Pride Month may be ending, but it’s never too late to include LGBTQ+ representation in your writing! Try writing your characters into these scenarios:
Person A being afraid to come out to their parents, so Person B let’s Person A practice on them. They go through it several times so that Person B can play out several different options of how the parents might react and Person A can figure out exactly what they want to say.
Person A taking care of Person B as they recover from top surgery / bottom surgery.
Person A is an experienced drag artist and is helping Person B, who is new to the world of drag, craft their drag persona.
Person A has been questioning their sexuality/gender identity for a long time but they don’t know where they belong in the LGBTQ+ community. They decide to confide in Person B and tell them how they feel. Person B says that they feel the same way too and introduces Person A to a label that they’ve never heard of before but describes their feelings perfectly. (You can decide which label it is.)
Person A and Person B are a gay couple and their friends Person C and Person D are a lesbian couple. They’re all going to prom together but none of their parents know that any of them are queer. When they meet up so all the parents can take pictures of them before prom, Person A and Person C switch places so they can pose as 2 straight couples. Then, they all say goodbye to the parents and meet up with a different photographer who they’ve hired to take gorgeous prom pictures of them as the beautiful queer couples that they are.
The things I’d do to find mangas/stories with gay couples doing normal things and living their lives that aren’t focussed on the “seme” and the “uke” or have like 0 development regularly.
Like I want a comic where a gay couple work their ways through the struggles of parenthood.
Give me a reincarnation villain manwha where the MC isn’t interested in men but falls in love anyways.
Provide me with lesbians who fight crime while just happening to be lesbians.
Give me the queer representation my little asexual heart needs.
PICTURE ID: a picture from snapchat taken up close of a digital document. The person who took the photo wrote “If only … there was some kind of … neutral pronoun one could use … instead of he/she.” In the picture itself, it shows a grading rubric. One box reads “He/she (highlighted in pink) presents their (highlighted in green) research well. Also, he/she (highlighted in pink) tries to explain to the audience and has enough eye contact.” The next box reads “he/she (highlighted in pink) presents their (highlighted in green) research well. They (highlighted in green) try to explain to the audience, but it is sometimes unsuccessful. He/she (highlighted in pink) has little unsuccessful eye contact.” Last box reads “From the script, he/she (highlighted in pink) reads little, so does not present their (highlighted in green) research well. He/she (highlighted in pink) does not have much eye contact.” The highlighted portions are to show how the creator of the rubric uses both he/she and the pronoun “they/them” in a way that would suggest that the writer is aware of the neutral pronoun, but also tries not to use it. End ID.
It should be noted that he was not the first queer activist in Germany: that was Karl Heinz Ulrichs, who publicly advocated for decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1867. This is not to take away Hirschfeld’s achievements - far from it. It’s a reminder that our history goes a lot further back than people think, despite attempts to erase this history.
If FB were to portray Dumbledore as gay openly: what do you think is the best way they can handle this issue? Is it important that he gets a non-problematic love-interest? Would it be ok if they addressed discrimination in the muggle world and portrayed the wizarding world as better? What do you think are some of the things the LGBTI community would like to see from the first major gay character in a blockbuster and what do you fear they might do to his storyline other than ignore his sexuality?
If we accept the idea that Dumbledore’s sexuality is going to be represented in the text, and it isn’t just going to be alluded to, or acknowledged in passing without being developed, then the fears I have are:
His sexuality is treated as if it is of no consequence within society
His sexuality is inadvertently treated as a deviancy that needs to be curtailed
The first point is comprised of the following problems:
There’s no representation of any sexuality other than heterosexuality within any part of the existing franchise; this means there’s not simply a lack of evidence that homosexuality is accepted within the wizarding world, but an indication that it isn’t accepted
Homosexuality in the Muggle world was criminalised during this period
Upon rejecting Grindelwald’s ideology of Wizarding Supremacy and subjugating Muggles, Dumbledore positions himself as an advocate for a more integrated society. How does he resolve this with the knowledge that people who share his sexuality are prosecuted / imprisoned / outcast / ruined / blackmailed / can’t live ‘freely’ within the Muggle world?
