I feel like a broken record talking about this again but: things not being completely spelled out for you in the story doesn't mean they're not there/"just interpretation"/not "canon". this doesn't even go just for queer and/or romantic themes. like for example, sherlock being a very emotional person who has created an image of himself as a "high functioning sociopath" to protect himself is the reality of the text. people will still pretend it is not because no one in the show ever explicitly says that's exactly what he's doing. even though they literally couldn't make it any clearer at this point, it still gets purposefully misunderstood because people refuse to engage with the text as a complex and multilayered medium, instead viewing it as a superficial set of dialogue to be taken at absolute face value and out of context which constitutes the "canon" whilst everything else is made up of inconsequential and apparently accidental material that only exists to fill the space between statements. when in reality every text conveys its meaning and story though multiple variations of subtlety which of course at some point become more and more ambiguous, which still does not mean they cannot be clearly interpreted, only that they offer more ways to do so. anyway, all I'm trying to say is that: if a text very distinctly communicates something through understated means, it is still communicating it. it doesn't have to and should in fact not spell everything out explicitly and directly because that would be very much to the detriment of the medium.