<\/p>\n
\u201cWe had gay burglars the other night. They broke in and rearranged the furniture\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Robin Williams<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The worst time to start binge watching a new show is the week before finals. Yet, there I was, sick with a cold or allergies or some unknown illness, bored and tired. I had heard too many amazing things about the Netflix<\/em> original series The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt<\/em> to not at least give it a try. Little did I know, it would draw me in within the first five minutes. I mean, a bunch of girls trapped in a bunker where they were convinced to be in a religious cult for fifteen years, only to be set free, go on The Today Show, when Kimmy decides to stay in New York City and discover her \u201cNew Life\u201d. All of this, plus <\/em>it was created by Tina Fey, arguably one of the funniest women in entertainment? I\u2019m in. In the Pilot episode, Kimmy finds herself with no job, no home and little money to survive in New York on her own. Luckily, as a scripted television show would have it, she finds a basement apartment in a newspaper ad. After meeting the quirky Landlord, she is introduced to Titus Andromedon, a self-identified African American gay man with dreams of becoming a star, but has instead auditioned for The Lion King dozens of times and works as the guy dressed up as a Transformer in Times Square. While Titus does have some stereotypical attributes, his character, and the show as a whole, has an air of acceptance and diversity that is undeniable. Comparing any of the current hit shows that can be found streaming online to the television shows featuring LGBT characters in the 1990\u2019s produces a fascinating contrast that is impossible to ignore. While there is an obvious amount of progress that has been made, have we truly come as far as so many would like to believe? In only a little over twenty years, the number of LGBT characters on television has risen. It is thanks to the strong emergence of online streaming and the original series that Netflix<\/em>, Hulu<\/em> and Amazon<\/em> have released that more diversity is being viewed on a larger platform than ever before. The disparity between the television shows of the 1990\u2019s portraying LGBT characters, such as Ellen<\/em> and Will and Grace<\/em>, compared to the contemporary critically-acclaimed series that can be found online; The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Grace and Frankie<\/em> and Orange Is The New Black<\/em>, force us as viewers to recognize what those landmark shows did for the LGBT community as a whole. This, paired with the contrast to network television shows such as Modern Family<\/em> and the strong history of the LGBT community in reality television allows for an observation of where these actors and characters \u201cbelong\u201d in entertainment. The question that I find myself asking is the following; How have the LGBT television actors and characters of the past shaped the way that the community is represented today? This question can be answered by first analyzing the discourse of those 1990\u2019s television series, the landscape of the entertainment industry at the time, how the characters were portrayed, and how the general public reacted to them. By understanding the strides that have been made for the LGBT community as a whole in the past twenty years in regards to equal rights and new laws, we will begin to see how all of these factors have ultimately shaped the culture that we live in today. One outlying factor that refused to be ignored is the aforementioned popularity of online streaming and the freedom that it gives creators, writer and actors. All of these elements have worked together over time to continue to perpetuate a society of acceptance and recognition that will hopefully only continue to grow in the future.<\/p>\n Although the time periods that I will be focusing on are primarily the 1990s and present day, it is still important to understand the history of any topic. In this case, the history of the LGBT community on television. While conducting my research, I found several different accounts of the very first openly gay character on television. One of the most reputable, and with the most controversial storyline, was a 1971 episode of All In The Family <\/em>cleverly entitled \u201cJudging Books By Covers\u201d. It was only the show\u2019s fifth episode, yet somehow the producers and writers decided to take the risky plunge of introducing a gay character named Steve who also happens to be a former football linebacker and friend of a homophobic Archie Bunker. The \u201ccategory work\u201d used to portray a character such as Steve and his more stereotypically gay male friend Roger in the 1970s is not so different from the way we have continued to depict them