Queer Baiting and Setting the Boundary for Online Speculation

Where do we begin to cross a line with our moral expectations towards celebrities?

In December 2025, LGBTQ+ drama ‘Heated Rivalry’ released its first season, quickly capturing the hearts of fans globally. Each episode was followed by online discussion, particularly focused on the sexualities of the lead actors (portrayed by Connor Storrie and Hudson Williams). The pair have asked for privacy surrounding the topic of their sexualities, which has resulted in queer-baiting accusations from fans, and a lack of respect towards their personal lives. It’s undeniable that ‘Heated Rivalry’ created one of the biggest pop culture excitements in recent years for fans of queer media. The series has proven that LGBTQ+ stories are seeing more demand across mainstream entertainment, with the exception that queer roles are given to queer actors. If this expectation is not met, the intentions of the show are questioned.

Anyone with a screen time of over four hours is likely to be familiar with the term ‘queer-baiting’. Existing only within the online hemisphere, the phrase was popularised throughout the early 2020’s and used in reference to publicly unlabelled actors portraying gay roles, and flamboyant male celebrities. Queer-baiting is often an accusation thrown towards artists such as Harry Styles and Benson Boone, due to their stage theatrics reminiscent of gay icon Freddie Mercury. Taking inspiration from queer influences is not problematic if an appreciation for the culture is shown, and they don’t shy away from the responsibility of activism. However, the issue taken from ‘queer-baiting’ is far shallower than what people on social media realise.

In late 2022, ‘Heartstopper’ actor Kit Connor came out as bisexual on twitter, claiming he felt forced to do so following intense pressure and accusations of queer baiting. The situation had caused outrage online, particularly due to the fact Connor was only 18 when he was forced to come out to his millions of followers. This led to a much- needed conversation over the morality of discussing celebrities sexualities and feeling entitled to an answer. But the issue remains prevalent in 2026. Whilst we have more empathy towards actors who’ve been relentlessly pushed to come out, there’s still an expectation for actors to label themselves publicly if they chose to take on a queer role. Audiences want to feel represented on screen, and if they can see themselves in the character and not the actor, there’s a level of betrayal and disappointment - making them feel like they’re owed an explanation as to why that actor is the right fit for the role.

Viewers who’ve experienced oppression for their sexuality have every reason to want to see queer faces on screen. LGBTQ+ actors have been neglected in mainstream media for decades, often facing discrimination when given a role that isn’t straight presenting. Having more LGBTQ+ representation in media is often what encourages people to feel comfortable coming out, so it must be frustrating seeing these stories of queer adolescence being depicted by straight actors. Representation isn’t just writing gay characters but giving opportunities to those who have actually experienced growing up queer. When cis actor Eddie Redmayne played a transgender woman in the 2015 film ‘The Danish Girl’, he later expressed regret and understanding towards the fact he took an opportunity away from the trans community. It's refreshing to see accountability which doesn’t feel performative, as the decision to play a transgender character feels like more of a mockery than activism. Transgender actors are far less likely to receive mainstream roles than cis actors, due to the fact casting directors don’t see them as having the right ‘look’ for the role auditioned for. Even smaller releases rarely give trans actors any opportunities unless they’re playing an openly queer character or given an incredibly small role which requires very little backstory.

Writing a queer story comes with a lot of responsibility. There has been so much mockery within the media towards the LGBTQ+ community that most depictions have caused more harm than anything, often depicting harmful stereotypes which aren’t even intentional. The lack of empathy towards queer people has led to their stories being told inaccurately, making the effort look performative. It’s inevitable for queer audiences to expect queer actors in these roles, as they can trust that the performance won’t feel like a ridicule. Although it’s 2026, and people are more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community, there is an absence in trans actors. There was an epidemic of ‘comedic’ representations of trans people which has caused widespread misunderstanding towards the trans community. People are generally more accepting of those who are gay than trans, this being one of the reasons why we see fewer trans faces in mainstream media. The trans experience is also seen as being more complex to some due to the emphasis on physical appearance, hence why there are less trans perspectives on screen. Writers can profit from telling gay stories no matter how offensive they are. Trans stories are often avoided because it’s deemed as more offensive to portray them inaccurately.

