Why Do People Care if X-Men are White/Black/Asian/Hetro/Gay/Bi/Asexual ect...?

Seriously, does it even matter? Iceman was made gay so that one member of the O5 team could be gay? That's dumb. It just ruins the relationships he had, even if they didn't last too long or go that well.

It's also dumb that they change races of some characters for "better diversity" even though people should be more concerned about the characters themselves and not what they look like or their sexual orientation.

Plus people may as well complain about how too many members of the X-Men are mutants, as mutants are viewed as a different race quite often in Marvel.

If Marvel or Disney or whoever REALLY want to make another closet homosexual character, then stick with mostly undeveloped ones, instead of retconing something from over 50 years ago.

Speaking of which... when will Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch be allowed to be mutants again?

Answering from the bottom up:

Never

undeveloped characters do not sell as well as someone like Iceman

Being a mutant is not something to relate to, but being black or gay is something relatable

Changing diversity is completely about characters themselves. A hispanic girl reading about the troubles of a white male might not be able to connect with the character, but if the character was changed to meet her demographic now she has a character she can relate to. Now she feels apart of something that she couldn't feel apart of before

I agree, does it matter that Iceman was made gay? Who cares?

I think Iceman should have instead been made bisexual, as he's clearly been into women before.

I just wish they wouldn't change pre-existing character. Even Stan Lee didn't like them changing Iceman's sexuality. Introducing new gay characters is fine, like with Northstar, with him we got a gay character, we were able to explore his sexuality. No need to change pre-existing characters.

@william300: I agree, but the fact is that no one will read a book about Anole or Bling or Rictor. They want the characters that they saw in the movies and cartoons.

If it doesn't matter, then why do you care?

I will agree that retconning Iceman's sexuality is a little ridiculous; however, I've never really cared much for Bobby. Who knows? Maybe he'll get some interesting character development.

Also, @Dman1366 made a great point: no one would have cared if they used Morph or some random D-lister for this story. This retcon makes Marvel look contemporary and earns them praise from LGBT outlets. It also generates interest/outrage which can potentially increase sales.

@dman1366: Which cartoon did Iceman star in? In Evolution he was a side character and in the 92 series he had like 1 episode.

@sprior93: I care, because it's ruining the relationships he had before. If he had never been with anyone, then I wouldn't care about him being gay at all. Who is he even INTO? Was that ever explained? Or are we supposed to accept that he's gay because Jean said so?

@takeshi55: well he was one of the main characters in the WatX cartoon.... And he is huge in the movies.

I despise Bendis, but in his complete defense I know a couple of gay men who have had relationships with women before. Bobby's relationships don't go away, he just has accepted that he likes other men. Plus to be gay you don't have to have a specific person in mind.

I guess you could say he was part of the main team in Wolverine and the X-Men, though it's a stretch to call him a star.

I feel like the context has been there for a while now. His difficulty maintaining a deep connection with any of his female partners, his initial discomfort around Northstar, the little hints Emma dropped after she'd snooped around in his head...this has all added up since the 90s. I also think it's interesting (even if O5 Bobby isn't from the actual past of 616) to approach someone coming to terms with their sexuality later in life. Writers very well may ignore present day Bobby's leanings while fully exploring young Bobby's growth to appeal to younger lgbt readers, but I think it would be a missed opportunity because even now there are men and women frightened to come out because of religious or social stigmas that may attract unwanted attention or even harm.

@thunderscream: I agree with your iceman stuff except speculating his sexuality. There are plenty of straight men out there who have troubles maintaining relationships with women. And there are plenty of straight men that are uncomfortable around homosexuals.

Bobby being gay is fine, but saying all men who meet those speculated qualities are gay is bigoted

Did I say "all men who meet those speculated qualities are gay" ........No.

@thunderscream:Sorry, that wasn't meant to be so aggressive. I am just over these weak justifications for his sexuality. No one needs justifications for him being straight, so they shouldn't need them for him being gay. If it were me, though, I would chalk it up to him being gay Iceman from some Battleworld reality.

@dman1366: I can understand the frustration of changes being made to characters you've gotten to know over the past (however many years you've been reading comics) that don't feel natural to you.

