Celebrate Pride Month with the DC Community!

What are everyone’s thoughts on the Pride Month one-shot?

1 Like

Hi @drewzirocks.3500! :wave::smile: You (or anyone) can come talk about it here if ya like! :00_dc_pride:


Oh man, only Justice League Incarnate could have pulled me away from the Pride hub…

DC did release a pride variant cover in 2021 for Wonder Woman

and also we have the romance currently ongoing in Dark Knights of Steel with Diana and Zala-El (the Supergirl in that universe); additionally, there’s been plenty of other canonical references to Diana’s queerness before these.


The Japan one shot from the Midnighter solo is one of my favorite issues ever (albeit I admit there’s a lot of Wildstorm featuring either or both of them that I’ve not ever read since frankly most of it seems like mindless bloody action at first blush, which is never my speed). I’m really disappointed that Jim Lee as COO has done absolutely nothing to encourage DC Entertainment to do anything live action with, for example, Midnighter and Apollo - especially given how much Johns pushed so much of his own work (versus that of other creators), particularly his New 52 runs, on to both the WB Animated, DCW and DC Films content producers.

I think that Japan issue would make a great self-contained either animated or live action movie for DC or HBO Max, and it would not cost anywhere near as much as so many other superhero films spend on CGI, etc.

1 Like

Firm rebuttal:

  1. DC also made a Pride cover for Kal-El and Dick Grayson. Does that also count as admissions of queerness for those two characters? I think not.
  2. Dark Knights of Steel is not canon.
  3. “Canonical references” to Diana’s queerness before these have never been explicit, probably due to editorial mandate. Wonder Woman is the character with the biggest queer history ever and yet she has never explicitly been allowed to acknowledge this on page (in canon)

Which leads us to:

  1. When DC Universe Infinite made their “Pride reading playlist”, Wonder Woman was conspicuously prevented from appearing on the list by DC
    4-a. When opening a support ticket enquiring about this (and multiple people I know have also tried) DC just ignored any questions and didn’t even deign to provide us with an answer for the exclusion
  2. Not only did DC Pride Special 2021 and 2022 not feature Diana (despite her being a surefire way to boost sales and Harley, Ivy and Batwoman ALL appearing twice in a row, to boost sales no doubt …) But Diana was also conveniently killed off in the comics mere months before pride month each of those years. Convenient, I know.
  3. In a DC comics NFT project (with all final approval provided by DC), Pride-themed cards were made this month. Harley Quinn and Ivy were featured like a million times, Wonder Woman barely got a card and on her card, DC “innocently” insisted on having the following tagline: “ALLY OF THE LGBTQIA+ COMMUNITY” (when the Ivy card, for example, only had "Pamela Isley as a tagline …)

The company clearly refuses to openly acknowledge Diana as queer, probably to avoid alienating homophobic customers from buying merchandise for themselves or their kids. As DC’s oldest LGBTQ+ character, Diana deserves better.


Right, but they also did Superman - not the canonically queer one - and it’s a little weird that two Pride Month anthologies in a row haven’t even obliquely mentioned what is inarguably DC’s most important queer-with-no-asterisks character.

1 Like

I agree with everything here except for a few things that I have a compulsive need to point out:

  1. While the central premise of Dark Knights of Steel can unequivocally be placed in an alternate reality, it all “matters” in terms of characters’ natures, and, going by Wally and Hawkgirl’s conversation in Dark Nights: Death Metal #7, they may even have some memories of it.
  2. The point still stands, but ascending to the Quintessence’s level of existence is not technically a “death”.

But - WHAT!? “ALLY”!!?? This is PRINCESS DIANA OF ■■■■■■■ THEMYSCIRA we’re talking about!!! I don’t know what one could compare that to, because… Well… It’s canon! I feel like the only comparisons I could make seem absurd, but that’s because THIS IS ■■■■■■■ ABSURD!!!

1 Like


T H A N K Y O U. Now how do we get DC to actually respond haha

  1. Dark Knights of Steel may “matter” but ultimately it can easily be written off as Alt-U or “a dream”, even if characters have memories of it, DC can easily just say “yeah but this never happened actually”. It wouldn’t be the same as having Wonder Woman and Barbara kiss and date in the main ongoing solo series, for example.

  2. I appreciate what you’re saying but the result is ultimately still the same, she was removed from the main universe right in time for pride month two years in a row and in her solo series back then I’m fairly certain she was in the Asgardian afterlife (admittedly, I didn’t have the patience to sit through that entire comic where, spoiler alert and shocker, her primary love interest was also a male character gasp)

And yeah … ALLY … It’s pathetic and when the fans pointed it out to the team behind the product they fed it back to WB/DC who ultimately didn’t care. I think more needs to be done/said because this just screams performative allyship from DC imo since they’re more than willing to win GLAAD awards and sell pride comics/merch but they’re too afraid to acknowledge their queerest (and oldest queer character’s) identity. Which really is disrespectful at best of the community they claim to be “celebrating” imo :confused:

I know, I just take issue with using the word “canon”.