I generally fear that this will not be dealt with at all. I think Dumbledore’s sexuality will be raised and treated as if it’s of no consequence. I think there will be no reaction from others, no exploration of the wider context, and in the very best case scenario, you might hear (or see in the papers) mention of a relationship between two men or two women just to establish he’s not alone.
So, my major fear is that Dumbledore’s homosexuality will occur in a vacuum.
The second point really links back to the HP series itself, and is a complaint I’ve made before. The point with this is that it’s not deliberate – but that you can inadvertently tell a story that you hadn’t intended.
For instance, it’s possible to read the Dumbledore / Grindelwald story as: a charismatic, charming and attractive man dragged Dumbledore down a dark path in his youth, and Dumbledore was only able to become ‘good’ again once he renounced the man and his beliefs. The man was then a threat and a dark shadow over the whole wizarding world until Dumbledore garnered the courage to face up to him, defeat him, and imprison him. The man stayed locked away forever, whilst Dumbledore lived a single, seemingly celibate life.
I’m not saying that the author intended to write a gay danger story - but, as it stands, there is a horrible truth that this is the closest thing we have as a representation of a non-heterosexual relationship (author intentions and what can be read into the text are not always the same thing). We have lots of heterosexual portrayals of relationships, both healthy and unhealthy – but nothing to compare this relationship to, and when something is the only portrayal, it’s damaging if it’s negative.
And there’s some awkward messaging that lurks beneath the surface. For instance, Dumbledore is presented as an influential, powerful and successful wizard who isn’t prevented from reaching his potential due to his sexuality – but he lives in a world where heterosexuality doesn’t just dominate, but is the only portrayed sexuality. Dumbledore might be homosexual, but he doesn’t utter a word about his sexuality, nobody appears to know about it, he doesn’t date, he isn’t married, he doesn’t have any relationships.
Therefore, Dumbledore is a portrayal of a non-threatening homosexual – a homosexual who is so quiet about his sexuality, it doesn’t exist. This accidentally reinforces the idea that queer people can be very successful as long as they don’t indulge, or sully themselves with a relationship, or go around pushing it in everyone’s face.
And that’s my second point – if Dumbledore and Grindelwald is dealt with as being a story of two ex-lovers (or an infatuation from Dumbledore to Grindelwald), and Dumbledore doesn’t have a subsequent shot at a healthy relationship, then are we risking seeing a story that finally brings homosexuality to the forefront of the series…and it’s portrayed as something dangerous, disruptive, threatening, and violent - which needs to be curtailed and contained?
Going back to the earlier point about Dumbledore’s sexuality being in a vacuum, is this sort of portrayal especially dangerous if there’s no point of comparison to other homosexual relationships, and whilst this tale is told, we also see positive heterosexual relationships portrayed within the text?
@deathdaydungeon Since Romeo and Juliet ends in blood and the suicide of teenagers, i guess Shakespeare wrote heterophobic stories. :/
Let’s be serious. You know what else doesn’t exist in a vacuum? Harry Potter. The “wizarding world” exists alongside plenty of fictional worlds and stories, many of which include gay romance. Lots of those have fluffy, happy endings. That’s great! And some of us don’t care for it. Or at least not all the time. No offense, but this entire site is raving 99% of the time about enemies to lovers and lovers to enemies. But when it’s gay, suddenly, it’s not okay? There needs to be a counterbalancing act, to be square? You’ve got to count them?
Well sometimes you can’t. Because guess what, there’s a reason why homosexual relationships show up less often than heterosexual ones: gay people make up roughly around 5% of the population, maybe less. We don’t know precisely because they tend to hide when the persecutions levels are high, which has been more often than not the rule rather than the exception. Some of us care about that fact being respected and represented justly, a lot more than we care about any potential homophobe’s opinion actually.
Fuck, but we just can’t win ever with some of you people, can we? Do you honestly think, in the year 2021, a person who is willingly sitting down to watch a Harry Potter movie is going to go, “well, this gay relationship had a bad end, that probably means it’s because gay = bad!” And even then, so what? You’re going to control the stupidity levels of everyone on Earth? If so, you’ve got some work waiting for you.