currently. \u201cThey teach audiences about gay identity, not by preaching politics or morality, but by portraying a spectrum of characters who in different ways defy stereotypes of gay men and women\u201d[1]<\/a>. By doing this, audience members begin to realize that stereotypes are often inaccurate, and they suddenly have a visual reminder of that. This representation is very reminiscent of the \u201csissy characters\u201d[2]<\/a> of 1950\u2019s and earlier films and movie-musicals, when using any term referring to a homosexual person was not allowed in movies or television. While those distinctions were made due to limitations based on legality, the idea of not hitting the audience in the face with a political statement about gay people in this episode is done intentionally.<\/p>\n The episode begins with a man named Roger being invited to Archie and Edith\u2019s home by their daughter and son-in-law. Roger wears a flashy suit, practices photography and speaks with an accent, all of which label him as a \u201cqueer\u201d to Archie without any other information being needed. Frustrated and seemingly disgusted by the person in his home, Archie goes to the bar to hang with the guys, manly men who he clearly feels more comfortable with. Of course, as stated before, the manliest man of them all ends up revealing his homosexuality by the end of the episode. With this episode of a family-oriented, network sitcom pioneering the appearance of LGBT characters on television as early as the 70s, it is reasonable to believe that there is really nothing to do but continue to progress in this direction. Unfortunately, nothing is ever that easy.<\/p>\n Skipping foreword about twenty years, the 1990s brought an array of critically acclaimed television series to mainstream media. It also was the decade of some revolutionary events within the LGBT community in entertainment. It is impossible to think about this point in time without rattling off several sitcoms that are still viewed as some of the best television of all time, even today. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Frasier<\/em>, and Full House<\/em> are some of the most high-profile titles. Amongst that list of \u201cbest ever\u201d series are two shows that unquestionably broke barriers; Will & Grace<\/em> and Ellen<\/em>. When you have the current Vice President of The United States stating “I think Will & Grace<\/em> probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far\u201d[3]<\/a>, there is no denying the depths of a shows importance. Similarly, Ellen<\/em>, both as a sitcom character and high-profile actress and public figure, broke more barriers than had ever been done at the time. As far as scripted, network shows during the 1990\u2019s that best represented members of the LGBT community, these two series were at the top. Of course, there were several cult-favorite series with LGBT supporting characters; Ricky, the ethnic best friend in My So Called Life<\/em>, Jack, the closeted (and then outed dramatically) high schooler on Dawson\u2019s Creek<\/em>, and even Samantha, the bisexual city woman living life on her own terms on Sex and The City<\/em>. While all of these characters gave a unique perspective of LGBT culture, none of their stories were delved into enough for them to be viewed as revolutionary the way that the previously mentioned series so clearly were.<\/p>\n Will & Grace<\/em> premiered in September 1998 to some severe criticism. The show did not try and hide the fact that two of its lead characters were gay men. This was made obvious from the first scene of the Pilot episode, in which Will and Grace are talking on the phone. After an innuendo-filled conversation, it is eventually understood that both characters are planning on watching ER<\/em>; Will, in his apartment, oogling George Clooney, and Grace in her respective apartment with her live-in boyfriend. One very smart contradiction to the typical stereotypes of gay men is the occupations of the show\u2019s two namesakes; Will Truman and Grace Adler. Will works as a lawyer, while his best friend Grace owns an interior design firm, a profession often categorized within the gay community. I believe that media and entertainment is a very strong indicator of the times. Our society would not have been ready for a show like Orange Is The New Black <\/em>in 1998. Instead, Will & Grace<\/em> uses comedy and satire to bring a potentially new culture into the homes of people across the nation. Even a show as cutting-edge for its time has flaws. In the Pilot episode, I could not help but notice several lines or jokes that would not be acceptable presently. For example, Will jabbing at Jack McFarland, \u201cI know it\u2019s gotta be rough on you, trapped in a man\u2019s body like that\u201d[4]<\/a>. Thanks to the positive strides that have been made in recent years towards Transgender acceptance, this type of seemingly harmless stab would likely be cause for controversy. Another aspect of the show that is very telling of the times can be seen in the balance of both a masculine gay man, Will, and the effeminate gay portrayal of Jack. This issue of the feminization of gay masculinities within the realm of Will & Grace<\/em> was explored overtly in Thomas Linneman\u2019s article How Do You Solve A Problem Like Will Truman?