Today, Patrick and Mark are discussing Wonder Woman 7, originally released September 28th, 2016. As always, this article containers SPOILERS.
Patrick: When the odd-numbered issues of Greg Rucka’s Wonder Woman kicked off a story arc called “The Lies,” we all thought we had figured out what the titular lies were. Presumably, these are lies about Wonder Woman’s origins – a kind of meta-reading of the dozen or so conflicting origin stories that have been put forth for Diana of Themyscria. Is she the God of War? A champion of submission? The Justice League secretary? Diana’s voice over in issue #1 supports this read, but as we move throughout the series, it becomes more clear that the lies Rucka is exploring have more to do with the roles women play and less to do with the roles Wonder Woman plays.
Wonder Woman and Cheetah have caught up with Caludo’s men and they’re able to reverse the #BringBackOurGirls narrative before the title page even hits. Artist Liam Sharp absolutely rules this page with some amazing captive imagery, carefully laying out a cage-as-panel-divider theme that he’ll return to later in the story. Since this particular cage is literal and physical, it doesn’t really stand a chance against the mighty strength of Wonder Woman.
This is an easy victory for Wonder Woman – or at least, we’re able to take it as a foregone conclusion that she’ll be able to overpower some awful men (and monster-men) and save these girls from captivity. Still, it’s satisfying to see those last two panels combine into one, as Wonder Woman’s hands are physically altering the medium itself.
That’s kind of what we expect from Wonder Woman, right? She can save the day and she can do so by blasting away any of our assumptions of the role of women in comics. She’s Wonder Woman, dammit! But the issue gets so much more interesting when Rucka and Sharp shift their focus to the metaphorical prison that is so clearly represented by Cheetah’s relationship to Urzkartaga. It’s a straight-up abusive relationship, and Urz / Caludo employ all the shittiest tactics to force Cheetah to turn on Diana. Caludo calls her a slut, Urzkartaga leverages their marriage vows, they both try to pit the women against each other. These are societal constraints on women, and Sharp hints at the same cage imagery from the first page.
Urzkartaga’s power comes directly from the women that worship him, and while she can’t punch that power out of him, all it takes is the power of Wonder Woman’s golden lasso of truth to free everyone else from that delusion. Actually, on that note, this is probably the coolest application of that weapon I’ve ever read. Patriarchy is fundamentally based on lies, and this asshole is a living manifestation of those lies. So when he’s confronted by truth, he just shrivels up and dies, leaving a peaceful little flower in his place.
Of course, that begs the question of what’s next for Cheetah. Rucka and Sharp aren’t particularly optimistic about the poor woman that has to sacrifice herself to escape the bonds of an abusive relationship. The last page shows us that she’s human again, but she’s also naked, unconscious and covered in bumps, bruises and scars. It’s a scary image, but oddly hopeful. Wonder Woman rushes over to comfort her friend, and Sharp’s persistent use of that cage-paneling disappears.
So Mark, I ask you: was that “The Lie?” Wonder Woman still can’t access Themyscria, and the tease at the end assures us that the quest to find Paradise Island continues in issue 9. I’m starting to get the feeling that we can’t unravel the lies about Wonder Woman’s past until we unravel the lies about women in general. I gotta give it up for this series – at first, I thought these odd numbered issues were stuck asking insular questions about a single, albeit important, superhero. Turns out the questions Rucka poses are both more universal and more relevant that I had originally assumed.
Mark: I admit to kind of dreading the odd-numbered Wonder Woman issues initially. There’s no getting around the fact that they’re less fun than the bright and optimistic even-numbered issues. The plotting here is slower, the world appreciably darker, and I felt impatient, waiting for Rucka to just get on with it already.
But “The Lies” about Wonder Woman’s past and the lies about women in general are tied together. So while the heart of the mystery promised in Wonder Woman Rebirth remains unanswered, Rucka is still revealing truth about Diana’s past. Rucka and Sharp have cleverly and quietly pivoted Cheetah from being ostensibly the biggest bad in Wonder Woman’s rogues gallery to being another of Wonder Woman’s allies. That’s a pretty major correction to the “lies” of the past.
Perhaps the most radical thing about Rucka and Sharp’s work is that it’s positioning Wonder Woman more directly as a surrogate for all women—moving far beyond her oftentimes role representing non-threatening and facile Girl Power. Rucka can’t speak for women, but he can speak to the bile men are capable of spewing. The heroic resolve of the women in this issue reminds us that, just as Superman represents the best of humanity (and his superpowers are merely cool bonus features) so too does Wonder Woman.