‘you people’ ?
Your second paragraph somewhat misses the point. I don’t requirequeer representation from HP; as you say, I can get that from other media. Still, Dumbledore was revealed to be queer in interview, so it’s not unreasonable that we discuss the positives and negatives of his presentation and whether we regard his character as sufficient representation.
I am rather reminded of the furore over Tara in Buffy being killed off. Joss Whedon was irritated at the idea he couldn’t kill off one of his characters, whilst fandom was irritated at the idea that it would be a lesbian character who died because of it being such a common trope.
There’s a really tricky position between ‘was Willow’s story correct for the character’ and the underlying - unintended - message of gay danger / heterosexuality, and a really tricky position between ‘this was the story I was telling’ versus 'society has told x stories in the past and now it seems the responsibility falls with me to tell y story instead’.
Dumbledore exists in an environment which does not appear queer friendly, because queer people are entirely absent. Even at this stage, all these years on, there’s very little queer content in the franchise - and that absence, combined with the fact that one of the two queer people is one of the major villains (and we know how the story ends), then is that satisfying as a queer viewer/reader?
As it currently stands, for me, it isn’t. For you, it might be. I am absolutely prepared to judge the story as it is revealed, and I accept that my mind might be changed. We’re all entitled to our opinion.
I don’t think I buy the “wizards must hate gay people because there haven’t been any onscreen gay couples yet” argument.
How many wizard couples are there in the series? If you really stretch it, include pairings that double-up characters and recombine because of breakups, include really minor background couples like Hagrid’s parents, it might go as high as 20. 5% of couples being same-sex is well above the modern-day USA (where it’s about 1%).
And the second FB movie, while awkwardly talking around the nature of Dumbledore’s feelings for Grindelwald, does have him discuss it with Ministry Guy who seems to be aware of their relationship. So that would be an on-screen point towards wizards being OK with gay relationships.
Also, Rowling has said online that she doesn’t intend for the magical world to be homophobic, the same way they don’t give a damn about race, they’re more concerned with fantastic discrimination.
Now, none of that affects the question of representation. There’s definite potential for unfortunate implications. I think the best thing would just be to … have at least one other gay character who isn’t in a doomed & corrupting tragic offscreen romance. Or, hell, some other brand of LGBTQ character - perhaps not a trans character for, uh, the obvious reason, although Rowling does say she’s not opposed to all trans people and this would be a chance to show it; but a throwaway line that implies one of the core cast is bi (and can, like whatever reference is made to D&G, be edited out in China) seems entirely plausible.
Yeah, hate is definitely too strong a word; it’s more the balance between handling a series that was conceived during a time of oppression and offering it to a modern audience. When the books were written, even civil partnerships didn’t exist - let alone laws permitting marriage. Now we’re what? 7 years on from marriage - the climate is rather different, and it means the audience has different expectations.
One of the things we discuss a lot in fandom is how HP is of its era - and I think there is a fascinating and credible depiction possible of how difficult Dumbledore may have found balancing his personal life with society in general during that time.
But I also understand that when writing in the present about a historical era, there’s such a temptation to put across your own personal and political beliefs, as opposed to the ones that existed - and an alternate universe (in this case, the wizarding world) is the perfect place to explore that, so I completely understand why it’s being written as if there’s no such discrimination.
For me, that’s the discrepancy - if we look at the past 7 years in the UK, it’s really common now to see people being openly affectionate or having the same standards of service (it pains me to write that), for instance, where same sex couples are not immediately given two single beds when booking a hotel room instead of a double etc.
So having lived through that change and having seen how many people are now out compared to when I was a teenager, it’s difficult for me to accept that the wizarding world is absolutely ok with queer people and relationships, yet they don’t seem to exist. It’s a paradox that’s impossible to resolve, I fear, based on when the books were first written.
I think you make a good point about the Ministry employee, and I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion of at least one more character who isn’t in a doomed and corrupting romance; I think it will be interesting to see how the tale develops onscreen.