@thunderscream: I can understand too,but I'm actually excited for Bobby to get more character depth than being a man child

Spider-Man and his amazing friends from 1981-86. Iceman and Firestar were the only mutants to have representation on tv before TAS with the exception of cameos on their show in one X-Men focused episode, a Magneto as the villain episode and flashbacks from their origin episodes

We are supposed to accept it not because Jean said so, but because Jean sensed it and he accepted what she sensed. It's not Jeans fault writers made him gay.

Because there's such a huge lack of quality minority heroes that fall under each umbrella. And in a way that passively feels like writers are saying 'shut up' to those of us who are different.

Besides, I'm tired of seeing the world saved by straight white men.... When's the last time a middle eastern, a lesbian, a native american, or anyone who is overlooked saved the world in an event?
Oh wait... *White guy privilege*
-End Rant-

More representation is good, because it gives characters something interesting or at least another conversation point. Many of these characters have had otherwise had no significant character development in decades besides participating in battles.

Maybe because people like that actually exist?

Honestly for me as a casual reader of comics it makes it even harder for me to keep track of what the hell is going on when they do these kind of character retcons to try and pander to certain demographics and I say that as someone in the LGBT community. You pick up a comic and all of a sudden a major character is now apparently 100% gay, apparently invalidating all those other hetero relationships he got super sad/happy/suicidal/homicidal about. The Iceman character change would have actually meant something if it was actually addressed with the 616 older version not whatever the younger version is.

Bobby has had so many telepaths in his head it seems that they'd either have to be completely incompetent to miss it all these years or completely callous to ignore Bobby's fear and confusion and leave him feeling alone. If he was supposed to be gay then one of the telepaths that are constantly around him should have said "I'm here if you need to talk or I can understand what you're going through." I don't want Bobby having his sexuality retconned so sloppily, young Jean rapes his mind and thinks he's 100% gay and insists he's 100% gay. It's like SHUT UP JEAN. It'd be one thing if Young Bobby seeing how open minded people are in whatever year they're supposed to be having asked one of his friends about his interest in Angel and that tipped something off but this felt like a clumsy poorly executed retcon. I would have far preferred Young Bobby to ask Older Bobby about whether the things he's thinking about it now would go away in the future.

It's like how they're constantly retconning Magneto's past to add more offspring into his life or to make him more sympathetic.

Maybe it's just me since I can never tell what year these comics are supposed to be set so any more random changes to main characters and I'm like wait... is this a new character? an alternative reality character? or just another random science experiment that's gone wrong or another random personality/sexuality/race retcon?

@wayne67: Thank you!!! Everyone who tries to justify this idiotic retcon should read this post.

This reasoning carries no water whatsoever. Do you think a young white kid likes reading the Fantastic Four because he knows what it's like to be a super genius? Or a mechanic? Or a rock monster? No. They read it because they are fun stories with fun characters. It's like saying shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were popular because kids knew the troubles of being a mutated turtle growing up practicing asian martial arts in a sewer. Marvel changes races and promotes characters from all ethnicities now not because they gave a shit, but because they want all the money from all the demographics. The entire point of the X-Men is that they are outsiders, they are a minority race on the planet, their races shouldn't be important whatsoever, they are already representing ethnic and sexual minorities just by existing.

If your (not you specifically Dman) only reason for wanting ethnic characters in a comic is because there is "too many white people" you can legitimately be labeled a bigot. Go to India and complain that their Bollywood movies have "too many Indians", see how that works. If you want to introduce a character for reasons to explore a characters background and heritage....like Banshee, Sunspot, Dani Moonstar, Storm, Karma etc...then that's fine, but doing it for any other reason is just pandering.

At any rate...white people comprise 13% of the earths population....they are the minority. A lot of mutants, who are a minority, are white....deal with it America.

Of course there's always room for an argument for a character like Static Shock, who was promoted as the urban black superhero youth during his time with a TV show, but if he was introduced today it would be with a more controversial "equality in writing" slant...but otherwise this is pretty much my thoughts.

@cattlebattle: Can't argue with this plain and sound logic!!

Because 1) the audience is changing and they want characters that reflect them, so deal with it, and 2) when they do something like make Iceman gay, it's because, let's be honest, Iceman has his fans, but no one else has a strong idea of who Iceman is in their head. Marvel can't lose.