I have no idea, I’m too busy working on this. The Diana thing is important, but at least DC is being performatively woke. Disney isn’t even ignoring our complaints, they’re being unabashed about their homophobia.

Fair enough regarding the word canon.

With regards to your stance on the Diana thing, here’s an interesting counter: wouldn’t other corporations start being more actively supportive if there was, indeed, an openly LGBT Wonder Woman? The power of that character as a symbol has always transcended media. That’s precisely why DC are so squeamish to acknowledge her queer history and to make it explicit: they’re aware that a lot of people are paying attention to whatever they choose to do with Wonder Woman. Maybe a world with an openly bi/pan Diana is the world in which content like the Owl House doesn’t get cancelled. Just a thought. Good luck with your campaign!

1 Like

Thank you :grin: And good luck with all of this as well, and not just because I think, as you say, everyone wins if either (ideally both!) of us do.

1 Like

So for the late comment - especially since it looks like this thread has quieted down; we’ve got a number of things that can be parsed here: DISCO has clearly taken much more of an interest in DC related things, post the joint venture/merger or whatever the actual technical thing that happened is. And sadly, I think to the extent - and it’s a large extent IMHO, that John Malone can impact bottom line financial decisions, we’re not really going to see more sexuality in writ-large material.

In other words, the bisexual or pansexual Diana/Amazons that we got in the first WW movie is likely the extent to which we will get that in theatrical releases - and to the extent that we might get more, it will end up like Dumble’s gayness in the third Fantastic Beast film - easily excisable in and for some territories/markets. Likewise, I haven’t finished watching Peacemaker, but I’m not in agreement that Chris has been portrayed as bisexual but to the extent that any of PM can be viewed as pro or neutral, once again, that’s about the extent of what we are going to end up in live action - and it will more likely appear in less known and popular material (e.g. Doom Patrol, or whatever shape broadcast or linear television shows take now that the DCW is essentially going to be non-existent and we are apparently getting a lot less DC television content).

As an aside, I don’t think WB is going to stop making things like Euphoria - and not having watched GoT post the Red Wedding and so with no interest in the new Westero’s tv show, I believe we can expect similar going forward from HBO/whatever Max becomes, WB films and tv productions, etc.

Now, getting back specifically to DC Comics, I think the promotional aspects tie in to the above, even if Son of Kal-El or Dark Knights or anything else has gay/gay friendly content, because the promotional material isn’t just going to be specifically viewed as comic only promotion, but related to DC cinematic theatrical releases (if it related to Superman or to Wonder Woman or batwank/batgod related material) - and even if it related to any live action portrayals.

Finally, I don’t think DISCO has an aversions to kid media, but I do think that they are somewhat sadly short sighted and are seeming to view animated material - at least stuff with broad appeal versus something niche (e.g. Rick + Morty, Venture Bros.) is ‘family friendly’ or ‘meant for kids’ - and I believe there they are taking (a) conservative leaning/political tacks and (b) feel like they don’t need to make more content because they have enough and ‘kids’ will watch 75 year old cartoons without needing “new” content - and, more importantly - that parents won’t care.

Sorry for the long response, but essentially, I don’t see things improving in the ways that people here have mentioned or may wish, comic book-wise or DC specific IP wise.


First of all, you’re gonna have to dumb all of this down for me, I don’t know a lot of these phrases, and second, Superman: Son of Kal-El and Dark Knights of Steel really shouldn’t be described as “gay content” when, excluding the team-up with Aquaman, all of their queer characters are either canonically bi or have undefined non-straight identities (Although now that I mention it, I would love to see what Kate Kane looks like in the Dark Knights of Steel timeline. Get on that, DC). And thirdly, of course things aren’t going to get better with that attitude, they’re not going to get better if we just sit here and discuss why they’re not going to get better. We can discuss obstacles, and commiserate on how poorly things are going rn, but if everyone who’s given up on proper representation had fought for it, Diana’s queerness would already have been acknowledged and The Owl House would’ve been renewed for a fourth season, and that’s just the two we’ve already discussed in this thread. Basically: Yes, you’re right in that if this were a scientific, “hands off” observation, it would be safe to conclude that things will take centuries to get measurably better. But this isn’t a hands-off observation, we’re actively trying to change the outcome. And to quote the gayest show ever, “We’re gonna win in the end.”

