The Mary Sue is dead to me.
Okay okay, I'm KIDDING.
In the above-linked piece, it is argued that Jessica and Trish should not have a past, present, or future romance in Jessica Jones. Teresa Jusino writes:
How much of the interest in Jessica and Trish being a couple is a genuine desire for ["LGBTQIA"] representation, and how much of it is people wanting to bring their fan fiction to life and watch two women kiss at the expense of a different type of very important relationship? Why can’t women just be really good friends, indeed? Does every single couple that care for each other deeply need to be shipped? Do Sherlock and Watson need to develop sexual feelings for each other? Is romantic love the only kind of love that’s valid on television?First things first, I agree with sentiment that it is important to portray non-romantic forms of love as valid and important in TV/film. That was the premise, in fact, of my previous Friendship Friday post about some of my favorite female (platonic) friendship pairings.
I would go further, though, and argue that romantic love is indeed not the only kind of love that's valid on television, particularly for women in relation to other women. It seems, in fact, that women are often portrayed as love interests for men, rivals, or platonic friends.
So, while I wouldn't demand that "every single couple" that cares for each be written into canon as a romantic rather than platonic relationship, I would be deeply uncomfortable with begrudging fans for engaging in the act of shipping that couple as a romance.
Of course Sherlock and Watson don't need to develop sexual feelings for each other. Has that ever been the argument, anyway? (Or, maybe it has been? Not my ship). Rather, given the TV/film industry's lackluster representation of same-sex romantic couples, I think we have room to acknowledge both the importance of platonic love while also giving fans space, through shipping and the creation/consumption of fanworks, to depart from platonic representations that appeal to them as well.
We may not own copyrights and canons, but interpretations are ours.