If FB were to portray Dumbledore as gay openly: what do you think is the best way they can handle this issue? Is it important that he gets a non-problematic love-interest? Would it be ok if they addressed discrimination in the muggle world and portrayed the wizarding world as better? What do you think are some of the things the LGBTI community would like to see from the first major gay character in a blockbuster and what do you fear they might do to his storyline other than ignore his sexuality?
If we accept the idea that Dumbledore’s sexuality is going to be represented in the text, and it isn’t just going to be alluded to, or acknowledged in passing without being developed, then the fears I have are:
His sexuality is treated as if it is of no consequence within society
His sexuality is inadvertently treated as a deviancy that needs to be curtailed
The first point is comprised of the following problems:
There’s no representation of any sexuality other than heterosexuality within any part of the existing franchise; this means there’s not simply a lack of evidence that homosexuality is accepted within the wizarding world, but an indication that it isn’t accepted
Homosexuality in the Muggle world was criminalised during this period
Upon rejecting Grindelwald’s ideology of Wizarding Supremacy and subjugating Muggles, Dumbledore positions himself as an advocate for a more integrated society. How does he resolve this with the knowledge that people who share his sexuality are prosecuted / imprisoned / outcast / ruined / blackmailed / can’t live ‘freely’ within the Muggle world?
I generally fear that this will not be dealt with at all. I think Dumbledore’s sexuality will be raised and treated as if it’s of no consequence. I think there will be no reaction from others, no exploration of the wider context, and in the very best case scenario, you might hear (or see in the papers) mention of a relationship between two men or two women just to establish he’s not alone.
So, my major fear is that Dumbledore’s homosexuality will occur in a vacuum.
The second point really links back to the HP series itself, and is a complaint I’ve made before. The point with this is that it’s not deliberate – but that you can inadvertently tell a story that you hadn’t intended.
For instance, it’s possible to read the Dumbledore / Grindelwald story as: a charismatic, charming and attractive man dragged Dumbledore down a dark path in his youth, and Dumbledore was only able to become ‘good’ again once he renounced the man and his beliefs. The man was then a threat and a dark shadow over the whole wizarding world until Dumbledore garnered the courage to face up to him, defeat him, and imprison him. The man stayed locked away forever, whilst Dumbledore lived a single, seemingly celibate life.
I’m not saying that the author intended to write a gay danger story - but, as it stands, there is a horrible truth that this is the closest thing we have as a representation of a non-heterosexual relationship (author intentions and what can be read into the text are not always the same thing). We have lots of heterosexual portrayals of relationships, both healthy and unhealthy – but nothing to compare this relationship to, and when something is the only portrayal, it’s damaging if it’s negative.
And there’s some awkward messaging that lurks beneath the surface. For instance, Dumbledore is presented as an influential, powerful and successful wizard who isn’t prevented from reaching his potential due to his sexuality – but he lives in a world where heterosexuality doesn’t just dominate, but is the only portrayed sexuality. Dumbledore might be homosexual, but he doesn’t utter a word about his sexuality, nobody appears to know about it, he doesn’t date, he isn’t married, he doesn’t have any relationships.
Therefore, Dumbledore is a portrayal of a non-threatening homosexual – a homosexual who is so quiet about his sexuality, it doesn’t exist. This accidentally reinforces the idea that queer people can be very successful as long as they don’t indulge, or sully themselves with a relationship, or go around pushing it in everyone’s face.
And that’s my second point – if Dumbledore and Grindelwald is dealt with as being a story of two ex-lovers (or an infatuation from Dumbledore to Grindelwald), and Dumbledore doesn’t have a subsequent shot at a healthy relationship, then are we risking seeing a story that finally brings homosexuality to the forefront of the series…and it’s portrayed as something dangerous, disruptive, threatening, and violent - which needs to be curtailed and contained?
Going back to the earlier point about Dumbledore’s sexuality being in a vacuum, is this sort of portrayal especially dangerous if there’s no point of comparison to other homosexual relationships, and whilst this tale is told, we also see positive heterosexual relationships portrayed within the text?