<\/em> Linneman interprets the different types of gay masculinity that are portrayed on the show and the potential problem with the use of femininity in the character\u2019s portrayal. He explains the term \u201ccamping\u201d as an understanding as to why the characters in Will & Grace, as well as a large population of gay men, present their gay masculinity in a feminine light, \u201cUsing this lens, feminization among gay men could be considered a form of political parody: Rigid gender roles are deserving of ridicule. When hegemonic masculinity puts gay men down, they are able to fight back by camping it up and in a sense taking ownership of their oppression\u201d[5]<\/a>. This explanation gives insight into why an entire subculture may behave the way that they do; it is a form of power. Linneman describes camping, in some cases, as being a way for gay men to deny the ideals of hegemonic masculinity. While, in other cases, it is a behavior that is forced on a man not only by straight culture, but also by other gay men. I must also give credit where it is due. While Will & Grace<\/em> did occasionally perpetuate this feminized gay masculinity, they counteracted that well with the character of Will Truman. A gay man who is comfortable with both his sexuality and masculinity. We so often see nothing but stereotypical gay characters on television. So, the simple fact that this type of character was being presented to audiences in 1998 proves my earlier point that progress is always being made, regardless of how small the steps may be.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Puppy Episode\u201d of Ellen DeGeneres\u2019s 1994-98 self-titled sitcom is a moment of television history that will never die. In the episode that originally aired in 1997, the year before Will & Grace\u2019s<\/em> television debut, Ellen Morgan opens up to her therapist, played by Oprah Winfrey, about her sexuality. After admitting her attraction to a woman named Susan, she finds her in the airport and ends up accidently announcing, \u201cI\u2019m gay\u201d over a loudspeaker. This scene, while very serious in nature, was perfect for Ellen DeGeneres\u2019s real-life struggle with coming out in Hollywood. The act of unintentionally broadcasting your sexuality to anyone willing to listen was the perfect paradox to how DeGeneres was feeling in her real life. As the first star of a network show to come out as gay, the severity of the situation was not lost on anyone. Although advertisers dropped out and there was the typical backlash, an interview with behind-the-scenes workers of the show, as well as Ellen\u2019s own brother, interpret the event as a moment when \u201cthe entire world stood still for a minute\u201d[6]<\/a>. While it would be easy to get into the sexualization of this show, it is not what makes it important to the decade. Ellen DeGeneres has made herself a household name by being unapologetically herself. She came out on national television, revealing nearly fifteen years later in an interview (ironically) with Oprah that she never thought she would come out publically, and she really <\/em>never thought she would come out on a show[7]<\/a>. Her tenacity arguably began a revolution where more and more people, both entertainers and otherwise, felt as if they could come out themselves.<\/p>\n Before LGBT characters were on sitcoms and dramas, there was the reality television platform. For the marginalized group, the 1990\u2019s talk show circuit was the ideal place to voice grievance and get noticed. \u201cFor a genre built on exposing secrets, on talking about and with suppressed subjects, and on dramatizing personal experience, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people were particularly well suited\u201d[8]<\/a>. Joshua Gamson\u2019s critique of the path that reality television has followed in regards to the LGBT community highlights the important role that the genre has played to expose these people to the masses. \u201cThe LGBT cable channel Logo<\/em>, on the air since 2005, has run reality programming both derivative (the transgender Bachelorette<\/em> imitator Transamerican Love Story<\/em>, gay Housewives <\/em>knockoff The A-List<\/em>) and somewhat less so (the drag competition RuPaul\u2019s Drag Race<\/em>, the teen-focused It Gets Better<\/em>). There has rarely been a queer-free Real World<\/em>, and cable\u2019s all-reality Bravo <\/em>would be unrecognizable, and possibly defunct, without its gay casts, audiences, and gossipy executive vice-president Andy Cohen, who is also the first openly gay late-night talk show host\u201d[9]<\/a>. Out of these examples, the one that stands out the most as revolutionizing reality television is RuPaul\u2019s<\/em> Drag Race.