If the only valid queer rep is explicit queer rep, that's a huge problem. There are lots of old books that simply could not include explicit rep. There are lots of new books that it wouldn't make sense for the rep to be explicit. There are a lots of settings where they're not going to take a moment and go "by the way, I'm bi, not gay."
There has to be room for subtextual and interpretative queerness, even when discussing a canon where queerness is never acknowledged as existing.
There also has to be room for people to disagree with those interpretations, and of course some interpretations will be more supportable, canonically, than others, and sometimes we simply won't be able to say "this character is that rep (as opposed to some other rep)" conclusively.
There has to be space in our readings of books to be comfortable with this ambiguity, and there has to be a minimum good-faith acceptance that if someone says "that book was queer to me," even if the book isn't explicit queer and doesn't read queer to someone else... that doesn't change the nature of the queerness.
Some of y'all really need to accept that there's not only one way to read a book, and there never will be, and that's okay.
