There are many reasons why a celebrity may find themselves face to face with accusations of queerbaiting. Whether that be using queer aesthetics, acting queer (whatever this means), or even playing queer characters - celebrities who undertake such roles without being openly queer find themselves under criticism. But what exactly is queerbaiting? Where can it be applied? Dictionary definitions claim that the term refers to media which uses LGBTQ+ characters and relationships in an ambiguous way to draw in queer audiences and capitalise from them.

A perfect example is BBC’s Sherlock. The hinted-at romance between characters Sherlock Holmes and John Watson gave the show traction amidst the queer community. This is a perfect example of how this deceptive technique can grow an audience and maximise profits. The term queerbaiting is undeniably useful when it comes to calling out capitalistic techniques such as this, however, when it is applied to real people, it can become damaging.

Anyone with access to online queer spaces in the last few years will have witnessed the queerbaiting allegations against numerous celebrities, most notably Harry Styles, Billie Eilish, and Kit Connor. What the public fails to realise is that these accusations often rely heavily on stereotypes and make harmful assumptions about celebrities’ private lives. Accusations like these not only create a new and unhelpful definition of the word ‘queerbaiting’, which was originally intended to call out capitalistic techniques which exploit queerness, but also perpetuates and encourages heteronormativity. 

The reason why celebrities cannot queerbait is simple – they are real people. Accusations against real people (as opposed to fictional entertainment) have real consequences on real lives. In 2022, Kit Connor was accused of queerbaiting when the actor, renowned for playing Nick Nelson, the bisexual love interest of the protagonist in Heartstopper, was seen holding hands with co-star Maia Reficco. God forbid two people are seen holding hands! And before this, in 2021, Billie Eilish was accused of queerbaiting after she danced with girls in a music video and captioned an Instagram post with “I love girls”. Whilst, notably, both celebrities have since publicly come out, it is important to acknowledge that this occurred not completely on their own terms. This explains exactly why we shouldn’t be accusing celebrities of queerbaiting. We quite simply do not know their sexuality – nor is it any of our business.

However, we mustn’t fail to acknowledge the cases where celebrities utilise queerbaiting in ways which harm the queer community. In 2002, pop duo t.A.T.u sang the iconic queer anthem ‘All the things she said’. The controversial music video, which features the duo kissing, led to queerbaiting accusations when it was later revealed that the duo was never actually in a relationship. The controversy then escalated when one member of the duo made homophobic comments condemning gay men. From this event, a debate arises: whilst it was wrong of t.A.T.u to exploit queer imagery to attract a queer audience with one of the members holding homophobic views, in using the term ‘queerbaiting’ to ascribe their actions, we assume their sexual orientation to be straight. It is clear that we should criticise their hypocrisy and homophobia, but do we have the right to assume that they are not queer?

On a societal level, claiming that celebrities can queerbait perpetuates heteronormativity. If someone who has never explicitly labelled their sexuality can queerbait, this means we are assuming they are straight. We’ve come such a long way in embracing fluidity in both gender and sexuality, as well as embracing people who choose to leave their sexuality unlabelled. So why are we holding celebrities to a higher standard? 

An argument often used to justify accusing celebrities of queerbaiting is that it is important to have queer representation in the media. Loud and proud queer representation is vital. However, celebrities are real people with real feelings. It is also important to consider that, for many consumers of media, the celebrities who embrace a lack of a label will be a validating form of representation, too.

So, we understand sexuality as being fluid for some people, and we understand that some people may not wish to disclose or label their sexuality. Thus, the question that we are left with is why do we still not understand that celebrities do not owe us their sexualities?