<\/em> Like it or not, RuPaul is without a doubt the most famous drag queen there is, as well as one of the premier faces of the LGBT community in pop culture. Of course with fame comes criticism. In this case, it is the feminist critique of RuPaul\u2019s highly feminized appearance, which is said to have been inspired by the look of a Barbie doll. RuPaul\u2019s personal persona, as well as the scope of his hit show, relate back to the effeminate gay masculinity discussed in Linneman\u2019s article. Drag is difficult for some people to understand, and may not be as accepted if it were to use a scripted show as its primary television platform. However, thanks to the continuously growing popularity of reality television, especially within the LGBT Community, topics such as drag become less mythical to outsiders. Gamson examines the massive amount of \u201choopla\u201d surrounding Ellen\u2019s 1997 coming out, arguing that doing the same thing today would not be nearly as big of a deal, thanks to the growing exposure. This is in part due to the fact that \u201cReality television is now the most prominent site of televisual self-presentation\u201d[10]<\/a>, since these are not scripted characters (at least, not always), but instead \u201creal people\u201d presenting their real, normative lives.<\/p>\n With this information about reality television in mind, I believe that the popularity of the genre, and thus the mainstreaming of even more LGBT people, allows for a rise in more gay, lesbian, bisexual, and even some transgender characters to be written into cable and network series. The GLAAD Reports began in 2005 as a way to track trends of diversity in media based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and identification, etc. The jarring differences between the reports first publication in 2005 and the most recent 2015 report shed some much-needed light on where we once were, and where we currently stand. \u201cAt the launch of the 2005-06 television season, GLAAD estimates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters represent less than 2% of all characters on the broadcast networks. Unscripted reality television and cable programming, however, include numerous diverse representations that better reflect the LGBT community\u201d[11]<\/a>. Contrastingly, in the 2015 report, with 881 regular characters expected to appear on broadcast primetime programming, 35 (4%) were identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. There were an additional 35 recurring LGBT characters. And while that 2% jump may not seem monumental, it is progress nonetheless. However, the aspect of the 2015 report that I found most important is the addition of series that premiered on Netflix, Hulu and Amazon <\/em>to their findings. <\/em>It is surprising that these shows were not accounted for until the previous year. It simply shows the impression that these series have on our society and the fact that they cannot be ignored or looked down upon. Of all streaming shows the statistics are as follows: Lesbian 36% (21 characters), Gay 39% (23 characters), Bisexual female 15% (9 characters) Bisexual male 5% (3 characters) Transgender female 7% (4 characters)[12]<\/a>. Comparing these findings to that of primetime programming on cable networks: Lesbian 22% (31 characters), Gay 41% (58 characters), Bisexual female 23% (32 characters), Bisexual male 13% (18 characters), Transgender female 1% (2 characters), Transgender male 1% (1 character)[13]<\/a>. The report continues to break down statistics based on several different identifying factors. However, with these being my two primary topics of interest, I think that a series of numbers actually tells us about the current landscape of LGBT people on television.<\/p>\n Trends are always changing, disappearing only a week after they went viral, and recycling themselves. However, an ever-present staple on network television has always been one thing; Family. Of course, we have come a long way since the time of Happy Days <\/em>and The Brady Bunch<\/em>. Rather than the completely nuclear family being present on nearly every show on television, it is a new version of that same ideal that we see every weeknight while we sit around the living room with our own families and friends. Modern Family<\/em> is definitely the most prominent example of this trend being altered for where we are in society now. Soap, The Tracy Ullman Show, Friends, Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, ER, The Wire, Six feet Under, Grey\u2019s Anatomy, Modern Family, The New Normal, The Fosters, Orange Is The New Black<\/em> and Transparent<\/em> are all shows that are studied in