It’s 2025.
Turn on the basic US linear networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox) and tell me how many queers you see?
I’m not talking about Netflix or any streamer (not even the ones owned by linears, like Paramount), I mean if you turn on the old boob tube, where are your non-binary characters? Where are your transgender characters?
While network television has made improvements to representation in the (ack!) 10 years we’ve been keeping track here, we’re still only seeing it for the ‘safe’ queers. And with representation plummeting year by year, this progress’s fragility is more and more apparent. Network TV is patting itself on the back for including a few same-sex couples. At the same time, it fails to represent the true diversity of gender identity.
The inclusion of gay and bisexual characters is great but it’s historically been creating a limited and often stereotypical view of queerness. Network TV in the US is reinforcing the idea that sexuality exists solely within the male/female binary, completely overlooking the experiences of individuals whose gender identities fall outside of these rigid categories.
Where are the non-binary characters? The genderfluid individuals? The transgender characters whose stories deserve to be told with the same nuance and complexity afforded to cisgender characters?
Numbers are Telling
As a whole, 87.1% of characters we track are cisgender, 82.5% are homosexual or bisexual, and these numbers reflect year by year. In 2024, 83.5% of characters were cisgender, and 71.9% are homosexual or bisexual. And that’s for all shows on all networks (including streaming, international, web series, etc).
Even if you look at shows like Grey’s Anatomy and skim their regular characters for all time, 1 is anything but cis queers who are bi or homosexual, and that would be Amelia Shepherd (currently listed as ‘not straight’ because she’s yet to define what her sexuality really is, and that’s fine) for a whopping 14.2% (there are only 7 total). Go deeper and there is one trans recurring character (Casey Parker) and one non-gender-confirming (Kai Bartley) – that’s 2 out of 15 (13.3%).
In fact when I sat and started going over this, I realized I could only pick one US network TV show that did a decent job portraying non-basic queers. That was the canceled Quantum Leap, which not only had a non-binary main character, but handled episodes with transgender athletes, non-binary characters in a time when that wasn’t commonly known, and lesbians in the 80s.
Find me a network show with a lead/regular transgender character that isn’t 9-1-1: Lone Star, where poor Paul Strickland was relegated to the sidelines in the final season. Instead of seeing his budding relationship, or dealing with his (hopefully solved) heart issues, we got multiple episodes where Judd could deal with his missing wife, alcoholism, and eventual return to greatness as the new captain.
Trickle Down Representation Fails
This lack of representation has real-world consequences.
Representation matters. Every queer and minority knows this. If you’re genderfluid or non-binary, seeing yourself reflected on screen is not just about entertainment; it’s about validation. It’s about feeling seen and understood in a world that often struggles to grasp the concept of gender existing beyond the binary. When these identities are excluded from popular media, it perpetuates the harmful notion that they are somehow less valid or less real.
We’re seeing that reflect in the recent actions of the US political system. Sorry for being a downer.
This lack of diverse queer representation sends a message to cisgender queer viewers as well. It reinforces a narrow understanding of what it means to be queer, contributing to the erasure of non-binary and genderfluid identities. It limits empathy and understanding, hindering the progress towards true acceptance and equality. You hear about “LGB without the T”? That mindset, the idea that non-cisgender characters don’t need to exist because they don’t exist in the ‘real world’ is actively harmful.
Network television has a responsibility to do better. This isn’t about ticking boxes or filling quotas; it’s about authentically representing the diverse world we live in. Instead, we’re seeing a retreat to the narrow minded, exclusionary viewpoints, and we’re making it harder and harder for someone to find themselves.
The Catch-22
As viewers, this is incredibly nuts to navigate.
If we decide to not watch the shows with limited representation, we’re sending a message that there is no audience for queer content. Network Execs are notorious for prioritizing viewers and numbers and low-costs. They have historically seen low ratings as proof of lack of interest in queer stories, which will let them justify their choice to stop investing in diverse and nuanced representation. This has led to a decrease in even the limited representation currently available, effectively silencing already marginalized voices.
On the other hand, if we keep watching shows that prioritize cisgender gay and lesbian narratives, while excluding or marginalizing other queer identities, we’re indirectly endorsing this incomplete representation. By tuning in, viewers “reward” networks for their superficial efforts, making them think that the status quo is acceptable and further delaying the push for more authentic and inclusive storytelling. This creates a sense of complicity, where we’re contributing to the perpetuation of a system that fails to reflect our own experiences.
The double-bind often leaves me feeling powerless and frustrated. I want to support LGBTQ+ representation and I want to get better representation that more accurately portrays the world I live in.
I’m picking on network US TV for a reason. These networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and even CW, are the entry-level TV that most people can watch in the US. We have more networks than any other country out there, and yet our representation fails to reflect our reality. If network TV steps up, then it sends a message to people that not only do we exist and are seen, but we have stories to tell. It’s harder to ignore our existence.
Look at Matlock. How hard would it be to have one of the junior lawyers be non-binary instead of a lesbian? Or better yet, what if Elijah (the co-worker Olympia had a relationship with) was non-binary! That would have allowed them to address a common argument from people unfamiliar with gender representation, what does it mean to be a cisgender heterosexual in love with a non-binary person. Matlock is a much more entry-level show for Boomers than something like Grey’s.
What to Do?
You hear people say “Support indie content!” but that doesn’t drive attention to the networks. Does that mean our best path is to continue making noise on Social Media? To broadly but factually critique the representation we have and note where it can get better? How do you fight back against the masses of ignorance who just hate a thing because hate is so much easier than empathy?
For now, we keep talking. We keep writing and posting and commenting. We write our own stories, we support the indie content, and we support streaming media. But we have to hold them accountable. When they say ‘Tommy failed because no one wants to watch a lesbian cop!’ we return with facts like the lack of promotion, the competition of the airtime, and the overabundance of copaganda shows.
The time for performative allyship is over. Network TV must commit to showcasing the true diversity of the queer community, moving beyond the binary and embracing the rich tapestry of gender identities that exist. Only then can they claim to be truly representative.
On NCIS Hawaii they had a beautiful couple of lesbians they say it had to be canceled because of not having enough money to pay for the show I say cancel the stupid NCIS origins& bring the Hawaii show back on the origins show makes no sense to me!!