1 Like

DISCO is the stock term, essentially, for Discovery, which is the company that Warner Media is now stuck with in the C-Suite. Even though Warner’s was the larger, more profitable company and even though, logically, the board of directors of the company is a 50/50 split and, also logically, the stockholders of Warner Media own more of the new combination with Discovery, it’s the Discovery people who are in charge.

John Malone is the owner of Liberty Media who got most of his money from cable companies but still owns small parts of Starz and Lionsgate today (not enough to really influence them, however), and he used to be in bed with Rupert Murdoch/Fox/Fox News. He’s allegedly politically a Libertarian (e.g. same as both of the Rand Paul, even though they are listed as Republicans) and is just another in a long-line of 80+ year old white men with their same tired 80+ year old white men belief, and you should include guys like Clarence Thomas even though he’s sadly only 70+ and thus not as close to the end of his life as he should be, and he’s only white in his own mind.

In any event, Malone was/is a major backer and mentor of the guy who is now making a lot of the decisions about/in Warner Brothers, which means he’s making a lot of the decisions about DC.

And apparently, they are willing to accept that they have to give lip service to diversity for current audiences, etc., but they don’t BELIEVE. Those were my thoughts, particularly as far as Diana in particular goes, even if we were just going to limit things to how Diana, as just one example, got portrayed in a less commercial or less mainstream medium (e.g. comic books).

Not sure if that helps you, you’ll have to ask specific questions if it doesn’t or you meant something else.

We probably need to conversation somewhere, sometime about gay content. Do I consider Son of Kal-El gay content? I’m not sure why you wouldn’t. His bisexuality and his relationship is very front and center and is significant, in the same respects that Clark’s marriage to Lois and his parenthood of Jon and Jordan are front and center and significant in the DCW show Superman and Lois, even if that tv show is about a lot of other things and doesn’t focus exclusively or soley on either the marriage or the parenthood.

Was Q-Force, as just one example, of your idea of what “gay content” should be used as a descriptor. I’m not familiar in (and to be honest, not particularly interested in Owl House based on what I know about it) but from skimming the Wikipedia entry on it and a few other things I skimmed on line, it appears to have far less actual gay content, at least in it’s first two seasons, than Q-Force (which, FWIW, I thought was awful gay representation and a tediously and badly written show, period) - but be that all as it may, these two things are not DC content, much less even sequential art content.

As I said, we probably should have a distinct thread where some of us gay end user/consumers and any allies or other DC comics fans can also chime where we can talk about (a) what is gay content in DC, (b) perhaps where we are at today and where we have been, (c) and what should be done about the situation - if it needs improvement, if it needs to be supported more, etc.

First, thanks for explaining.
Second, to answer your question, I’m differentiating between “gay content” and “bisexual content”. I think that’s important because a) Bisexuality should be acknowledged and b) Labeling bisexual content as gay makes it seem like there’s more gay content then there actually is. So yes, I do consider Q-Force gay content, but Superman: Son of Kal-El is bi content, and Dark Knights of Steel is mostly undefined queer content.
Third, The Owl House is no Q-Force because its entire purpose is not “to be queer”, it’s to tell the story that its writers have to tell, which includes a lot of gay, bi, non-binary, and ace characters. However, compared to all other Disney shows - and let’s face it, a sizable majority of all shows, especially kids’(ish) shows, it’s basically She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.

1 Like

I don’t want to get into a lot of back and forth. I’m probably older than a lot of people here so I remember when I met bisexual guys, it was often someone who was actually gay and didn’t want to own it, or for other reasons couldn’t embrace it (work, family, etc.) and they truly didn’t have those feelings. So I was a bit more on-board with the perspective you somewhat seem to be expressing.

That said, I do think bisexuality should be acknowledge. I think making Iceman gay versus bi, for example, on Marvel’s part was a mistake, particularly how that whole set of storylines was handled before they released his solo comic, which had different problems.

I would not agree that bisexuality should be, today, to fall under a separate or distinct rubric - not when people are tossing transexuals, asexuals, aromantic (or whatever the current terminology being used is), etc.

If you want to go back to the days where ‘gay’ meant guys with guys and girls with girls, I would back you to death, but it’s not where we are. Essentially, and sadly, anything that isn’t heteronormative is being defaulted with LGBT++++

And again, we probably should have a distinct discussion about this in a fresh thread.

I’m not understanding this. What I’m saying is just that gay and bi are separate things. I’m probably just confused by your word choice, but you seem to be saying that they are the same, different, and then the same.

If you are saying that lesbian (women with women) are different than gay (men with men), then perhaps we’re talking around each other.

Bisexuality (meaning you are both with women AND men) is different than being purely gay or lesbian, so I am not saying, nor did I say that they are the same.

What I did say is that currently, the culture at large, is saying that BI and GAY (or BI and LESBIAN/GAY) are the same.

1 Like