Counterpoint: No, we do not. We could however use a database called "is it actually gay" curated by people who understand subtext and implicit storytelling that could help people find resonant, powerful, radical queer stories that aren't labelled as such by the powers that be.

Of course this is exactly the point of @ElizSimins's Queerness Quadrants framework -- not to impose strict categories (any framework is bound to have fuzzy edges) but to create a way to discuss queer fiction that doesn't privilege some types over others. https://medium.com/anigay/beyond-canon-gay-30b01b40d67b

I get the anxiety over whether a work will honor its obvious queer subtext or whether it will all be thrown out the window at some point, I do, and I wish I had a magic list of "these are super gay stories that respect the subtextual gay themes, you can relax and trust them."

(Of course such a list is really complicated to create in reality, because different things resonate with different people, and art is subjective, etc. etc... but still, I understand the anxiety!)

I also understand how cathartic and powerful and validating it can be for subtext to spill over into text, for a work to defiantly and unequivocally declare its queerness in a way not even the most dismissive people can deny. I get that some people prefer that. But...

...what I'm not sympathetic to in the quoted tweet is the condescension toward people who do pick up on subtext and implicit queerness and metaphorical queerness and radical queer storytelling that doesn't label itself in ways acceptable to the cishet paradigm.

Who the hell are you to decide that "subtext" that resonates with queer fans was a) unintentional (?? literally why assume that?) and b) less valid as queer art that someone might care about or feel validated by?

What about giving "credit" to creators who imbue their work with queer themes and stories that manage to reach a queer audience despite cultural censorship forcing those themes to be just under the surface? What about queer stories that are radical enough that they'd never...

...actually be published to a wide audience if they spelled everything out in so many words, because they actually have a radical vision of queerness that doesn't fit nicely into the categories approved by cishet-normative society?

Okay I'll stop ranting here for now, but damn I really need to get my shit together and finish the @morelikeaniGAY article I've been working on for like two years about why I often find implicit/metaphorical queer stories *more* subversive and *more* radical.