There’s often praise and excitement towards media with a subject matter similar to ‘Heartstopper’ or ‘Heated Rivalry’ - until the actors’ sexualities aren’t publicly disclosed online. Fans often gain parasocial relationships with actors they’re attracted to. Kit Connor, Hudson Rivers, and Connor Storrie have each gained large fanbases, built up of women, primarily. Those who admire them for their looks, as well as the queer fans who look up to them, often act as though their sexuality should be publicised. Whether you agree that LGBTQ+ roles should be exclusive to actors of that community, there’s no valid reason to push anyone to come out. Both shows outline the hardships of being queer, which are only highlighted through the societal expectation to come out.

Making an actors sexuality a topic of discussion online is not productive. It further insinuates that someone’s sexuality is the most important element of their personality, which is simply untrue. There’s an expectation for gay people to flaunt their sexuality, whilst simultaneously hiding it for those uncomfortable by it. We are in an era of pop culture where queer artists are everywhere. But there’s a desire for constant activism and self-awareness, which isn’t often necessary when these are real people. When you’ve experienced being queer, you don’t owe anyone an explanation of your sexuality. If you’re gay, you’re no less gay because the internet assumes you’re straight. Believing that gay people need to come out in order to express their sexuality is only causing more harm to the LGBTQ+ community, especially those who are intimidated by the thought of coming out.

Harry Styles can’t wear sequins without people accusing him of queer-baiting. His style is very flamboyant and reminiscent of queer influences, which causes no harm to the queer community. If he remained ignorant to the oppression towards the LGBTQ+ community, his appearance would be valid of attracting controversy. He is not profiting from ‘using’ queer culture like some might say. He’s always expressed his admiration and commended the LGBTQ+ community for their contributions to music. When he wore a dress on the December 2020 cover of Vogue, this was met with controversy as well as an outpour of respect. The shoot was labelled as revolutionary by his fans, whereas the queer community were unimpressed. A man in a dress should not be revolutionary when queer men have been wearing dresses for years. To watch a man who doesn’t associate himself with the LGBTQ+ community receive his flowers for doing something rooted in queer culture, must be exhausting for those who have faced discrimination for it. After queer men have been forced to hide their expression of personal style, why should Harry Styles receive praise for it? I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the cover, although the concept of his fans labelling it as ‘revolutionary’ did more harm than good. If anything, it only made a mockery of his choice to wear a dress.

The assumption that someone isn’t queer just because they haven’t publicly come out feels rooted in internalised homophobia. Those who haven’t had the support from those around them might not feel comfortable watching someone express themselves if they haven’t gone through the discomfort of coming out. It’s crucial to remember that sexuality is fluid - just because someone isn’t out, that doesn’t mean they are straight. Not wanting to disclose your sexuality to millions of strangers online is valid. The internet is a strange place and not everyone is 100% sure of their sexuality. Even those who are, might not want to come out publicly. The hardships of coming out don’t just apply to those who aren’t in the public eye. Fame and money don’t equate to happiness. Those who act might find that they have less roles open for them if they come out as gay, especially since the majority of gay actors are heavily typecast.

The obsession with celebrities’ sexualities is growing more concerning over time. You can want more queer actors in mainstream media and not drive the expectation for queer people to come out once they begin to express themselves. It only adds more pressure on people to come out and encourage the stereotype that people ‘act gay’ if they choose to display their femininity. Harry Styles wearing a dress would have caused no issues if people saw it as acceptable for men to express themselves. Viewing it as rebellious only caused more controversy which ultimately led to allegations of queer baiting. Our idea of masculinity within sexuality is skewed and only allowing those who have come out to portray queer characters is leading to more problematic behaviours within audiences than actors. Allowing male actors to explore their sexualities is allowing for more productive activism because men are encouraged to explore their masculinity through a less conventional route. Promoting the ideology that you can only be gay if you know you are gay only perpetuates internalised homophobia. So why don’t we just…let people be gay?