@deathdaydungeon Since Romeo and Juliet ends in blood and the suicide of teenagers, i guess Shakespeare wrote heterophobic stories. :/
Let’s be serious. You know what else doesn’t exist in a vacuum? Harry Potter. The “wizarding world” exists alongside plenty of fictional worlds and stories, many of which include gay romance. Lots of those have fluffy, happy endings. That’s great! And some of us don’t care for it. Or at least not all the time. No offense, but this entire site is raving 99% of the time about enemies to lovers and lovers to enemies. But when it’s gay, suddenly, it’s not okay? There needs to be a counterbalancing act, to be square? You’ve got to count them?
Well sometimes you can’t. Because guess what, there’s a reason why homosexual relationships show up less often than heterosexual ones: gay people make up roughly around 5% of the population, maybe less. We don’t know precisely because they tend to hide when the persecutions levels are high, which has been more often than not the rule rather than the exception. Some of us care about that fact being respected and represented justly, a lot more than we care about any potential homophobe’s opinion actually.
Fuck, but we just can’t win ever with some of you people, can we? Do you honestly think, in the year 2021, a person who is willingly sitting down to watch a Harry Potter movie is going to go, “well, this gay relationship had a bad end, that probably means it’s because gay = bad!” And even then, so what? You’re going to control the stupidity levels of everyone on Earth? If so, you’ve got some work waiting for you.
‘you people’ ?
Your second paragraph somewhat misses the point. I don’t requirequeer representation from HP; as you say, I can get that from other media. Still, Dumbledore was revealed to be queer in interview, so it’s not unreasonable that we discuss the positives and negatives of his presentation and whether we regard his character as sufficient representation.
I am rather reminded of the furore over Tara in Buffy being killed off. Joss Whedon was irritated at the idea he couldn’t kill off one of his characters, whilst fandom was irritated at the idea that it would be a lesbian character who died because of it being such a common trope.
There’s a really tricky position between 'was Willow’s story correct for the character’ and the underlying - unintended - message of gay danger / heterosexuality, and a really tricky position between 'this was the story I was telling’ versus 'society has told x stories in the past and now it seems the responsibility falls with me to tell y story instead’.
Dumbledore exists in an environment which does not appear queer friendly, because queer people are entirely absent. Even at this stage, all these years on, there’s very little queer content in the franchise - and that absence, combined with the fact that one of the two queer people is one of the major villains (and we know how the story ends), then is that satisfying as a queer viewer/reader?
As it currently stands, for me, it isn’t. For you, it might be. I am absolutely prepared to judge the story as it is revealed, and I accept that my mind might be changed. We’re all entitled to our opinion.
If FB were to portray Dumbledore as gay openly: what do you think is the best way they can handle this issue? Is it important that he gets a non-problematic love-interest? Would it be ok if they addressed discrimination in the muggle world and portrayed the wizarding world as better? What do you think are some of the things the LGBTI community would like to see from the first major gay character in a blockbuster and what do you fear they might do to his storyline other than ignore his sexuality?
If we accept the idea that Dumbledore’s sexuality is going to be represented in the text, and it isn’t just going to be alluded to, or acknowledged in passing without being developed, then the fears I have are:
His sexuality is treated as if it is of no consequence within society
His sexuality is inadvertently treated as a deviancy that needs to be curtailed
The first point is comprised of the following problems:
There’s no representation of any sexuality other than heterosexuality within any part of the existing franchise; this means there’s not simply a lack of evidence that homosexuality is accepted within the wizarding world, but an indication that it isn’t accepted
Homosexuality in the Muggle world was criminalised during this period
Upon rejecting Grindelwald’s ideology of Wizarding Supremacy and subjugating Muggles, Dumbledore positions himself as an advocate for a more integrated society. How does he resolve this with the knowledge that people who share his sexuality are prosecuted / imprisoned / outcast / ruined / blackmailed / can’t live ‘freely’ within the Muggle world?
I generally fear that this will not be dealt with at all. I think Dumbledore’s sexuality will be raised and treated as if it’s of no consequence. I think there will be no reaction from others, no exploration of the wider context, and in the very best case scenario, you might hear (or see in the papers) mention of a relationship between two men or two women just to establish he’s not alone.