I’m still not sure what to make of Rucka’s characterization of Steve Trevor in these odd-numbered issues. He’s barely a character at all, mostly used to deliver weak quips directed at the issue’s villains. Caludo barely registers at all. Whether this is intended as a clever inversion of the usual gender roles found in superhero stories or whether it’s just a lack of interest on Rucka’s part, I can’t tell. But it’s also not like Trevor’s presence is missed in the issue. The main action is so compelling that his existence or non-existence feels entirely irrelevant; perhaps he was merely included merely to tick a box off the list of “Things People Expect From a Wonder Woman Comic.”
All around, the balancing act Rucka and Sharp continue to pull off is impressive. This is an issue that wrestles with big ideas but also manages to include the kind of large-scale action we anticipate in a superhero comic book. And looking at the broader Wonder Woman book, the emotionally heavy and more muted odd-numbered titles are an appropriate yin to the even-numbered issue’s yang.
For a complete list of what we’re reading, head on over to our Pull List page. Whenever possible, buy your comics from your local mom and pop comic bookstore. If you want to rock digital copies, head on over to Comixology and download issues there. There’s no need to pirate, right?
I asked in the DC Round up if the recent news about Wonder Woman being queer was actually in the books, or just the interview, and it apparently is just in the interview. Which is bullshit. This isn’t the first time a writer has discussed that they wrote a character as queer, only to never get around to actually making it canon so it just ends up being ignored.
And honestly, Rucka’s interview is actually nonsensical. How can Rucka say ‘I’m following the story, and only going to naturally place queer content in it if it makes sense’ and talk about how important it is for Wonder Woman to have had previous relationships before Steve Trevor so that Wonder Woman doesn’t leave Paradise Island for solely out of a potential romantic relationship. How can you currently be writing Wonder Woman’s origin, find the idea that Wonder Woman found romantic love before Steve Trevor to be important and not think that establishing that fact is important?
Am I missing anything, or is something really wrong here? That is a serious contradiction. As much as I’ve blasted DC for its representation issues with Rebirth, I never thought it was ill intent. But I am kind of wondering if something is rotten inside DC. Because the only other explanation of that contradiction I can think of is Rucka’s incompetence, and he’s too good of a writer to be accused of that
I’ve been rolling around this question since you posed it on the round up, and I think I tend to agree with everything Rucka is saying – both in terms of “nothing matters beyond what’s on the page” and in the fact that he’s writing Diana’s queerness as a logical extension of the world she lives in. The interviewer points out that Themyscria is a world that is essentially void of heteronormativity, so there’s really no such thing as “queer” in that context. So, like, what do you really want from a character whose whole view on sex and relationships lacks all of the cultural baggage that comes with same sex relationships.
I find Batwoman’s homosexuality much more compelling than Wonder Woman’s, just because Kate functions within a world that actually reacts to her sexuality in a way that mirrors the real world (even if DADT isn’t a thing anymore, it’s still NOT GREAT to be gay in Army).
But by the same token, I do think Diana’s otherness and constantly engaging in themes about gender and marginalized people makes her kind of a perfect queer icon anyway, whether or not the character says “I’m bisexual” or “I’m queer” or whatever.
I completely understand the discussions of ‘what is queer in a world with no heteronormativity’. I have had similar problems in my own writing, though usually connected to race (what is the best way to show a character is Asian in a world with no Asia?). But sexuality is an easy one to show even in a setting that is missing the language. Just because Paradise Island has no concept of queerness doesn’t mean that you can’t show Diana is such a way that we identify her as queer. For example, Diana kissing another Amazon romantically, or even a reference to actually having a girlfriend, all signify to us that Diana is queer, even if she doesn’t have a concept of queerness.
We can have discussions about characters like Elsa, the X-Men etc representing queer themes even when they aren’t necessarily queer themselves. And there is something admirable about that (especially when the same lack of specificity can make the characters the perfect icon for a range of issues. Elsa’s success comes down to the fact that anyone can relate with her sense of otherness). We should never forget that metaphors for queer people do not make up for the lack of queer representation in the first place, but the fact that Elsa is a queer icon is amazing.
