Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Since its release, Overwatch, a hit team-based shooter game, has been extremely popular within the gaming community. Despite controversies, the game has managed to retain a large player base over the years, even winning the title of Game of the Year in 2016.

Even within its original roster of 21 heroes, Overwatch has always had LGBTQ+ characters. While none of them were confirmed to be so upon release, out of the original heroes, Tracer, Pharah and Soldier 76 have all since been confirmed as gay. In addition to this, since the release of Overwatch 2, characters Baptiste and Lifeweaver have also been confirmed as canonically bisexual and pansexual.

These canonizations came in different forms, from the comic, Tracer, to short stories involving Soldier 76, Baptiste and Pharah. In addition to this, the game has profile customizations with pride flags, some of which include silhouettes of several heroes on the roster.

Player reception to these confirmations was overall positive and has remained so since, with consistent fan creations and conversations involving each character.

This leads us to the present, with the release of Overwatch 2’s most recent hero, Venture.

Venture, otherwise known as Sloan Cameron, is the first canonically transgender character in the game’s roster, being nonbinary and using they/them/their pronouns. An avid adventurer and archaeologist, Venture’s bubbly personality and distinguishable design immediately took the Overwatch community by storm.

On the day of its release, unranked games were flooded with players immediately locking in to play them, and since then, there has been a large influx of fanart, as well as clips spread of their in-game interactions with other characters.

Considering how little representation comes out of overtly trans characters in gaming, it’s promising to see such positive reactions toward such a popular game’s new addition. Of course, this isn’t to say that transgender characters don’t exist in other games.

More examples of trans characters

Clove, the most recent addition to the first-person tactical shooter Valorant, is another nonbinary character. In contrast to Venture’s release, however, Clove’s design did garner some apprehension from fans for being too feminine and fitting into queer stereotypes. Regardless of one’s opinion on this, it’s another case of promising representation from such a popular game.

Apex Legends’ Catalyst is a great example of a loud and proud trans character; she’s not the only example of this in the game, another being Bloodhound, a nonbinary character.

Another example comes from the Guilty Gear series, with a trans woman named Bridget, who came first in a popularity poll for the game at the end of 2023.

Why does this matter?

When it comes to representation in any form of media, LGBTQ+ characters in general are few and far between, but transgender characters are even more so. The importance of these additions cannot be overstated, especially when they’re coming from such reputable games in turbulent times when it comes to discussions around gender and sexuality.

Players being able to see themselves in the games they play is important, especially when it’s coming from big companies like Blizzard and Riot Games. Representation like the aforementioned characters is an important step in normalizing queer identities, especially trans ones.

Venture in particular is one of the most overt and positive cases of trans representation in recent times, and it leaves the floor open for other companies and creators to follow suit and create a more inclusive space within the gaming community.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a sophomore journalism major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com 

—
“New Overwatch hero is promising for transgender representation in gaming” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Anyone who’s familiar with popular queer media will undoubtedly remember the release of “Heartstopper,” a smash hit romantic comedy that gained a large following spanning many demographics due to its heartwarming story and realistic depiction of queer relationships.

With its third season right around the corner, the show has had a largely positive reception and has arguably been one of the most popular series on Netflix since its release. Unfortunately, as with a lot of queer media, this mass reception came with its own set of consequences.

One of the most controversial discussions surrounding the show centered on Kit Connor, a 20-year-old actor who plays the role of Nick Nelson, a rugby player who starts asking questions about his sexuality after meeting his classmate Charlie Spring.

While the series itself is a heartwarming romance with amazing storytelling and representation, many fans of it seemed to have, in the words of Connor himself, missed the point of the show.

Not long after the first season aired, Connor was accused of “queerbaiting,”  or acting like you’re a part of the LGBTQ+ community to draw viewers to the show, after a video came out of him holding hands with Maia Reficco, his co-star on another project.

Connor eventually responded to the onslaught of accusations on Twitter by coming out as bisexual and condemning those who pressured him to do so. He used his “coming out” tweet to accuse fans of missing the point of the show, which is a fair statement considering that his “Heartstopper” character was reassured on multiple occasions that he didn’t owe anyone a label.

Since the incident, while he’s continued to play the character of Nick, Connor has significantly dialed back his online presence.

This isn’t the only case of online attention and accusations pressuring a celebrity to publicly label themselves. For example, the Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny has been hit with many allegations of queerbaiting after kissing a male backup dancer of his, performing in drag and wearing skirts.

Another example is Billie Eilish, who faced backlash after sharing behind-the-scenes images from the music video for her single “Lost Cause” alongside a caption that said “I love girls.”