Heather Kahn\u2019s research project LGBT Parents on American Television<\/em>. It is amazing to see this many shows with same-sex couples as parents, whether they are shed in a positive or negative light. This study gave great insight into the ways that these couples are portrayed, which is usually comedically while being played predominantly by heterosexual and white actors. It was surprising to see that some of these shows aired as early as the 1970\u2019s. Of course, the landscape of discussing members of the LGBT Community, especially within the family sphere, has changed greatly. It is important to better understand the ways that they were depicted in the past versus now. For example, Kahn explains the use of LGBT characters in the 1970s as often nothing but comic relief or a villain. Modern Family <\/em>is a strong contrast to those types of portrayals. The show, which debuted in 2009, depicts Mitchell Pritchett and Cameron Tucker as an upper-middle class, white couple. It is very important to note that this is the way that so many LGBT characters are represented on television, both in the 1990\u2019s and today. Kahn\u2019s work indicates the average yearly wages of the occupations that several of the characters discussed have. For example, Mitchell, as a lawyer, would make about $113,500 per year, far above the national average of about $44,000[14]<\/a>. While most of the same-sex couples portrayed in network and cable television shows are played by Caucasian men (and some women), we see the most diversity in the description of Orange Is The New Black.<\/em> The majority of couples discussed in the piece are either both Caucasian, or at least one member is. However, the character of Sophia Burset, a MTF African American Transgender woman, breaks that mold with her previous marriage to an African American women prior to her transition. The only other show that depicts a couple where neither are white is Shakima \u201cKima\u201d Greggs and Cheryl on The Wire<\/em>.<\/p>\n The three Netflix<\/em> original series that I believe best represent the current landscape of the LGBT community in the entertainment industry are; Orange Is The New Black, Grace & Frankie<\/em> and The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt<\/em>. Netflix<\/em> has built an audience and a brand by being obviously pro-LGBT and depicting these characters in nearly all of their original shows in a somewhat blas\u00e9 fashion that seems as if it could become the new normal. From episode one of Orange Is The New Black, <\/em>the writers did not hold back when it came to lesbian content. While this is a topic that is often avoided, the show embraced the typically difficult subject and turned it into the backdrop of several relationships within the prison. Tori Brus-Barnes\u2019s piece Social Thought & Research: Masculinity, Sexuality, and the Media <\/em>indicated a trend that I discovered very early on in my research. Lesbians are being brutally killed off of dozens of television series every season, and with seemingly no reason behind many of the killings. Brus-Barnes keys the term \u201cgay tele-visibility\u201d[15]<\/a> as a way of explaining the constant push for more gay characters over lesbian characters. Unfortunately, this is due to the universal idea that it is extremely difficult to market females to other females. Instead, television networks have found a way around that problem by marketing gay men to females as well as other gay men. It is thanks to this marketing strategy that networks such as Logo<\/em> and Bravo<\/em> have been so successful.<\/p>\n At the end of the day, the television and entertainment industry is a corporation, with men in suits at the top of the pyramid whose primary goal is simple; make money. They will do pretty much anything to find the show that is going to be the next big hit, something that will stick around for more than a couple of seasons, and that will make them a lot of money. Margo Miller\u2019s book Make Room For Straight TV<\/em> taps into that unknown world of behind-closed-doors meetings and business deals. From essentially the beginning of television programming, it has universally been straight, white men and women that networks had as their target audience. As the worldwide acceptance of the LGBT community grows, that demographic continues to change. Suddenly the word \u201cgay\u201d was synonymous to the word \u201chip\u201d, and this was only in the late 1990\u2019s! This change in the culture is what ultimately led to \u201cstraight panic in which heterosexuals became as anxious about their own sexuality as gays and lesbians, and increasingly invested in attributing meaning to sexual identity\u201d[16]<\/a>. A feeling of sexual questioning that we usually place on LGBT individuals was suddenly happening to straight people. It seemed that television networks reveled in this change, since they were now