Does it mean homoeroticism that isn't there in the original, but which, with a little tweaking, could be seen to be there? Or does it mean that the homoeroticism is really there, and the canon writers are just in denial?

In general, I think it's when the fine line between those two options has become so fine that you aren't sure which side you are standing on anymore.

In part the issue is that what "is" or "isn't there in the original" is such a fluid thing, a floating signifier....