Did anyone ever notice how the entire cast of Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men are white and heterosexual? I didn't... I'm pretty sure when people are recommended the book they don't notice. Does it effect quality? Does it effect plot? Does it change whether or not you like it?

Idk to each their own, but I've always been under the impression that diversity, inclusiveness and even social climates should come second to the strength of the story and staying true to the characters. And barring something offensive, I don't think it should dictate what should and shouldn't be done in writing. Diversity is great but I think it should be alot more natural then "Look how interesting this group is! They've got a black chick, a russian and now a gay guy! Isn't this...Extraordinary!!!...and just in time for our relaunch, what a coincidence"

@koays:

Why is it that whenever someone doesn't like a new twist on a character, it's "not natural"? As though God created your favorite superhero on the eighth day and decreed that they don't get to change in whatever way the complainer rejects. Maybe the story doesn't seem to flow naturally to you because you wouldn't like where it's going regardless?

@greatkirbysghost: Let's not pretend like "Iceman's past self (currently trapped in the future) is told he's gay and the older Iceman is also gay by default" is natural. I wouldn't even have cared if he had been revealed as bi, or had the gay development been delivered in a more skillful (or just more classy) way. But what we got was Jean: "Iceman, your gay" Bobby: "Maybe I'm Bi?" Jean: (TURNS TO CAMERA) "NO YOU ARE FULL GAY! DO NOT QUESTION IT".

But putting the subject at hand to the side, what really disturbs me is that you seem to be saying that there is no unnatural developments at all. The implications for that kind of thinking sort of invalidates linear storytelling as a process and cause and effect as a rule of writing. When people say something isn't natural there's a difference between saying "X23 has a tragic backstory and she should always carry it around or else i won't like her" and saying "Nothing in her recent history or in her established personality and identity makes me think that her playing the role of a party girl who hooks up with people to get over things is in-character". What sense does it make to read or write a story where nothing matters, characterization is an after thought and no one cares about how a character's identity is established because at any point Kitty Pryde can say "So long guys i've decided to quit the team and join the WWE and after that I'm running for president of the International House of Pancakes....I know it came out of nowhere but...bye!". Accuse me, incorrectly I might ad, of being bias to my own perception of the character but there's something called "character identity" in writing and it's very important to be able to tell who a character is and be able to say why something does or doesn't make sense when you change, add or adjust something especially in a shared writing narrative like comic writing.

I care about LGBT characters being represented because the more they're in the media, the less prominent the stigma will be irl.

Though, I don't think homosexuals need this as much as other sexualities. I mean, I'll never turn down a gay character (if they're written well and make sense), but where are my bi characters at? Like, srs bro. Bi characters are skipped over, badly written, or just generally terrible sluts (*cough* Daken *cough*) so often!

Anyway, making Bobby gay? I'm still undecided on how I feel. I really don't see 616 adult him as gay at all, bi maybe, but not gay. It just doesn't make sense. I think, generally, I agree with the point a lot of you guys are making - why not have a less obviously-into-women character gay? xD

Hey! Hey! You know who would be brilliant to come out as gay?! Evan. Like, seriously, Genesis is so gay. I just know it. And then Quire will inevitably come out as bisexual because it's practically canon already, and YAY Apocalypse/Phoenix boyfriends. THE DREAM!

(also, headcanon that mutations effect sexualities because Prodigy said his made him see his sexuality... All telepaths are an incy bit bi/pan. Elixir finds anyone attractive because OMG BODIES BIOLOGY OMG)

But that's not what I said. I said that, as a practical matter, Marvel can monkey around with Iceman because even given the "X-Men" movie series, most people don't have a strong idea of who Iceman is as a character. They wouldn't make the same change to Captain America or Wolverine.

It really isn't important to most readers to keep Bobby Drake's character consistent, because he's never really made it as a popular character on his own. That's why Marvel took the opportunity to make the change. Few care about the issue of consistency in the case of this character, because he's not very popular compared to the bigger names. So, he presents a good opportunity for them to add another perspective to the characters in the book. Like I said, they can't lose. The handful of angry, strident, traditionalist Bobby Drake story-arc fans in the world will never make much of a dent in sales if they don't like the new angle, because they're so few in number and such a small proportion of comic book buyers.