able to use gay, white men as a way to promote diversity and multiculturalism within their networks, rather than focusing on race, class or ethnicity. Another tactic used on networks such as the previously mentioned Logo<\/em> and Bravo <\/em>is \u201cgaystreaming\u201d[17]<\/a> as a way to attract the maximum amount of viewers. While the previous article I cited highlighted the importance of both the gay and straight audiences, Eve Ng\u2019s piece focuses mainly on Logo<\/em>\u2019s intention of gearing their entertainment towards primarily gay men and straight women. This is done by promoting taste and style-based reality television shows to these demographics. The bigwigs at Logo <\/em>have one person to thank for the massive success of their network; RuPaul Andre Charles, an African American gay man who described himself to have previously been a \u201csouthern, working-class, African American \u2018sissy\u2019\u201d[18]<\/a> who was somehow able to find his way to the top of his field in an incredible story that would shed a different light on the extreme struggled that more \u201cconventional\u201d LGBT individuals have faced. RuPaul\u2019s Drag Race <\/em>can easily be defined as Logo<\/em>\u2019s biggest success to-date. For some reason, I cannot help but assume that there are some guys in suits, working for the network, who may not be entirely comfortable with a six-foot tall drag queen in a blonde wig and stilettos. However, this fact is proof of the power of gaystreaming in our current media outlets. The popularization of these networks and television shows is viewed by some as \u201cthe gaying of the straight man\u201d[19]<\/a>. \u201cIf heterosexuality depends in part on its opposite, and homosexual difference is no longer reliable, what happens to the straight men and his supposed superiority?\u201d[20]<\/a>. While this question, posed by Tori Brus-Barnes in her piece Social Thought & Research: Masculinity, Sexuality, and the Media, <\/em>is somewhat problematic, it has become the truth of media and thus necessary to better understand. This piece uses another widely acclaimed reality television show, Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, <\/em>as a basis for answering this question. The show gives specific example of the ways that gay men on television have not only pigeonholed themselves, but the straight men that they interact with. This article is in response to a lecture by a professor at the University of Kansas. In his research, many of the openly gay male students somewhat resented the way that all gay men on TV are type casted as upper-middle class individuals with interests in nothing besides fashion, culture, decorating, etc. While I do believe a great deal of progress has been made in regard to the prominence of LGBT characters on television, I do think that this is an aspect of entertainment that still has room to progress. In 1998, we had a character like Will Truman, a gay man living in New York City, working as a lawyer who could easily \u201cpass\u201d as straight if he wanted to. One of the few examples I can think of in current television is the character of Will Lexington on ABC\u2019s Nashville<\/em>. As a Texas boy, born and breed, Will moves to Nashville with the guise of starting his career in country music with the image of being a \u201cheartbreaker\u201d to women. The audience soon realizes that while his dream of being an entertainer is true, he left home after his father found out about his sexuality and kicked him out of the home. For about two seasons, Will perpetuated straight culture to a T; hooking up with random girls, flirting, drinking beers with the boys, etc. It is not until the finale of season three that he is forced to publically come out in the media. I am sure that there are more examples of these characters that do not adhere to the stereotypes of the LGBT community. However, I do not believe that there are enough. This is not because we need <\/em>more \u201cpassing\u201d gay men and lesbian women. It is simply because I believe that it would create an even more broad array of characters who are able to not be viewed simply as \u201cthe gay friend\u201d, but another character with their own storylines that focus on more than this one issue.