So, my major fear is that Dumbledore’s homosexuality will occur in a vacuum.
The second point really links back to the HP series itself, and is a complaint I’ve made before. The point with this is that it’s not deliberate – but that you can inadvertently tell a story that you hadn’t intended.
For instance, it’s possible to read the Dumbledore / Grindelwald story as: a charismatic, charming and attractive man dragged Dumbledore down a dark path in his youth, and Dumbledore was only able to become ‘good’ again once he renounced the man and his beliefs. The man was then a threat and a dark shadow over the whole wizarding world until Dumbledore garnered the courage to face up to him, defeat him, and imprison him. The man stayed locked away forever, whilst Dumbledore lived a single, seemingly celibate life.
I’m not saying that the author intended to write a gay danger story - but, as it stands, there is a horrible truth that this is the closest thing we have as a representation of a non-heterosexual relationship (author intentions and what can be read into the text are not always the same thing). We have lots of heterosexual portrayals of relationships, both healthy and unhealthy – but nothing to compare this relationship to, and when something is the only portrayal, it’s damaging if it’s negative.
And there’s some awkward messaging that lurks beneath the surface. For instance, Dumbledore is presented as an influential, powerful and successful wizard who isn’t prevented from reaching his potential due to his sexuality – but he lives in a world where heterosexuality doesn’t just dominate, but is the only portrayed sexuality. Dumbledore might be homosexual, but he doesn’t utter a word about his sexuality, nobody appears to know about it, he doesn’t date, he isn’t married, he doesn’t have any relationships.
Therefore, Dumbledore is a portrayal of a non-threatening homosexual – a homosexual who is so quiet about his sexuality, it doesn’t exist. This accidentally reinforces the idea that queer people can be very successful as long as they don’t indulge, or sully themselves with a relationship, or go around pushing it in everyone’s face.
And that’s my second point – if Dumbledore and Grindelwald is dealt with as being a story of two ex-lovers (or an infatuation from Dumbledore to Grindelwald), and Dumbledore doesn’t have a subsequent shot at a healthy relationship, then are we risking seeing a story that finally brings homosexuality to the forefront of the series…and it’s portrayed as something dangerous, disruptive, threatening, and violent - which needs to be curtailed and contained?
Going back to the earlier point about Dumbledore’s sexuality being in a vacuum, is this sort of portrayal especially dangerous if there’s no point of comparison to other homosexual relationships, and whilst this tale is told, we also see positive heterosexual relationships portrayed within the text?
I just want to say, I am very disappointed that we didnt get a Hen/Karen kiss last night. The conversation about having another baby should have ended with a kiss and the fact that it didn’t but we got seven thousand Buck/Ali kisses makes me livid. It barely counts as queer representation if you refuse to allow them the same level of affection that the straight couples get.
Men as victims - what makes the reactions to the Loki show so telling
Recently, I noticed something concerning on Twitter. There are several categories of people who liked and support the Loki show (2021), varying from casual fans who knew nothing about Loki before, over fans of the general MCU who perceived Loki mainly as a villain in The Avengers (2012), to rabid show fans who generally call everyone a misogynist who dares to admit they didn’t enjoy the show. Now, while I normally find some kind of common ground with people who are part of the first two groups, the last one belongs to a special kind of people. I noticed their habit to turn to verbal abuse quite fast (like so many others), but now there is something more they have in common: most of them believe and supportAmber Heard.
There are people on Twitter who love the show (by loving Sylvie as a proxy) to a degree it becomes meaningless to them if they thus support torture, abuse, and other crimes that are framed as morally acceptable. And they treat the Heart vs Depp trial just the same, attacking both Depp and people who believe him. They do so by utilizing ad hominem attacks, like calling people misogynists, social rights warriors, or men’s rights warriors, abusers, and toxic. They are trying to refute rather by character defamation instead of arguments. A frequently used move is to switch the abuser/victim dynamic and call everyone speaking up for Loki or Depp a victim blamer. To support their claims they apply other manipulative tactics, such as twisting facts.
