Geeks is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
There has been plenty of discussion regarding the representation of the LGBT+ community. However, one of the points that people seem so confident in is the idea that kids wouldn't be able to understand what it means to be gay or some other sexuality that isn't heterosexual.
Kids of the past and present have grown accustomed to a show like SpongeBob Squarepants which includes (among other things) a male occasionally dressing up as a woman. Why does something like this get shown to kids while an identity where someone who seems male yet identifies as a female isn't shown often? Well, this can be explained by the context of comedy (no matter the episode) as the fact that a sea sponge can function as both a male and a female (which would further explain why SpongeBob took on a maternal role with no problem in "Rock-A-Bye Bivalve.")
In the past, kids have experienced the innocence of the show Rugrats, which included an episode where Tommy and Chuckie wear dresses at the park since they were questioning why girls can wear dresses as well as pants while boys can't wear dresses. Why is this acceptable to show while a guy can't be shown in more feminine clothing by choice in another show with no other motive except for feeling good in the clothing? In the context of the show, Tommy and Chuckie are babies who supposedly don't know any better.
The show Arthur has proven to have its share of representation towards kids with a single parent who might or might not be dating, parents that tend to argue, people of mental disabilities such as Asperger's Syndrome and Dyslexia, folks dealing with cancer, and the list goes on from there. So, if the creators of Arthur can foresee kids learning about these sort of circumstances and represent them in such a manner that lacks the intention of frightening or overwhelming the kids that watch, why not have an episode involving a boy having a crush on another boy or a girl having a crush on another girl? Crushes are definitely mentioned from time to time on the show, so it shouldn't be a hard concept to explain to a kid.
One possible way of explaining it could be "Hey, you know how Mommy and Daddy love each other? Well, some boys see other boys the same way, too. And some girls see other girls that way as well."
If Asperger's can be explained using the example of crashing onto an alien planet and needing to adjust to the customs without a manual in your possession, surely being gay or bisexual can be explained using an easy-to-follow explanation as well.
There have been shows that kids are likely to see that are already showing representation towards the LGBT+ community without the show making a big deal about it even though people in the real world tend to see it as a big deal, for better or worse. One of the examples of shows like this just so happens to be The Loud House, showing that Clyde's parents are an interracial couple and are both male. This isn't depicted as the main focus of the episodes where they are shown, but rather just shown acting like any other loving and protective parents would act. This is just one of the steps taken to certain parts of television normalizing the LGBT+ community (especially for a younger demographic), but it's clear that a lot more steps need to be taken so that prejudice doesn't have to keep kids from learning more about the world around them.