But there is a massive difference between Elsa and Diana. Disney Studios hasn’t come out and said ‘Elsa is queer, but we aren’t showing it in the movies’ (also, Elsa comes during a time where Disney is working to be more diverse, with Asian-American and Pacific leads in Big Hero 6 and Moana, while DC is doing the complete opposite).
The fact that Rucka says Diana is (from our perspective) queer changes everything. Now, she isn’t just symbolic, but she is supposed to be an example of representation. And yet the only way you would know that she is queer is if you read an interview. That is poor representation. If Diana is queer (again, according to our definition), is it too much to ask for that to exist within the text itself?
My major issues are two fold.
Firstly, DC Rebirth cancelled Midnighter and Catwoman, both books with queer leads, and have currently set fire to Batwoman’s own mythology and disempowered her narrative, turning her from someone who was Batman’s equal to another follower. Currently, they have three queer books. Constantine, Harley Quinn and Wonder Woman. Except two of those books only count as queer because the writers have told us so.
Harley Quinn is hardly subtle with its implications, with Harley and Ivy’s interactions being full of innuendo and suggestions that what is happening off panel. But unless I have missed something, I don’t believe there is anything actually explicit – there is always wiggle room. Nothing to say for certain that Harley and Ivy are actually in a relationship together. And Wonder Woman has even less.
If we are going to say that representation is important (and the reason everyone is talking about this interview is because it is), then DC should be doing better than having only one character that is beyond doubt queer. Especially considering DC have had previous examples of writers stating their belief that a character is queer, and then being ignored. I don’t believe anyone would call Barbara Gordon or Dinah Lance bisexual, despite Gail Simone’s work of Birds of Prey. Because regardless of Simone’s personal opinions, it was never made explicit and canon. Why can’t DC have queer leads that are openly queer, instead of relegated to interviews?
Secondly, if Rucka finds it so important to Diana’s origin that she’s queer, why isn’t it in the origin he is currently writing? Rucka talks about how important it is to his vision of Diana that Diana has been in love and had relationships with other women. Rucka talks about how important it is that Diana doesn’t leave Paradise Island because of the chance of romance, but because she wants to see the world and because ‘somebody must go and do this thing’. And yet, he is also discussing how he can’t show any queer content, as he is being true to the story.
If Diana having previous relationships and not leaving Paradise Island for the chance of love is so important, why didn’t Rucka show it? If a key part of the heroism of Diana is that she doesn’t leave because of the opportunity of love, surely that is by definition important to the origin? How can Rucka say that this idea is so important, and then say that he isn’t showing any queer content because he is placing story first? It would be so easy to do. In the montage section where they discussed about comparing Diana and Steve’s lives, do a pair of panels about their romantic histories. This would let Rucka make his important point that Wonder Woman could find love in Paradise Island, and left for other reasons. And that’s ignoring the other easy fix, which involves writing a story where the queer themes actually are part of the story
Rucka wrote Half a Life and Elegy, some of the most iconic queer stories in superhero comics. So I am kind of worried that for some reason, this is so hard. That we have DC giving an interview about how important it is to have queer characters, while also discussing how important it is that they don’t do anything that makes this queerness explicit.
We can talk about how well Wonder Woman engages in themes about gender and marginalised people, which is a great discussion to have. But I think it is fair to say it is a different discussion to what Rucka was discussing. And I think it is fair to criticise DC for this. If they are going to talk about how their characters are queer, why are they hiding them? Why can’t things be more open? Why not have this stuff in the book? We can discuss all we like about how the stuff around Kate Kane’s sexuality is more compelling, but that doesn’t change the fact there are far to few gay characters in comics, especially gay characters of Wonder Woman’s level of prominence. Nor the fact that is Diana is queer, then her sexuality, as part of her character, should be explored (just as Kate Kane’s should. Or Peter Parker’s should. Or any other character in comics with a sexuality)
After everything DC Rebirth has already done around their treatment of queer characters, I think it is fair to have a problem with DC saying ‘Wonder Woman is queer but it wouldn’t fit the story to make that canon’. Especially when the very interview itself contradicts that
I mean, it’s not like Rucka called a press conference to announce that Diana is queer. He was asked about it in an interview, then asked the interviewer for clarification on what that meant in this particular context. Also, to Rucka’s point, the story is so pointedly about her leaving NOT because of Steve. Even in the “present” issues of the story, their relationship is only hinted at — just as Diana’s relationships with fellow Amazons are hinted at in the “past” issues. For me, Rucka’s not explicitly engaging in romantic or sexual issues, but he is dealing with cultural issues, and he’s succeeding in that.
