't a valid source herself, Billie Piper has allegedly commented in a BTS context that in her opinion, Rose would remain in love with the Thirteenth Doctor if she met her, suggesting that Rose is something like bisexual, at least as far as the Doctor is concerned. It's not unthinkable that the idea made its way into a licensed story since she made that comment. Unlikely, but not unthinkable. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the page

how do i add to the page – The preceding unsigned comment was added by NemesisRacooncity (talk • contribs) 29 June 2021‎.

Ah, well — as this is a category page, you can't actually modify the list manually. You have to pull up the page about the character you want to add, say Bill Potts, and add [[Category:Non-heterosexual characters]] at the end of the page in source-mode. This will make the page automatically appear here.

But be careful of making sure the character does belong in this category. Who did you have in mind? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What qualifies for this category?

This is a discussion continued from Yaz's talk page as I'm replying to Scrooge MacDuck's message.

Alright, I think I understand. Even if a woman said she loves or is dating another woman without showing any sexual desire, that's a good enough reason to determine she's not heterosexual to the wiki unless said so otherwise in an in-universe sense. I do have to point out that I don't agree with this rule, but I do respect the wiki's decision to do so otherwise. But there's is one more concern I do have.

You said that the "Non-heterosexual individuals" category is for queer characters and for those who are "something other than the heteronormative default". So let's assume in this example that Yaz is still heterosexual but is bi- or homoromantic for liking the Thirteenth Doctor. "Queer" refers to someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. We already know Yaz is heterosexual and that there is no reason to doubt that she is cisgender, so we can rule out that she is queer. And "heteronormative" only refers to heterosexuality being the preferred mode of sexual orientation, Yaz's qualifies for this since she is heterosexual; her romantic orientation would have nothing to do with this. In a nutshell, Yaz wouldn't qualify for the category because it isn't proven that she's queer and that the heteronormative default rule would have nothing to do with her romantic orientation.

So basically, my concern is how the Wiki defines who is queer and outside the heteronormative default by using this category. I'm not completely sure if I'm right, so feel free to correct me. Cool11guy12 ☎ 07:12, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

Biromantic but heterosexual falls under the queer umbrella. "Non-heterosexual" is used (somewhat incorrectly) as shorthand for non-straight in these contexts — I don't just mean in the category name, but in the real world. A biromantic but heterosexual person absolutely falls under the queer/LGBTQ+ umbrella, and would be someone we wanted to cover in this category, even if we were forced to rename it to get there. Hence if we decide the assumption and name are a problem, we should simply rename this page to the clunkier but more technically accurate Category:Non-straight individuals. However, at the absolutely least, I don't think we should do so until we actually have a biromantic-but-heterosexual character actually depicted in a DWU story.

By the way, what I was referring to when I talked of heteronormativity was… Because society is by and large heteronormative, there is a default expectation that unless otherwise noted on any of these axes, fictional characters will be cis, straight, and allosexual, and that their romantic orientation will match their sexuality. If a character is shown as romantically non-straight the default assumption is that their sexual orientation matches this romantic orientation, unless the narrative states otherwise. Strictly speaking this is an example of a societal bias — a truly neutral observer would consider it just as "likely" that a character might be heterosexual but bi- or homoromantic — but society is hetero-, cis- and allonormative; the perfectly neutral viewiership is, as a result, not the society we live in, not the society for whose assumptions DWU stories are written. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)