GLAAD: TV’s LGBTQ Representation Is at a High But Still Needs More Diversity
GLAAD‘s “Where We Are on TV” report for a second consecutive year forecasts an all-time high in the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and queer (LGBTQ) characters on TV, and for the first time ever was able to tally characters who identify as non-binary and asexual.
That said, there are still strides to be made when it comes to the diversity and perceived expendability of LGBTQ characters.
“The LGBTQ characters who make it to TV screens tend to be white gay men,” notes GLAAD president Sarah Kate Ellis, whereas LGBTQ women actually outnumber men and bisexuals in the U.S. All told, “It’s long past time for television to introduce more diverse LGBTQ characters on multiple levels,” including those with disabilities and of diverse religious backgrounds.
Broadcast TV’s representation of LGBTQ characters in the 2017-18 TV season if forecast to be 6.4 percent (or 58 out of 901 series regular roles), up 1.6 points from 2016 to mark a high. (Broadcast TV also will have 28 recurring LGBTQ characters.) The CW ranks highest with 11 percent, followed by Fox (10), NBC (5.3), ABC (5) and CBS (4.2). Cable TV went from 92 to 103 series regular LGBTQ characters, plus an additional 70 recurring; Freeform, with 25 (including cable’s only asexual character in Shadowhunters‘ Raphael), and Showtime, 21 (including Billions‘ non-binary Taylor), are the most inclusive. Streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu add 51 regulars plus 19 recurring, generally ticking up year-over-year.
On broadcast TV, gay men make up the majority of LGBTQ characters (at 47 percent, down a tick from last year), while lesbians account for 24 percent — up sharply from last year’s 17 percent (but still shy of the 33 percent forecast for 2015-16). Bisexual representation among all TV characters (broadcast, cable and streaming) dipped to 28 percent, with women (75 total) outnumbering the men (18) by a markedly higher margin (81 percent) than reflects actual society (64 percent). The number of transgender characters improved by one, though that was offset by the loss of one due to series cancellation. Cable and streaming each have one asexual character, while broadcast has none (and to that end, GLAAD encourages Riverdale to tell that part of Jughead’s story from the comic books).
On a qualitative note, GLAAD observes that “queer and trans characters tend to be just one among many in an ensemble, and this leads to LGBTQ characters being treated as expendable when a show needs to downsize” — as evidenced by the “Bury Your Gays” trope that was highlighted in last year’s report.
The “Where We Are on TV” report also takes stock of the representation of all people of color, which this year rose to 40 percent on broadcast (led by NBC, followed by ABC, Fox, The CW and then CBS). Of that group, the number of black characters is down, Latinx is steady and Asian-Pacific Islander representation is up. Yet despite that trend, the racial diversity of LGBTQ characters slipped on broadcast TV, from 42 to 36 percent. On this front, streaming also declined (to 23 percent), while cable improved (to 35 percent).
Broadcast TV’s representation of women dipped to 43 percent of series regulars — whereas the country’s population is 51 percent female. The largest discrepancy occurs among characters of color, where only 35 percent are female.
Lastly, TV’s representation of characters living with a disability — including non-apparent ones such as HIV, bipolar disorder, OCD and PTSD — rose to 1.8 percent but remains “shameful overall,” the report notes, compared to the real world’s 12.8 percent.
“Where We Are on TV” forecasts are based on scripted series which aired or are expected to air in primetime between June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018.
This is why I am watching LESS TV and reading more.
What do you want? A cookie for being regressive? How does any tv characters sexuality or gender affect you in any way? You won’t watch a show that has any representation of LGBT? Your life is sad.
No the issue is not every show needs to have one because the way Hollywood makes you think that 50% of The USA is
either Gay and Transgender when the numbers are not even close to that according to the LGBT it.s 3.2% so how about 3.2% of the shows have the same number
Not every show has a LGBT character. Only 6.4% of regular characters fall in that category. The population estimates are actually incredibly difficult to properly measure as most measurements only include people who are willing to publicly report it, there are also people who are still in the closet. The estimate of 3 to 4% are probably a bit higher than that in actually which matches the currently 6.4% seen on television programs. So what are you complaining about?
But, there are organizations out there complain about of lack gay representation in shows and movies. You really can’t deny that.
There could be more asexuals on network dramas.
Seconding JJ’s excellent comment. But even if your statement were true…so what? Who cares if TV has more LGBT people than actually exist in the real world? Still not seeing the problem here.