Again, I gotta go back to the idea that nothing matters but what’s on the page. I don’t care that Rucka says Diana’s queer. That literally doesn’t matter to me. I can read the book and draw my own conclusions based on what I see on the page. I got really pissed off that Matt Weiner said that Don Draper wrote that Coke commercial. Fuck you, Weiner, that’s not on the screen, you lost your chance to say it. Once they stop making episodes, he doesn’t have any more authority over what happens in that character’s life than I do. I guess it’s interesting to have his take on it, but that doesn’t make it true (or untrue). Same is true here. I don’t like that we’re tapping the pages now saying “OH YEAH FUCKER, WHY DON’T I SEE LESBIANS ON THIS PAGE?” (comedic effect, not how I actually view the questions you’re posing). Further, I DO think we see queer characters on the page, but the writer talking about his view of the character shouldn’t set off a hunt find that expressed in the book, especially when the romantic / sexual angle is one that isn’t integral to Rucka’s story.
Maybe I have been missing this, but DC hasn’t been saying the character is queer, right? Whatever we mean when we say DC is saying something: there hasn’t been a press release saying Wonder Woman is queer. There’s a gulf between what a publisher says, what an artist says and what the book says. And I think we need to be careful implying that a statement by one translates over into a statement by another.
Further, I don’t believe that DC is censoring queer content — you mention that they cancelled Midnighter, but Midnighter & Apollo is starting this week. And Batwoman is a sad story, but mostly just in the way that she was once shepherded by fucking legendary comic book creators, and has spent the last couple years serviced with workman-like semi-competence by middle-weight writers. The result has been unfortunate, but I don’t think the impulse is bad. Orlando was C-lister until very recently, and it’s only in the last couple months that he’s risen to his current level of prestige. I’m not particularly excited by the JLA, but DC announced that Orlando will be writing one-shots for all the members, including the Atom (Ryan Choi), Vixen, and The Ray (who I think is gay now). Obviously, we don’t know if there are any kind of editorial mandates flying around keeping diversity off the table, but I think DC’s resistance to change has more to do with neophobia and less to do homophobia.
Would I like to see more overtly queer characters in DC comics? Absolutely. By the same token, I’d like to see that in Marvel comics. For all the diversity over at the House of Ideas, there sure is a lot of heteronormativity over there.
The interview Rucka did with Comicosity was entirely based on queer narrative. It wasn’t that Rucka got asked a question in an ordinary interview. The entire interview was a discussion built around a single question – ‘Is Wonder Woman queer?’. DC didn’t release a press release, but I feel an exclusive interview built around a discussion on a single topic is comparable. This isn’t the first time either of the Big Two have been asked such a question, but usually it is one question at the bottom of an interview that gets a vague answer, not the sole question asked. I’m pretty sure that DC came to Comicosity and said ‘We’d like to do an exclusive interview with you about how Wonder Woman is queer’. At the very least, Rucka was acting as DC’s representative (by virtue of giving an interview about his work for DC). So an exclusive interview about a single topic done by someone representing DC does reflect on DC itself.
That isn’t to criticise Comicosity – they are a site that finds Representation a truly important thing, and therefore this is the sort of interview that, if they get the opportunity to have, they should jump on. But I think it is fair to say that in all probability, this is something that DC’s marketing planned. There is a reason the answer wasn’t ‘this isn’t a topic we are currently exploring’. And that isn’t a bad thing. If DC arranged a similar interview when Catwoman was revealed to be gay, that would be great. Or a line wide discussion of the importance of queer content to DC at large would be great (I may have all sorts of issues with DC’s queer content at the moment, but John Constantine and Batwoman exist, so there is a discussion to be had about the line as a whole). My problems are: Why are they marketing something they aren’t selling? And what does it say about DC that their excuse for marketing something they aren’t selling is so incoherent?
You are right that the only thing that matters is what is on the page. In fact, the idea that what is actually in the comic itself is a key idea of my argument. But I think your confusion is that I’m not critiquing the book, but the interview. I would never critique any Rebirth comic (though I may critique the ideas I hear about them) because Rebirth’s mission statement is so amazingly boring than I could not physically open Batman Rebirth. But I will critique an interview, and I think it is fair to criticise an interview where DC is making the choice to discuss queer content they aren’t actually writing comics about. Why do we have this big discussion about a queer Wonder Woman when Rucka admits that it isn’t in his story? And again, why does he contradict himself, when he discusses how important this idea is for Wonder Woman’s origin, but also something that has no story purpose in Wonder Woman’s origin?
