SJ Longthorne

Again... I think more representation is needed. And I know some folks will argue that we need to prioritise balancing the representation and making up for lost time — which is a fair point. But we need this too, at least at some point. Why not Elsa? 9/

There’s also the fact that being left open to interpretation as she is allows LOTS of marginalised and/or stigmatised communities to relate to her. LGBTQ+, mental health, autism... those are just a few. That’s a magical and wonderful thing. 10/

As soon as we narrow her down to representing just one of those communities... well, that’s fantastic for that community. But now it’s just that community. And it changes the experience retrospectively. 11/

Let’s create characters who represent specific communities, and let’s have them do it from the beginning (as Elsa may well be doing quietly with asexuality) rather than just figuratively. We deserve that. 12/

I agree: if Elsa is supposed to be gay, let’s not be cowards and hide it in ambiguity. But I don’t think she is, or has to be. If we look for signs, they point to asexuality. But we can also say that it’s left open on purpose not to hide, but to share. 13/

I don’t know. That’s how I feel, and maybe some of you folks will school me, and that’s fine. Perhaps it is just cowardice and I’m doing a disservice by defending it. But this is what I believe. Over and out.

I would say that if making her explicitly gay/asexual made her less "relatable" then all the more reason to do it. And I don't think asexuality and homosexuality are so interchangeable as the opposition to the latter are considerably greater than the former.

And lastly, we all absolutely should not be looking to massive corporations to provide us with meaningful representation and stories about identity.