SJ Longthorne

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.

^ This last is an extremely good point. I don’t mean to say people will stop relating to her — I think they will still relate. I suppose a good counter to my argument is that it could help others relate by showing them a familiar experience in a different skin. 1/3

I guess I’m saying that leaving it up to the imagination, in this case, means that the audience can believe irrefutably that Elsa and her journey represent their community — communities which are just as valid. Specifying loses that, to a small degree. 2/3

I’d like to see characters represent specific communities, and I also want characters like Elsa as well who are more ambiguous and far-reaching. 3/3