It has nothing to do with the Wonder Woman comic itself, but it is a discussion worth having about DC itself. I don’t think it reflects well on DC that one of their representatives is discussing content that isn’t actually in DC’s comics themselves, and that his justification for why it isn’t is so poor. I think it is worth talking about.
On the DC homophobia thing, the answer to that question is complex. Both DC and Marvel have sexist, racist and homophobic elements to them, as does basically everyone. I do think the fact that Rebirth has ignored diverse content comes in part from the sexist, racist and homophobic elements of DC. But it also comes from the dangerously nostalgic elements of DC, and the fear of the new. And a bunch of other problems. The problem with DC Rebirth is defined by a choice to go backwards instead of forwards, but it is more than the new that makes them afraid.
Censoring is a poor choice of words, but I do think DC’s choices on what to publish is heavily influenced by their biases. They had a critically acclaimed book in Midnighter with a passionate fanbase, but instead of trying to build on it, they are giving it a single miniseries. Nothing permanent, just six months and then Midnighter fades into the background. Batwoman’s problems are more than just bad writers, but of specific choices of Rebirth that has led to her being stripped of most of the things that make her special. None of the characters in JLA get an ongoing, they get a singular one shot before being placed into the second string team, alongside some other Leaguers. And that’s ignoring the fact that Ryan Choi’s reintroduction in Rebirth was focused on how he isn’t the one true Atom. These characters only get comics if they are one shots, or miniseries. Nothing with actual staying power. Nothing that is an actual commitment.
And whatever the exact diagnosis of DC’s problem, their refusal to actual commit to anything diverse is a massive problem. The fact that they now exist almost solely in miniseries, one shot’s or ‘well, the creator said…’ is a real problem
Also, how did you get the idea that Don Draper didn’t write the coke commercial? It is obvious from the finale he did. That’s the whole point of the zooming in to Don Draper’s face, the ding as if Don had an idea and the J-cut to the commercial itself.
I’m uncomfortable making any assumptions about how that interview came to be or who’s agenda is being served by it being published. All we can really say for certain is that Rucka was interviewed by Comicocity, they asked about Wonder Woman being queer, and then he asked for clarification, and couched the answer in a lot of “yeah but”s. Rucka’s not DC editorial, and he doesn’t have an exclusive deal with them, so while he certainly represents one of the creative voices over there, I don’t think he can be said to represent the publisher’s corporate identity. I mean, if this was a message DC really did want to shout from the rooftops (while still not showing in the comics), they could have set up interviews with gay magazines and websites, instead of letting it explode on a smaller comic book website. I mean, Marvel goes on the view to announce that Thor is a woman – these guys have media resources if they actually want to make large announcements.
On the subject of what’s to blame for the lack of queer characters in starring roles right now, that definitely complicated, as you mentioned. My guess would be that the pitches for those kinds of stories are coming from untested writers, and DC is pretty much in love with their existing talent and isn’t great about shopping around for new, interesting creators. It’s actually surprising to me that Tynion doesn’t pitch more queer-friendly stories for DC, especially when his creator stuff is packed to the gills with gay content. But, that does drive me back to Orlando. Sure, he’s only landing mini-series and one-offs with gay and minority character, but that is a sign of his rising clout with the publisher, which means more of his pitches will see their way to publication, right?
Oh and that’s fine if you want to believe that Don Draper wrote that Coke commercial. I think that’s a valid read of that scene, just not mine. For my money, that implies a little more obvious cause-and-effect than I’d like from my Mad Men. Don is representative of 50s and 60s consumerism, he literally creates his own existential crisis because he can’t actually buy the kind of happiness he’s been selling his whole life. I actually kind of hate the idea that enlightenment is just a new tool in Don’s tool belt. So much of the character (of both Don and the series in general) has been expressed through the media of the time, and that’s what I get out of those final moments – the times have changed, Don has changed. Whether or not he called Coke and pitched that commercial the following weeks doesn’t really matter to me.