Agree. Don’t need this on tv
I think there needs to be less straight characters on TV. It doesn’t make sense in this day and age. More LGBTQAA people of color, problem solved, and also I don’t need another show headlined by BORING straight, white people…..or even gay white people (Will & Grace). It’s time to change. Saying this is why you watch LESS TV, is incredibly offensive, and disappointing. Your privilege is showing…
Oh the irony of your anti-white reverse-racism post
Oh the irony of your post thinking those are actual things.
Fussing over the percentages is ridiculous. Every group wants to see more of their group represented, but you can’t have 50 characters in every show. Why doesn’t GLADD make it’s own TV show if it’s really concerned?
I know the streaming asexual character is Todd on BoJack. Who is the one on cable?
raphael santiago, from freeform’s shadowhunters.
I look forward to this post every year just to see the homophobes get their knickers twisted about LGBTQ people daring to have representation. And I’m never disappointed! But someday, I will be, and that will be a good day.
(I also look forward to improvements in representation, of course. But my joy at homophobes’ dismay is pretty strong.)
I hear you. I feel the same way. People will actually go out of their way to be bigoted and unpleasant, it’s truly baffling.
But, your comments put you in that category, too. You know. It takes two to tango.
Yep, some straight white people want all the pie and cannot bear to give even a slice to any one else different from them as then they suddenly feel discriminated against. Just for a few more diverse characters on tv, after years of dominating the media landscape, they have to feel so persecuted.
Because they don’t want to give up their privilege, which would actually mean equality.
What privilege is that, and do I get mine?
If you are a straight, white male you are privileged, even if you don’t see it.
Agreed. I like how they keep acting like this stuff is being “shoved down their throat”, too. ‘Cause apparently remote controls aren’t a thing in their world, nor is the idea that we’re living in a time when people can literally watch whatever they want on their own time.
.
And of course God forbid they ever actually try watching these shows that have LGBT people, too. They might actually learn something in the process, and realize LGBT people are just like everyone else. The horror!
Groups like this will never be satisfied. The minute they get what they want, they demand even more and then whine, moan and complain about it. GLAAD, BLM, Antifa … they are all whiny liberal snowcakes who whine about what they want and then when they get it, they demand even more ridiculous insanity.
No, that’s republicans.
Apparently you’re unaware of of the all liberals complaining because Republicans want to do away with a number of their free government handouts and, WOW, actually make them get a job and work for a living and take care of themselves.
Yet one year in to Daddy Trumps presidency the liberal resurgence is happening as we speak. If it was impossible for Obama to get any laws through with a Republican Congress, then it’s going to be disastrous for Trump. If he isn’t impeached before then of course.
Really, have you even look out window, lately? It isn’t republicans screaming at the sky.
Trump is proof that entitled, white, male, republicans are also not content with what they have, and will whine, and demand more despite the sickening imbalance of money, power, and privilege. Which is worse? Fighting for a fair share, or fighting to maintain an unfair advantage?
Demanding that our media reflect our society as a whole, tell stories that matter to everyone, and offer a diverse set of characters, life experiences, struggles, triumphs and viewpoints isn’t whining. It’s holding society to a higher standard, expecting it to be better and do better. Anger with groups, and people working for these causes reflects discomfort. And discomfort is a symptom of the imbalance, and injustice that has left our society exposed only to their own truth. With repetition comes familiarity, a lessening of fear, and an increase in acceptance, understanding, and empathy. How can that be a bad thing? Stories about straight, white characters matter. But so do the untold stories of minorities, LGBTQ, and those that don’t conform to societal norms, because all of these things make up our world.
Ah, you are letting your political tilt show in your first paragraph. Thus, making a plea with the rest of your comment moot.
it makes me happy ro read that representation in general has still been going up. it oculd always be better for some grouops and it’s important to strife for that.
but in the mean, i’m already happy with what we’ve got so far. it’s SO important to see representation like this on television. if shadowhunters had been on tv 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, it would’ve made life so much easier for me, knowing asexuality is real and there are people like me out there. i’ve struggled wiht myself for so long, not knowing what was “wrong”, so to have a character like raphael santiago on tv is, for me, the best thing ever.
i hope this list continues to improve, and continues to help others struggling with themselves, and will also continue to show the anti’s that representation is important and worth it.
We’re the thin/fat gay married Anglican marines. Why would we need names as well?
Many shows I watch have female LGBTQ characters. Grey’s Anatomy, Wynonna Earpe, Degrassi, Last Tango, Orphan Black, Call the Midwife, Vikings, The Originals, Queen Sugar, Handmaid’s Tale, Workin’ Moms, Jane the Virgin, The 100, Orange is the New Black and 19-2. Canadian and British shows send to have more. In comparison there are fewer shows that I watch with male LGBTQ characters including Teen Wolf, Degrassi, Empire, This Life, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, The Originals and Nashville.