Here is one example: after the show aired many fans of Loki (the character, not the show) pointed out that the relationship resembled autogynephilia, a harmful hypothesis that claimed trans women would want to adapt their gender because they were attracted by the idea of themselves, but as women. The pro-series fans claim to point out this would be actually transphobic (reversing the accusation), citing an article written by Julia Serrano (a famous trans-women who works in science). But if you check what she actually said about the matter, the article does not support the claim. She argued a dislike of the relationship could be caused by subconscious transphobia because people might perceive Sylvie as trans since she is the only female Loki variant. When genderfluid fans pointed out to her on Twitter that they did not feel comfortable with the Loki show, Serrano herself cited a tweet where she points out the flaws of the genderfluid representation herself. In conclusion, 1) fantasies about one’s own body but of another gender are normal, not limited to trans-people and not to be looked down upon! 2) presenting the relationship in the show in a way it will inspire discrimination against non-binary people because it reminds us of the harmful claims some “scientists” have made in the past is not a good representation. 3) pointing out this fact is in support of GF fans, and certainly not transphobic.
At the same time, men face much greater problems being believed when they get abused by women than the other way ‘round. Still, those people close their eyes from the abuse and support the abusers and in case of the Loki series, the framing of torture and abuse as being just. (While I am not a fan of Sylvie, since Loki was mainly disparaged to make her look superior, she is not mainly responsible for his abuse. That would be Mobius doing the death threats and the gaslighting, and ordering the groin kicking.)
Now why is this important? I think there is a social current happening we should be aware of. Women who hate men just because of their gender, who fight for increased discrimination under the guise of feminism and even pretending to act to protect trans-people. This is just as bad as patriarchy.
So, if you ever happened to be in a situation you were discriminated against and wanted the support of someone who would be believed where you wouldn’t you should fight this social current. I recommend doing so by asking if they liked the show. If they do, explain the torture, the transphobic representation, and the disparaging, and ask again. If they still stand behind it, that’s a bad sign.
On a side note: 1) those people are giving both feminism and LGBTQIA+ supporters a bad name, and I am getting annoyed by that. 2) I agree that the public defamation of Heard is not ok, and needs to stop. For one thing we should be over lynching in 2022, and secondly, it only contributes to the hardening of the fronts. Instead, we need to think about how we see people who have been convicted and that it is still a crime to abuse them.
Thank you. This essay means a lot to me. As a genderfluid person myself, I’ve actually faced a lot of horrific hate including death threats from Sylkis, including CIS Sylkis telling me that not liking Sylki is actually transphobic
These people claim to be defending that show and ship in our names, in the name of protecting our misrepresentation, while turning right around and attacking anyone, even OTHER WOMEN and trans and genderfluid people who dislike Sylki, Sylvie and the show.
I agree with a lot of this, except for one weird article written. I did take the time to read most of the links, I say most because that person’s essay on Tumblr in favor of LOKI and Sylki was longer than I was willing to sit through.
Butthis is the article linked, talking about how being against Sylki is likely rooted in unconscious transphobia. And honestly, she later clarifies (elsewhere, not in the article) that people can dislike it for other reasons, and that it was largely aimed at cis-het people. However, when I read it, it gave no indication for that leeway. Which makes it super easy for LOKI pro-series to use her words to support their stance.
Even though Loki is a fictional and magical god-like character, we puny humans tend to project a “male essence” onto him. Because of this, many viewers are likely to interpret Sylvie as “a male who has taken the form of a female,” when in actuality the character has no fixed form or essence. Thus, the freak outs over a Loki and Sylvie romance are structurally similar to “trans reveal” freak outs — they are rooted in societal transphobia (and homophobia).
So if you’re someone who is disturbed by this plot-line, I’d encourage you to ask yourself whether it’s because of gender essentialism and “magical essences,” and to consider how this unconscious tendency complicates the lives of actual trans people.
I do not doubt she’s faced those who probably have that mindset, that the cishet in question looked at the pairing in disgust for that reason, but this leaves no room for those who find the pairing disgusting for very different reasons. Reasons she actually brings up earlier in the article, and then promptly dismisses them.
