In 1930, theHays Code was established, which regulated the content of films and prohibited the portrayal of homosexuality.[2]
In animation, cartoon artists were able to portray the gender of characters in androgynous, asexual, and gender-fluid ways. Jerry from theTom & Jerry cartoons has been noted[by whom?] to have an androgynous and even feminine design. The 1966 short "Jerry-Go-Round" has been interpreted[by whom?] as containing a codedlesbian relationship between Jerry and a female elephant, even though Jerry is male.[3] Cade M. Olmstead, a philosopher, has argued thatTom and Jerry "subverts normalized gender and sexuality structures" through theatrical play and performance, transgressing the normal construction of gender.[4] "Queer coding" has also been observed in theBugs Bunny cartoons.[5]
In the late 1980s, villains in Disney films which were "queer coded" began to appear.[6] Commentary on the treatment of LGBT+ characters in film is made in the 1995 documentaryThe Celluloid Closet, and is one of the first instances in which the idea of queer coding is presented to the public.[7]
Until the 1970s, gay characters generally did not appear on American television.[5]
Because of the Hays Code, positive portrayals of homosexual characters were barred, and the only characters in fiction that could be perceived as homosexuals had evil roles and were punished throughout the work.[9] Thus,villains became noted in particular to haveeffeminate characteristics, behaviors or gestures that could be perceived asLGBTQ.[10][11] Disney characters have attracted attention because their films are popular among children.[12][13][14] Examples include:
Governor Ratcliffe inPocahontas, who is the only male character with makeup, braided hair and bows, and wears pink
While many examples can be pulled from Disney, the trend of queer coding villains in prominent media and film extends beyond the corporation. Some examples include:
The Red Guy, a personification ofthe Devil fromCow and Chicken andI Am Weasel. Being openly effeminate and naked most of the time, he uses a lot of costumes to assume numerous roles, most prominently female ones while crossdressing.
Queer coding may have a negative impact on perceptions of queerness in media; villains are often queer-coded, leading to thepejorative perception of queer traits. Critics have noted theWalt Disney Company's attribution of queer characteristics and behaviors to villainous or antagonistic characters.[20]
Queer coding has led to some networks not wanting to show overt representation. AnimatorRebecca Sugar argued that it is "really heavy" for a kid to only exist "as a villain or a joke" in an animated series.[6] In 2011, Deja toldnews.com.au that Disney would have a "family that has two dads or two mums" if they find the "right kind of story with that kind of concept."[25] However, critics regarded such queer-coded villains as contributing to "homophobic discourse" and equating queerness with evil itself.[26][27] Other critics have claimed that this attribution can lead to a negative association between queerness and immoral, licentious behavior.[28][13]
In February 2021, producerRalph Farquhar said that inThe Proud Family, which aired on theDisney Channel from 2001 to 2005, they had to use "code to talk about if Michael was gay, to talk about sexuality" and to be "sort of underhanded about it." He said this changed withThe Proud Family: Louder and Prouder with the biggest changes to the show are "gender identity, obviously racial identity and quote-unquotewokeness," and said that sexuality can be "sort of in your face with it a lot more," manifesting itself in the storytelling.[29]
