Its actually very odd to see these questions asked. Mainly because it makes it rather evident how little people actually grasp about the concept of creating a character. Let me ask you all this question, answer it for yourself, no need to respond to it here.
Has your Sexuality or Gender ever shaped you as a human being?
And dont give me that cop-out on how people treat you cause of X, it doesnt affect the question. You are shaped by decisions you make, experiences you gather over the years and talents you learn, even if you might be predisposed to some of them. A character is not defined by their gender, or their sexuality, it is ONE aspect about them, but it does not define them, it does not sum them up.
You cant sum up another person with neat little definitions, we are more complex than that. Even if you could, just for the sake of the argument here, these definitions would be so many that you would run out of space on a single page to describe ONE person, let alone a group of them. What we "need" is complex and interesting characters, what gender they are, what haircolor they have, what skincolor they have or what their sexuality are comes last, because ultimately these are arbitrary and random.
You did not choose your haircolor, skincolor, ethnicity, nation of birth, parents, social class, sexuality or gender. These "definitions" just happen and they do not define who you are or who you can be. So no, we dont need LGBTQ Characters, or female characters, or blacks, or hispanics or whatever for the sake of inclusiveness. It's a hollow gesture at best, because once you do that, these characters become token, created to be "representative", so we can include everyone even if these characters are merely a cardboard cutout.
If we get good, complex character who just happen to be gay or transgendered or black? Well, more power to them, go right ahead. But dont include them for the sake of checking off another box on the list, because you do nobody any favours.
Has your Sexuality or Gender ever shaped you as a human being?
And dont give me that cop-out on how people treat you cause of X, it doesnt affect the question. You are shaped by decisions you make, experiences you gather over the years and talents you learn, even if you might be predisposed to some of them. A character is not defined by their gender, or their sexuality, it is ONE aspect about them, but it does not define them, it does not sum them up.
You cant sum up another person with neat little definitions, we are more complex than that. Even if you could, just for the sake of the argument here, these definitions would be so many that you would run out of space on a single page to describe ONE person, let alone a group of them. What we "need" is complex and interesting characters, what gender they are, what haircolor they have, what skincolor they have or what their sexuality are comes last, because ultimately these are arbitrary and random.
You did not choose your haircolor, skincolor, ethnicity, nation of birth, parents, social class, sexuality or gender. These "definitions" just happen and they do not define who you are or who you can be. So no, we dont need LGBTQ Characters, or female characters, or blacks, or hispanics or whatever for the sake of inclusiveness. It's a hollow gesture at best, because once you do that, these characters become token, created to be "representative", so we can include everyone even if these characters are merely a cardboard cutout.
If we get good, complex character who just happen to be gay or transgendered or black? Well, more power to them, go right ahead. But dont include them for the sake of checking off another box on the list, because you do nobody any favours.
