911 eddie gay

You often declare, "Eddie is neither queer nor gay." Your assertion continues, "He is presented as straight within the established canon, thus any interpretation of him as gay is solely a headcanon. It remains acceptable for individuals to regard him as straight, as this aligns with his characterization."

For a brief moment, let us disregard the undeniable truth that Eddie has, not a single time, explicitly declared his heterosexuality or stated he is a straight man within the canonical narrative. Indeed! He has uttered no such statement. Consequently, if I am "presuming" his queerness, then you are similarly "presuming" his straightness, despite his complete silence on the matter!

Consider how Evan "Bi" Buckley achieved his canonical status. I am genuinely asking you now: how do you believe his bisexual identity became established within the series? Initially, Evan Buckley was not envisioned as a bisexual individual when 911 commenced. The prevailing reason for Evan Buckley's current canonical bisexuality stems from us, the queer adherents of 911, who both interpreted and conceptualized him as bisexual through our headcanons. Moreover, I would venture to state that it was specifically us, the BUDDIE FANS, who discerned and theorized his bisexuality, even prior to the writers overtly portraying him as such. We analyzed his conduct, his narrative arc, and his essence, proclaiming: "This character embodies bisexuality!" In turn, the creators reflected upon this observation, recognizing its logical coherence, and consequently commenced scripting him with explicit and canonical bisexual traits.

Was it then erroneous for us to conceptualize a character as bisexual via headcanon? Essentially, we were perceiving an ostensibly "straight" character as bi. Did we commit an error by doing so? Why is it that you are not voicing complaints, reproaching us, or shaming us for our interpretation of Evan Buckley—a character otherwise considered straight—as bisexual? Could it be that his bisexuality now conveniently aligns with your objectives?

Furthermore, the practice of interpreting characters not explicitly confirmed as queer and perceiving them through a queer lens has been a staple within the queer community—particularly the queer fandom sphere—for many decades. I implore you to investigate the historical context of queer coding. It is precisely through the vehicle of queer coding, coupled with the steadfast dedication of those who engage in it, that authentic queer representation in various media forms has seen a significant rise. Moreover, allow me to state unequivocally that Eddie Diaz stands as, beyond any doubt or dispute, one of the most profoundly queer-coded characters in existence. This holds true irrespective of whether you believe this queer coding is a deliberate choice by the creators. Eddie Diaz inherently exhibits queer coding.

I wish for every individual who utters sentiments such as, "Eddie Diaz is not a queer character; he is canonically straight. It is inappropriate to presume a character's queerness without explicit confirmation from the character itself," to understand that this very viewpoint mirrors the pronouncements of straight and homophobic individuals. You are, in essence, employing the identical rhetoric that has historically been deployed to disparage queer enthusiasts for numerous decades, merely for recognizing themselves and their lived experiences within diverse fictional personas. Indeed, we, the queer fan base (and notably, the BUDDIE FANS), were frequently informed by straight fans that our interpretation of Buck as bisexual was erroneous. Yet, where do we stand today? What was the outcome of our reading of Buck as bisexual? Oh, yes, it led directly to the establishment of a canonically bisexual Buck.

Therefore, I implore you to cease the remarks asserting, "Eddie is not queer within the established canon." Should you choose not to perceive Eddie as queer, that remains entirely within your discretion. While I will undoubtedly assess your reasoning for such a stance, it is undeniably your entitlement. However, please be forthright regarding this. Your perspective bears no relation to whether he is definitively straight (a claim never made) or whether he is queer coded (which is unequivocally apparent, given how readily so many of us can interpret him as queer). Ultimately, it constitutes a personal inclination, and adopting this view does not enhance your engagement with the canonical narrative.