You choose — triggering, tokenism or erasure

I think, in the end, for me it basically comes down to how bad the character or the plot is. If it plays upon every single mendacious stereotype associated with POC, I would much rather be erased. Blacks don’t need more reminders that Whiteness continues to see itself as superior. I suppose there are simply some lines that cannot be crossed in order to see a black face.

Paul (Spark in Darkness): In general I think I can tolerate a token (and of course it is only ever one token, because that’s all it takes for those tasty, tasty inclusive cookies) over complete erasure. I think it is better to have the best friend, the sidekick – a marginalised person whose entire existence and purpose is to serve and glorify the dominant protagonist – than nothing at all. It will make me grind my teeth, but so long as the token isn’t a collection of bad stereotypes, insulting tropes – AND especially if they don’t have to be rescued by the white straight mens all the damn time – then it’s better to have SOMETHING. BUUUUT I think we need to fiercely criticise tokens because writers/whatever think THIS IS ENOUGH. It’s really clear “Hey we have one token character, we have done our inclusivity checklist! Go us!” And that needs to stop, it really does. A token is less bad than erasure, but you don’t get praise for kicking the kitten rather than stomping on it. I wonder sometimes if we should just throw out tokens altogether – either erase or be inclusive, but stop claiming inclusivity cookies for this bullshit

For actually offensive tokens that are nothing more than an extra bundle of stereotypes and tired tropes or other outright triggering portrayals (Laurel K Hamilton, your fragile lickle gay victims or perverse, torturing gay villains need to go as of yesterday.) then they can get out. As you mentioned, Teagarden, but so many others write their tokens so offensively that I risk damaging my Kindle. I really would rather their casts completely erase than fill me with the blinding rage some of their portrayals manage. Their portrayals are actually damaging, triggering and just plain awful. And, worse, they’ll present these train wrecks as proof of inclusivity. And it can even become the standard other producers work towards – “Hey, I included an offensive stereotype! GO PROGRESSIVE ME!” and expect praise! And others follow in their footsteps. That needs slapping down hard.

What I do debate over is what I’d call a “triggering” portrayal that is actually well done. One of my eternal pleasures are cheesy crime programmes – but every last one of them has had a gay episode. Dalziel and; Pascoe, Silent Witness (Tom Ward is mine!), Waking the Dead, George Gently, Midsomer Murders, New Tricks. They’ve all got the deadly gay episode. And often they are well done and realistically portrayed (though often without any nod to the homophobia of the authorities). But they are realistic portrayals of an anti-gay hate crime, or a parent kicking out a gay child, or a religious authority pushing aversion therapy or, my personal favourite, brutal torture. And sometimes all of the above. And then you get an hour or so of gay pain, gay grief and gay death – often graphic and always nasty.

This happens in real life and it’s good that it’s portrayed and probably good that straight people can see the shit out there – but I cannot watch it. They are so horrendous to watch. I think the episodes literally need a health warning on them.

Page 2 of 5 | Previous page | Next page