I do think it is fair to assume DC Marketing has something to do with this, because that is what their job is. Marvel certainly exploits their relationship with Disney to get on the View when they have a big announcement, but that doesn’t mean that both companies don’t arrange smaller marketing opportunities like interviews – especially exclusive interviews. And considering the topic, I’m sure DC would want to make sure that the vision they wish to present is shown. Though even if somehow this was entirely between Comicosity and Rucka, I still find it a very weird interview. Still talking about things that aren’t actually part of the book, and still giving incoherent reasons.
On why there isn’t more, I would blame editorial. DC is full of writers who would make those sorts of pitches. Tynion is the obvious one, but DC also have or used to have Marguerite Bennett, Jimmy Palmiotti and Amanda Conner, Tim Seeley, Cameron Stewart and Brendan Fletcher, Genevieve Valentine, Greg Rucka and Steve Orlando. And that is excluding people like Mark Russell, Sam Humphries, Scott Snyder and Tom King, who have at least touched queer themes in previous stories. And quite simply, they didn’t have these problems during the days of DC YOU.
Pitches do influence what is getting published, but it isn’t just about ‘I want to write this’. DC and Marvel have all sorts of plans, whether massive things like Rebirth or smaller things like ‘develop how comedy line with more Squirrel Girl/Howard the Duck style books. They have plans for characters they want to push, or plans for new directions for other characters. In fact, from my understanding, most of the time, editorial has a plan (for example, Hawkeye book with Kate Bishop or a new Prez book to go alongside the US election or a JLA book made up of characters from the CW TV shows), and they ask writers to pitch their best take on the existing plan.
There is a reason how Marvel love to talk about how their strong line of female led books occurred when they cancelled X-23 and realised they had no female led books. Because editorial’s job is to manage all of that. And if DC editorial wanted more queer content, then they’d be able to get it with ease (same with Marvel. While Marvel is kicking DC’s arse with diversity since Rebirth, queer content is a weakness. While they have lots of characters like Ms America in teams or as supporting casts, they have no queer led books. But I’m more forgiving of them, because at least they have been treating other forms of diversity as important, while DC has screwed over diversity from every direction)
And on Mad Men, I think the fact that there is a perfectly valid view of the ending that says DOn Draper made the Coke ad means it isn’t worth getting annoyed at Weiner for saying Don did. There are much better examples of ‘If this was true, why wasn’t it in the actual text?’ than Mad Men.
Diana’s queer relationship(s) on Paradise Island — with Kasia and possibly others — are established in issue 2
Are they? Because the interview seemed to suggest that there isn’t anything yet. As has other discussions about the interview. I have no idea what happened in issue 2, but there is a panel shown in the interview about Kaisa and the others that suggests there are only rumours. From just the panel I saw, it seemed like it was implying the opposite – the fact that everyone is unsure suggests she is actually in no relationship. Hell, I would go so far to suggest that the panel treated Diana was almost madonnaesque
I didn’t read it that way at all. Just before those panels Diana is talking to Kasia about her desire to know about the outside world and Kasia reminds her that leaving means she could not return. Kasia then leans on Diana and expresses how sad that would make her, which to me suggests a degree of intimacy between them. The panel you probably saw of Diana emerging from the water suggests that Diana is an object of lust and potentially linked to several women. I agree that showing Diana in at least a lip lock with another woman would make for clearer queer credentials, but I don’t think it is fair to say that there’s no evidence within the text.
This is all suggestive, but not proof. This is what I’m talking about when I mention innuendo and rumour. We know she is close to Kasia, but that intimacy isn’t necessarily romantic. It could be, but there are other forms of intimacy and we are given no evidence (though I admit to not having seen this panel).
Diana is an object of lust in the other panel, which says nothing about her sexuality. And the woman discussing her relationships can’t link her to anyone. They have rumours only. There is a list of possibilities, but nothing definitive. Meanwhile, there very imagery of the panel works against it, bringing to mind images of purity and virginity.
Is there an argument to be made that Diana being queer is a legitimate interpretation? Yes. In fact, I’d go one step further and say that while this has been a legitimate interpretation of Diana for 75 years, this is certainly one of the stronger proofs of this interpretations.
But while I think that it is a legitimate interpretation, it doesn’t change the fact that there is no proof. Everything is noncommittal, and could be taken in multiple ways. It is creating a possibility, but refusing to confirm anything. In fact, it is quite clear from the response to the interview that no one took what has happened in issue 2 has enough to make a headline about Wonder Woman being queer. It was only when this interview became live that everyone started talking about it.
I do think it is fair to demand more from DC than hints and possibilities. Especially after Rebirth has been such a step backwards.