How "natural" the story seems depends completely on whether readers were paying close attention to the story to date. On Iceman's count, few readers were. Does that make sense?

Static was a character from Milestone Comics, which was comic book company founded by black writers and artists and featured black super heroes for the reason that main super hero comics were predominantly white. That is exactly what smart, industrious, and revolutionary people do....they didn't complain about things on the internet, or whatever the approximation of the internet was back then..which was letter writing I assume, they got together and started their own comic company. Dwayne McDuffie, one of Milestones founders, then went on to write the best episodes (in my opinion) of the Justice League/ JL Unlimited cartoon series, make John Stewart, who was black, the most likable character on that show (in my opinion) and then went on to instill Static's legacy by having him be incorporated to the DC animated universe and it's shows. I am still pissed he's dead.

However, to your point, I think the Static Shock program was considered "equality in programming" for it's time. Not a lot of kids were watching it in general and of course, a bunch of old men in a board room somewhere decreed that it was probably because there wasn't enough white people on the program, as people blame race for everything in the US, and that is why Static's white friend was given a larger part in later seasons. The shows later seasons had better ratings, due to the fact it had higher quality animation, better writing and crossovers with Batman and Superman....but the old men in the board room probably equated the improvement in ratings to the white kid, because again, everyone obsesses over race in this country.

The fact that DC sleeps on Static is pretty stupid on their part. I am not even sure if they own him anymore, but, If you want something akin to a "black Spider-Man" in terms of similarities of mythology, Static is your guy.

@cattlebattle: and that is why Static's white friend was given a larger part in later seasons

Them doing that really bugged me.

If you want something akin to a "black Spider-Man" in terms of similarities of mythology, Static is your guy.

I agree with most everything you're saying. I especially agree with this. It always bugged me with legacies or diverse iterations. You don't have to make copies to get the character you want which just waters down the character you already have.

@cattlebattle: No, i do not think that it is conscious that a kid is like "Oh Spider-Man is white! I am going to read this book". All the kid cares about is some super hero that shoots webs. However, I personally feel that there is some subtle provocation of reading about a character that fits in your demographic. I am not saying whether that is bad or good because ultimately it is a comic book and it has no bearing in the real world.

As for white being the world minority, that does bring up a weird argument on why the majority of characters in comics (even background characters), are white. I think that falls under white privilege, which does exists whether people want to except it or not.

I would argue, but with no numbers to show at the moment, that the readership of Miles Morales had more ethnic diversity than that of Peter Parker. Again, however, I have no strong argument for that, it is just a theory.

Now, should any writer feel obligated to change a character to fit an imaginary demographic? Absolutely not, but if you also agree with that, then why do you read Marvel or DC at all?

Their entire business model is to strip any, and all, potentially offensive material from their stories; so as they do not offend even this imaginary demographic of hypersensitive customers. So even reading those stories, you are supporting the idea that comic book writing is only meant for extremely ignorant children, and should be fitted as such.

Eh, he had that autonomous backpack. That was pretty cool.

I see what your saying, but I still think that what a characters appearance happens to be effecting a persons enjoyment of the book can be considered bigoted in itself. That's the problem with racism and prejudice...it's inherently hypocritical.

It's likely due to a lot of comic creators and readers during comics formative years being white, as well as a lot of characters being based off actual white people (Howard Hughes-Iron Man) or being based off concepts, literature or depictions from European Mythology (Thor, Angel, Wolfsbane, Hercules, Hulk is based off Dr Jekyll and Hyde etc.) . It's probably also due to the fact that when drawing a bunch of muscular people with similar body types it's easier to distinguish them when coloring by giving them different hair colors.

As for "white privilege"...that's another dumb concept. How can you fault white people for being privileged in countries where their ancestors were founders of much of modern living in the country and where they were the majority. Is there "Chinese privilege" in China?? If you are referring to something like discrimination in housing....that has to deal with a Realtors prejudice that minorities might devalue a neighborhood...that doesn't reflect the entire white race. There is no mystical "privilege" encompassing the infrastructure of the US, people sound like super liberal idiots when they say stuff like that. No offense Dman.