I have gay and bisexual relatives and friends and they don’t complain about not having enough folks like them on TV or movie screens…
The woman who plays supergirl’s sister is she gay in real life
No. She’s married to a man and has multiple kids, according to IMDB. I believe she had at least 1 kid while she was on Greys.
non-binary? I’ve never heard that one before. So is that like an alien race with more than 2 sexes on a sci fi show?
In today’s day and age everyone’s got to be special, everyone’s got to be unique. I’m a man, but I don’t like sports or beer. And that is OK. But millenials have to invent their own special terms. So if they’re not 100% a cliché of a woman or a man they are non-gender-conforming or non-gender-binary because they’ve never heard the term “tomboy” before.
‘tomboy’ and ‘non-binary’ are two different things. i suggest you both do some research, because your reactions show exactly why representation is important. don’t come to an article like this and post comments to ridicule specific groups of people.
and we “invent” new terms because that’s what’s necessary. terms like homosexuality and bisexuality didn’t exist 200 years ago. so what? gay people and bisexual people therefore didn’t exist either? please.
“A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality.
Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behavior or gender expression by an individual that does not match masculine and feminine gender norms.”
As I said, I’m a man who does not like beer nor sports, thus by millenial logic, I am gender non-conforming.
What is wrong with “inventing” terms that convey a specific meaning? If someone says to me they are non-binary, I understand what that term means without needing a 10 minute explanation. It’s much simpler and convenient for me, let alone someone whose reality involves explaining this on a regular basis. I don’t get all the vitriol for “labels.” It’s a word. It carries a meaning. Like all other words. What about it makes you so angry?
Because there is no such thing as a standard male or female. Non-binary implies that there is something like a perfect 1 and a perfect 0 and a non-binary person is somewhere in between, e.g. 0.8472. Here’s the crux: *Everyone* is somewhere on that scale. There’s no such thing as absolutes in nature. Which means we are all non-binary in some sense which makes this term completely pointless.
Addendum: Non-binary does not describe difference in genes, like XX = 1, XY = 0 and some gene variants like X or XXY as soemthing in between. Non-binary attempts to describe behaviour in relation to that genetic sex and that’s where it fails because it claims that a person with XX will behave in a predictable way in every situation. While non-binaries want to describe them as something different from their “assigned gender”. But as I said before, we all do that in one way or another.
The Exorcist on Fox has 3 🏳️🌈 charactersthis season. They also have a diverse cast. Probably one of the most diverse on TV.
The problem with GLAAD making these demands is networks eventually comply but the characters they add to appease them are window dressing and really have no point to be there other than to make someone happy. I could care less what the character’s preference is as long as it pertains to the story and they are central to it. If they are just there to fill a number than get rid of it.
“Demands”?
What some call “demands”, others call “advocacy”. GLAAD says on their website that “The Entertainment Media Program monitors film, television, music, and related entertainment media to ensure inclusive, diverse and accurate portrayals of the LGBTQ community. When anti-LGBTQ content runs, GLAAD speaks out about why anti-LGBTQ attitudes and content have no place in the media and how that impacts real lives. The staff also works with TV and film studio executives, producers and writers to provide script consultations and to advocate for the inclusion of LGBTQ people at all levels in an effort to spark conversations about LGBTQ issues in living rooms and around water coolers.” I think which word gets used depends upon whether you agree or not with a group’s position. What I find interesting as a white evangelical Christian (who has no pretensions to being a saint) is how many of us will complain about gay characters but take WASPs for granted on tv shows. Seems like a blind spot to me.
THE ”Q” STANDS FOR QUESTIONING — NOT queer !!!!!!!!!!
Agree, with the development of web and other sites, we can get more news about LGBT from them, not only TV
Speaking of asexuality, where is Todd Chavez (bojack horseman) in this report? He actually says the phrase i’m asexual and gets informed about aromanticism. for my money he’s the gold standard in ace representation.
I don’t understand. There’s homosexuality on 99% of shows.
How is HIV a disability!
This study is out of whack. LGBTQ practitioners are only 2-3% of the population, so 6.4% is more than double what it really should be, scientifically speaking. By the method used in this study, TV seriously lacks diversity in religious views since more than 69% of Americans identify as Christians. So, why aren’t we talking about THAT kind of bigotry and hate on TV???