<\/p>\n The selection of television series, characters and actors that I have discussed throughout this paper make up a timeline that tells the story of the ever-evolving American entertainment history. Beginning, somewhat surprisingly, with a former NFL linebacker who is forced to come out to his homophobic friend in 1971, it did not seem like the world was ready for a show explicitly showing LGBT characters. Approximately twenty years later, the time had come and Ellen<\/em> and Will & Grace<\/em> stepped up, progressing the LGBT movement insurmountably through their comedy and likability. The time between then and now was filled with LGBT characters popping up on reality television, whether that be The Real World, <\/em>daytime talk shows like The Rikki Lake Show <\/em>or competition shows like Project Runway<\/em> and American Idol<\/em>. This platform was more subtle within the entertainment industry, but still allowed these people to be seen in a positive light. Then, we have the online streaming series of today. These are shows like Grace & Frankie<\/em>, where two sixty-something women find out that their husbands have been having an affair for over twenty years. Or, Orange Is The New Black, <\/em>where the relationship dynamics within a Connecticut women\u2019s prison play out more like a daytime soap opera. All of these shows, and the time that they were produced, slowly but surely brought the LGBT community directly into the limelight. Whether you choose to look at gaystreaming or gay tele-visibility as a positive or negative aspect of this industry, they can no longer be ignored. There is a massively influential demographic of television-watchers who want <\/em>to see more LGBT characters on television. While the corporate aspect of the industry would lead us to believe that they hold all of the power, it is actually the other way around. As the audience, we determine the success of any show on television. It is up to us, as supporters of the LGBT community, to continue to promote these shows, covet these characters and eventually alter the scope of the entertainment industry into a sphere where we do not see \u201cthat gay guy who was a lawyer\u201d or \u201cthat lesbian who died\u201d, but instead whole people that we can watch, enjoy and appreciate.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Works Cited <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Aronstein, AJ. “\u2018All in the Family\u2019 and the First Gay Sitcom Character.” Splitsider<\/em>. N.p., 30 May 2012. Web. 10 May 2016.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> The Celluloid Closet<\/em>. Dir. Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman. Tristan Pictures, 1995. Online.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Berman, Taylor. “Joe Biden’s Will & Grace Shout-out Was ‘One of the Proudest Moments’ of Debra Messing’s Life.” Daily Intelligencer<\/em>. New York Media LLC, 10 May 2012. Web. 10 May 2016.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Will & Grace<\/em>. Dir. James Burrows. Perf. Eric McCormack and Debra Messing. KoMut Entertainment, 1998. TV.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Linneman, Thomas J. “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Will Truman?: The Feminization of Gay Masculinities on Will & Grace.” Men and Masculinities<\/em> 10.5 (2007): 583-603. Web.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> “Ellen DeGeneres Bio – Full Episode.” Bio.com<\/em>. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Johnson, Zach. “Ellen DeGeneres Gives Great Life Advice.” E! Online<\/em>. E! Entertainment Television, 23 Oct. 2015. Web.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Gamson, Joshua. “”It’s Been A While Since I’ve Seen, Like, Straight People”: Queer Visibility in the Age of Postnetwork Reality Television.” Onlinelibrary.willey.com<\/em>. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 13 Jan. 2013. Web.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> \u201c \u201c<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> \u201c \u201c<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Kohler, Jens. “LGBT Characters 2005-2006.” (2006): n. pag. Glaad.org<\/em>. GLAAD, 2006. Web.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Stakes, Zeke, Matt Kane, and Megan Townsend. “Where We Are On TV.” Where We Are On TV 2015 GLAAD Report<\/em> (2015): 1-21. Glaad.org<\/em>. GLAAD, 2015. Web.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> \u201c \u201c<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Kahn, Heather, “LGBT Parents on American Television” (2014). Honors Theses.<\/em> Paper 227.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Barnes-Brus, Tori. Social Thought & Research: Masculinity, Sexuality, and the Media<\/em>. Vol. 26. N.p.: Social Thought & Research, 2005. 1\/2. 2005. Web.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Miller, Margo. “Review: Make Room For Straight TV.” Wayne State University Press, Fall 2007. Web.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> Ng, E. (2013), A \u201cPost-Gay\u201d Era? Media Gaystreaming, Homonormativity, and the Politics of LGBT Integration. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6:\u00a0258\u2013283. doi:\u00a010.1111\/cccr.12013<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> Schewe, Elizabeth. “Serious Play: Drag, Transgender, and The Relationship Between Performance and Identity in The Life Writing of RuPaul and Kate Bornstein” University of Hawaii Press, Fall 2009. Web.<\/p>\n