Totally agree that it is bigoted and prejudice! Sad part is that it still happens :/

I take no offense man. To me there is definitely apparent privilege given to whites, but this is hardly the place to argue about that. I know that I am not going to change your mind on the matter, and vice-versa. So back to the issue at hand.

Was making Iceman gay the right thing to do? No. If Marvel seriously cared about the LGBT community, then they would have simply given that spotlight to a previously ordained character. The push to make Iceman gay was a two part effort. Marvel was able to exploit the LGBT community out of some money for a lackluster issue. And Bendis was able to make a serious change to the X-Universe, ensuring that his run would not be forgotten.

Lol actually what you said to me was.....

....which is why I responded by explaining how something can be legitimately unnatural for a character based on their history and disliked for it.

And hey I'll even agree with the sentiment that because of how ill defined Bobby is as a character in most peoples eyes it's easy for them to accept certain changes. Hell part of the reason I'm not torn to shreds about the idea of his sexuality being different is because even with all the X-Men stuff I've read I'm still not sure I have a grasp on Bobby's identity because it hasn't been thoroughly fleshed out.

But that being said, 4 major relationship arcs (and Kitty) have sort of established that this character is/was heterosexual (or had some tendency towards that). But the way the initial revelation was handled was so poor that it kind of insults my intelligence that you can say "something has always been this way" and not expect me to double check.

I get the methodology of making alterations to lesser known characters, the Teen Jean vs Jean Grey debate is almost always about how deep/shallow the original Jean was/wasnt without the Phoenix Force, but you've got to be credible in your adjustments otherwise you loose respect of your audience.

So much this....I'm pretty sure DC still owns him and are planning on relaunching him in a independent line (Vertigo 2.0 or something). But they pretty much wasted their opportunity with him by adjusting his background to a academic science prodigy or something (an example of where less relate able characters have suffered a loss) in order to avoid similarities with their hispanic Blue Beetle who also draws similarities to spider-man.

All in all, I just feel like while Static Shock in his run as a cartoon was more taking advantage of a niche opening, while presenting a interesting spin on the traditional superhero teen story. I feel like appealing to me as strapping black youth was a secondary effect rather then a primary goal. It can even be argued that the growing popularity of the show was just as much about quality as it was about who it's demographic charts day it would appeal to.

Nowadays I feel it's a far more dishonest form of creativity to present someone with a character or a story that captures that same feeling or targets a demographic because it becomes less about being different or providing a different outlook and more about grabbing some invisible ring that rewards you for being diverse and inclusive with publicity.

I'd far prefer to show up at my job and have someone say "wow, I didn't realize but we've got a very diverse group of people here" then to walk through the door and have a trumpet and some news reporters announcing "everyone look now we've also got a black guy!!!" And that's sort of the difference I see in how Static was presented in the early 2000's versus how he would be now...it's wasn't just some ploy to attract people of certain creed even if that is partially expected.

these writers have so much white privilege guilt and had it drilled into their head its all they can do not to write about it. trying to legitimize or force homosexuality as something normal is the true definition of hubris. talk about your cultural marxism. nothing normal about a statistical anomaly on the bell curve of human sexuality.

personally i dont think the sjw's will ever be happy. if at some point they ever do stfu about diversity is when every single character is gay/tranny or anything other than white and straight.

@nwoslave: Yeah, forcing non-gay characters to be gay makes about as much sense as deciding Beast's black.

Just let the characters be and stop making every team the multi-cultural, gay-acceptance crew.

Also, don't rub in the fact that someone who isn't white or and straight isn't white or and straight. It just makes the "white privilege" SO much worse!

That is basically the definition of fan pandering, changing an established character just to cash in on Iceman's long standing history to cater to some perceived need for inclusivity or representation or whatever to a niche market.

I don't care if Iceman is gay or bi or straight but it does across as somewhat insulting that the character isn't allowed to have a coming of age story from this major character retcon or any real growth it's more of a secondary ratings grab than anything. "Oh look we've made Iceman gay, Young Jean says so..." It's like WTF? since when? is the other one gay too or just this one? and the answers are slow to show up.