In the case of Bad Bunny, the accusations were based on gendered and homophobic stereotypes. Why, especially as a queer person, would anyone feel the need to police what someone’s allowed to wear or do based on their gender or orientation? LBGTQ+ or not, enforcing rigid gender roles on anyone is backward and harmful to everyone, not just queer people.

Now, there are certainly some benefits to celebrities being openly queer. Many outwardly LGBTQ+ artists and actors have used their platforms to educate viewers and contribute to LGBTQ+ resources. Take Elton John, who’s been out since the 1970s and created his own foundation to support those with AIDS, or Elliot Page, who is a supporter of several LGBTQ+ foundations.

The difference between those two and the aforementioned individuals, however, is that they came out on their own terms.

Accusing real people of queerbaiting not because of something genuinely harmful they’ve created but because of their style or roles they’ve taken, is a regressive practice that reduces queerness to a spectacle. Being queer is not about conforming to a certain way of living based on what others perceive you to be, nor is it a requirement to make yourself known in your labels.

An individual cannot queerbait, and it’s dangerous to push the idea that this isn’t the case or use the term improperly to pressure someone into coming out.

So, what is queerbaiting really?

Queerbaiting is a marketing technique and is not meant to be applied to individuals. When used correctly, the term is used to describe fictional media introducing characters or relationships with queer undertones to attract LGBTQ+ audiences while never confirming their queer identity as canon. This is not to be confused with subtext, which is used to hint at an underlying message and is often used to tease relationships before explicitly canonizing them.

Some examples of queerbaiting come from shows like Netflix’s “Wednesday,” BBC’s “Sherlock” or “Merlin.” Notable examples in animated shows include “Voltron: Legendary Defenders” and “The Legend of Korra.”

While shows like Korra have queerbaited out of necessity, as depicting same-sex couples in children’s television is difficult for a number of reasons, there are plenty of examples of flippant and even malicious uses of queerbaiting that aim to entice an audience that the creators never intend to fully appease.

Creators intending only to pull in LGBTQ+ audiences without following through is a real issue that is worth calling out, but there’s a fine line between creating a problematic piece of media and simply existing without immediately labeling yourself for the public eye.

Conclusion

The desire to relate to celebrities is valid, and wishing to be represented in different media is even more so. However, that desire should never reach a point of policing the identities of others, especially not to the point where you’re pressuring them to come out when they’re not ready.

Being queer is not about making a statement or proving your queerness to others. It’s important to remember that there’s community in queerness, and rather than singling each other out, we should work to foster that community and create a safe place for any LGBTQ+ identifying person.

Coming out is a difficult journey for anyone, and it’s especially hard when so many eyes are on them. Sexuality is incredibly personal, and the risk of backlash is a terrifying scenario to consider for anyone, let alone someone so heavily scrutinized by the public.

It’s important to remember that, whether famous or not, no one owes us a label. No one should have to justify the way they dress, act or exist just to appease an audience.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Accusing celebrities of queerbaiting is harmful” was originally posted on The Cougar

Gerald Sastra/ The Cougar

Over the last decade or so, conversations around mental health have shifted significantly, especially when it comes to Gen Z. Mental illness has become a normal topic to talk about, both online and in real life.

In many ways, this is a positive change. The widespread discussion of mental health issues has led to more awareness, making it easier to find community and seek help when needed. It’s undeniable that younger generations also have a far more positive outlook on mental health than their predecessors, which has been great for minimizing the stigma around mental illness. Unfortunately, however, there are downsides to these discussions becoming normalized.

One major issue with this development is that it’s arguably led to an overuse of “therapy speak.” This kind of language includes genuinely useful clinical terms such as triggering, trauma, neurodivergent and many others. When used correctly, these terms can be helpful, but there’s been a recent rise in casual use of expressions like these. While it may seem harmless to some, the way many people use this language sometimes crosses the dangerous line between destigmatization and complete misuse.

Symptoms

One particular issue that’s become somewhat common on social media lately is content that aims to bring awareness to different symptoms of mental disorders. These kinds of videos are created in order to help people learn about disorders and potentially help with the process of being diagnosed. While this idea is not inherently bad, the symptoms listed tend to be fairly vague. This distinct lack of detail that has led to many people, particularly teenagers, self-diagnosing and deciding that they have certain disorders.

Now, why is this bad? While self diagnosis is a great tool that can help lead professional diagnoses, it’s irresponsible to do so without proper research. A short video of symptoms without any real nuance is not a good way to learn about mental disorders, especially if the video is coming from someone without any professional credentials.

Conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder can be extremely draining and make it difficult to function in life. Symptoms of these disorders are not as simple as being forgetful, frequently fidgeting or being particularly clean, and reducing them to something so simple isn’t helpful to anyone.

Misusing disorders

Another issue with these kinds of clinical terms is how flippantly some people use them. For example, many people casually use OCD to describe themselves or other people without really thinking about it. While certainly not a new phenomenon, the trend of saying things like “I’m so OCD” or “you’re so ADHD” can be harmful to those with these disorders, not to mention how this type of language is frequently rooted in stereotypes.

Equating common traits like cleanliness or forgetfulness with a potentially debilitating mental health condition is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes about mentally ill people, and it can also be alienating to people with said disorders. In some serious cases, it can even lead to people with these symptoms not wanting to seek help out of fear of being ostracized.

Another increasingly common issue, especially in online spaces, is the misuse of words like “triggered.” A trigger, in the context of mental health, is an event or experience that, when mentioned to an individual dealing with mental illness, has the potential to lead to a worsened emotional state or symptoms. It’s commonly used in regards to people that have experienced trauma in the past.

In recent years, however, it’s become an expression that’s used in the same ways as terms like upset or uncomfortable, which is undeniably harmful to those with genuine triggers. The theft and misuse of terms like these delegitimizes people with a very real history of trauma.

Conclusion

It’s undoubtedly very validating to find other people online that are willing to speak on mental health topics you can relate to. It’s also easy to offhandedly joke about terms you don’t fully understand. Talking about mental health in a respectful manner can be difficult, and the importance of normalizing these topics cannot be understated.

However, the language surrounding these topics is important too. While it can be validating to find others that relate to you, consider taking some time to genuinely think about how you’re discussing these topics. If we’re not careful, eventually we run the risk of normalizing these terms so much that they completely lose their meaning, and that would do nothing except harm the people that need these discussions the most.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Language surrounding mental health can be harmful when misused” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

If you’ve been on TikTok over the past few months, you may have seen a trend in which museum-goers stand next to pieces they believe they could have painted. From an artist’s perspective, it’s a disheartening trend. It reduces art to its blandest definition: something pretty to look at.

When many people think of abstract art, their mind tends to conjure up blank canvases or fruit taped to walls — something with a total lack of significance. In reality, abstract art is something with deep meaning and skill sets that many viewers simply neglect or refuse to acknowledge. 

An example that may be familiar if you’ve seen the previously mentioned TikTok trend is the painting “IKB 79” by Yves Klein. At first glance, it may seem as though there’s nothing special about it. Blue canvas, wow. Amazing work.

Examining the context of the piece, though, you’d realize that Klein created an entirely new paint to make that painting. Klein was obsessed with color, and found a unique way to preserve the vibrancy of ultramarine pigment in the process of making paint.

And thus, a blue so striking that it draws the viewer in was born.

Of course, it’s easy to find such a color on our phones, so it’s nothing impressive when you’re scrolling and happen upon a piece like that. In real life, though, it’s an entirely different experience. It’s such a vivid blue that it pulls you in and makes you wonder how someone created such a color so pure.

For another example, take Barnett Newman. Newman was an abstract artist that created a number of paintings that enraged some viewers at the time and still do to this day. His pieces are another example of something that, at a quick glance, one may write off as requiring little to no skill to create.

However, Newman’s paintings were special in that they had no distinguishable brush strokes. This takes an incredibly steady hand to do and is difficult to fully appreciate without seeing his pieces in real life. His works were created in such a way that they look as though they were printed onto the canvas.

Even disregarding the important political contexts behind his works, the skill and patience  behind paintings such as his goes largely unappreciated by most viewers. After all, why would anyone stay long enough to ponder the context when they could simply scroll to the next, more stimulating piece of content?

Newman’s steady hand was something so difficult to replicate that when one of his paintings was vandalized, no conservators even wanted to attempt restoring it. Months later, when someone did step forth to do the job, they botched the painting so badly with improper technique that the original was considered to be completely destroyed.

Abstract art is largely unpopular with modern viewers, and it’s no wonder why. There is essential context to every piece that the average viewer often has no interest in, especially when  viewed through a screen.

There are so many abstract, modern and contemporary artists that have created pieces with deep meaning and through incredible feats of skill. Art, though many would disagree, is not always meant to be a  simple display of aestheticism. In fact, that’s rarely what it’s meant to be.

arts@thedailycougar.com

—
“TikTok trend sells abstract art, artists short” was originally posted on The Cougar