As for Iceman not having been fleshed out enough for people to care that he's now gay, that's another issue entirely. It means that Iceman needs a story where he's isolated from the Xmen and has to stand on his own two feet and isn't relegated as the class clown/comic relief character or they actually have to devote some time to develop him as a core member of the ensemble. It was so done so poorly, instead of having either Iceman address his own sexuality, we get a third party steam rolling him into a sexual identity. 16 year old telepaths from the past are not the authority on sexual identity... SHUT UP JEAN .

@wayne67: I think Jean was just there to confuse him. I mean, Bobby may think that some men are handsome or slightly attractive, but that doesn't mean he's full-blown gay! Jean most likely was exploring her own sexual identity, as she's surrounded by others her own age with fantastic bodies and wants to talk to someone about it.

How can you infer that about Jean but not about Bobby? :???

@ginny_osha: Because it's easier to make Jean look like a bad guy, than accepting Iceman had his sexuality magically changed by a hormonally-driven teen.

this thread is legitimately depressing.

and people have assumed Iceman was gay since the 90's; nothing about his so-called "retcon" should be surprising to any longtime readers.

@takeshi55: I understand not liking it, but I don't understand how people refuse to accept this as a plausible development. I mean, of all the crazy stuff that happens in the X-franchise, Bobby being gay is just too much? Really?

Jean forcefully outing Iceman was tasteless and poorly written, yes, but the reveal itself is fine. It doesn't 'ruin' his past relationships, it only changes their dynamic. Bobby's many failed relationships, immaturity and insecurity could all be explained by his repressed homosexuality. Obviously not all men who have these traits are closeted gays, but some are, and Bobby is apparently one of them.

A few people assuming Iceman is gay doesn't count as some sort of established canon. I find it laughable actually that people are always crying and talking about having gay characters in order to represent that segment of people but yet there are still very few native american, black, latino characters represebted but yet not the same amount of outcry. Its like what did comixs do back in the day...hmmmm I dont know but somehow they survived. In the case of Iceman the guy likes women, its proven on the printed page. I really can't see how a long time reader can just be OK with this. It pandering and agenda pushing at its core. I'd rather they kill the character off than to do this. And before people get their panties in a was for the record I said the same thing about Wolverine and his treatment under Aaron. What would be wrong with using already established gay characters as opposed to randomly making one gay. Northstar or Karma would have been just as impactful in this "role". And really is the most immature, underachieving, childish character from the original Xmen the guy you want to hook the gay bandwagon up to? Seems like underhanded bigotry to make that guy the gay one. And really the way it was handled was horrific, why would anyone be OK with it. Oh I guess as long as we get our gay representation it doesn't matter right? No come on I can't believe people would wink and giggle behind their palms on this one.It was clearly Bendis trying to change things for changes sake and trying to make some noise on a book that was flat and uninterested.. so why not try and capitalize on a controversial issue and maybe the fans would be dumb enough to buy this tabloid-esque bulls@#t. And maybe I'll get some kind of award in the process so I can be seen as diverse and with it and revolutionary and groundbreaking. SMH please don't fall for this asinine crap

Lol...Really we've hit a point where the line needs to be drawn on what exactly the positions are and why their had.

I really and truly do feel that whether your arguing for or against certain levels of "forced" diversity the Iceman example should just be removed from the equation.

Ignoring the poor way it's reveal was handled, it's offensive on a lot of levels and isn't going to be resolved through debate because for as many reasons as changing a characters sexuality in a time where thats a "hot button" issue is shady, it's also just as shady that some of people arguing against it may not be arguing if Northstar or Karma decided to announce they were both straight now.

If your pro Iceman and the inclusion of such a complicated topical issue then ask yourself "If the next issue had Northstar divorce his husband (who he constantly has trouble with) and decide he was straight, would you feel offended? and would it be comparable to the anti-Iceman side?"

And if your against it, then ask yourself "If Iceman had revealed that in addition to his attraction to women he sometimes feels that way about men would you have felt as strongly?"

Hell ask yourself both questions.

Personally i didn't care when Prodigy was revealed as Bi, I wouldn't care if Rogue was revealed as bi. Honestly I wouldn't care if Beast was revealed to be gay or bi given how he himself has questioned his sexuality. But the idea that(on a COMICBOOK FAN FORUM of all places) people can say "well he was childish and had trouble with women" and use that as the basis for saying that someone may be homosexual is silly to me. Because regardless of how "real world" the idea of a closeted man using women as a beard may be, your basically enforcing a stereotype that effects how heterosexuals and homosexuals view themselves just because they might've related to Iceman's personality traits.

@koays: Good points. And let me say that if Karma or Northstar decided to come out as straight all of a sudden I would have a problem with it because it goes against what has been established regarding those characters. I happen to think its a disservice or even bigoted if you will to both readers who are gay or those who are straight to just change back and forth to fit whatever agenda. I want characters included on a team because they matter and fit with the dynamic not to fill some quota of each team having a buffet if you will of sexuality and race. And another thing too..with Karma you've seen maybe a few panels with her and other women. Its known she has or had a thing for Kitty but you don't see everything about her focusing on that. She's known for more than that. With Northstar unfortunately that's the first thing I hear about the guy. And in my opinion he wasn't even the most interesting member of Alpha Flight but yet THATS who they choose to focus on? Hmmm wonder why. Lol I would argue his sister is far more interesting. Everybody I ever have dealt with just want to be known for their talents and what they bring to the table. Not many care about being the 1st black to this or the 1st white or whatever to do that. They just want to be known for being great at what they do. Ex. Who really wants to be identified as the nations leading "black" neurosurgeon. Just be the nations leading neurosurgeon right? So why do people all of a sudden need to identify race, gender or sexuality for heroes? Really its enough racism and bigotry in the world we don't have to go trying to find battles to fight. Also gay marriage is pretty much legal and discriminatuin of any kind is not now soooo...what are we fighting about still?

@hawk2916: I agree. I don't dislike the idea of having more characters of a certain race/creed/sexuality take up prominent roles. But the moment we get to a point where Joss Whedon couldn't decide to redo Astonishing X-Men because it doesn't fit the diversity requirements is the moment i start to have a problem. You take the fun out of writing and reading comics if everything you say or do becomes or is defined by some social platform. I'm all for diversity, but I'm more for character development, team dynamics and strong story telling because they are far more important to a narrative. And honestly I hate that i have to keep arguing against something being diverse (which should be a good thing) just because the motives are shady or set a bad precedent for putting external politics above the content of narrative. Diversity just shouldn't be on a checklist to make something good.well developed fleshed out characters and interactions should.Iceman being labeled as gay with no lead in, build up, or examination, as part of some sort of "Gotcha" moment in an issue that we'd have to wait 2 (5 actually) months to see touched on again....well it perverts the idea that a story could be told where a character comes out and it not be done to garner mass attention but instead in order to improve and contribute to the narrative.

I haven't really read much past Iceman's outing mostly because I was like what ? that and all the time skips left me confused and irritated. I find it hard to follow comics as there are so many tie ins with other comics that I'm like "they went to space ?" when ? did I miss something?

Has Iceman's sexuality been explored since Jean outed him ?

Iceman's story could be interesting if it explored how some people don't feel comfortable exploring another side of themselves due to backlash or whatever but I always feel like Iceman gets short changed as a character because he's labelled as light comic relief and he doesn't seem to get much in the way of focus. So his sexuality revelation/retcon comes across as more of a publicity stunt than actual character development of any kind. Partly because of the way it's been handled as Jean going "YOU'RE GAY NOW, don't argue." with no real build up and what I suspect will be no follow up. He might get randomly paired up with some other gay guy with little to no fanfare and that will be it or it won't be mentioned again. Either way it's not like it really adds much to the diversity if that viewpoint isn't explored. So I'm not a fan.

I'm all for diversity since super hero fantasy should discuss what it's like to have a different skin colour than everyone else and they have plenty of characters for that eg Mystique, Beast, Nightcrawler but often when they have a new character and they put him/her in someone else's trademark outfit it makes it hard for some of the audience to differentiate between the character and the previous history of that outfit. Which is why I personally hate mantles being passed around because you end up with things like female Wolverine or black Spiderman.

A character should stand on their own merits, not by borrowing another characters code name and fighting style. If they want a character to be interesting they can have them trained by a popular character eg Captain America or Wolverine and then explore the differences between them. They shouldn't try and replace them with an often unknown minority just to pander to some diversity quota. It's just lazy writing and characterisation.