I’ve observed numerous people attempt to explain why they find this romance so unsettling, and they don’t seem quite able to place the reason why. They will say things like “It’s weird to fall in love with yourself,” even though that’s not very convincing, because they are obviously quite different characters. I’ve heard others deride the romance as “incest,” even though Loki and Sylvie are not actually siblings, nor did they grow up together.
We were told before the series released that Loki being genderfluid and bisexual in nature would show up in the series. This was something they “announced” and so fans expected. Therefore, Loki and Sylvie does present the problematic theme of autogynephylia against the trans community, even though she says it’s not very convincing (and they are the same character, that’s why “variant” is used, hello??) It also does present the problematic incest theme, given that Loki and Sylvie share the same parentage, so they’re sorta like siblings separated at birth, if that separation was timelines. But she says they’re not actually siblings nor did they grow up together. Uhm, pretty sure my half brother is still my sibling despite not growing up together, so that’s a non factor.
These are two very prominent issues and factors we have talked about against the series—among many others—that she just brushes off within the article. And this leads to pro-series celebrating that they have a transwoman on their side to support the pairing, even though I’m still confused on whether or not she does. Sylvie having possible “male essence,” to me, is a none issue because Loki is bisexual, and they’re both supposed to be genderfluid, anyhow. Which leads into part of why we are so upset, that the representation we were told we were to be given was barely there, or misrepresented. And then they backpedaled when we called them out on it. Which kinda feels like what she did, backpedaled on her article when she says people can dislike it for other reasons.
I think her essay is still something that should be said, because I think she does have a point. But I also think the way she went about it can be weaponized against us queers who are disgusted by the pairing for reasons she dismissed, and that it does casually dismiss the arguments those of us have that are against the show and pairing but are not transphobic (or homophobic).
This though. When I originally read the link much earlier, she was too all over the place and seemed to be against the show for the most part and some bits did very much make sense in the anti transphobia sense. I can also see why she’d think Sylvie seems trans even though the show gave no such indication, SDM and Kate Herron back pedalled on that as well, and she is the cis-est white female, Terfiest character I’ve come across to date, but it does look like a lot of people hc her as trans, which is what I assumed the article author may have done, hence their view point that hatred for Sylvie may be rooted in unconscious transphobia. Although… Talking from experience, most of the transphobia I’ve experienced are from people who LIKE the show, LIKE the pairing and are transphobic against LOKI and NOT Sylvie. Hell… Many of the people who have been fluidphobic are actually people who keep claiming that Loki is Sylvie’s “dead name”, that is… They see her as trans. I honestly think this person is likely not aware of it… And they’re also on twitter, so their dismissal of those points so important to us, may be an attempt to avoid dogpiling, which while understandable, also doesn’t really help the queer community, or genderfluid people in this case because well… It does at some points seem to be in favour of Sylkis.
And I also don’t really know how to feel about a trans woman explaining genderfluid rep, which while appreciated… Isn’t from the stand point of someone who’s genderfluid, and from someone who’s very much still a trans woman with her own experiences to go by. Similar… But not really the same though? In this whole mess it actually feels a lot like us genderfluid people have been spoken over, silenced and bullied a heck tonne and genuinely not listened to about our side of things… So seeing a non genderfluid trans woman taking the “neutral” stance does kind of make me feel uncomfortable. But then again, they did write an article and put it up in that hate gathering hell space and they spoke for our rep when we are largely ignored, so I do kind of appreciate and respect it. Although it’s… Not really as helpful as we would have liked, I should think. ♀️
Because I have seen people argue that his Nanny outfit was transphobic, and I happen to think that’s a bad take. It would have been transphobic if the joke had been, “Ha ha, a man in a dress,” but instead the joke was, “Ha ha, demonic Mary Poppins.” But, you know, even though I think it’s a bad take, I can kind of understand where it’s coming from. We’ve been so socialized to think the joke is going to be, “Ha ha, a man in a dress,” that it’s difficult to put a man in a dress without the joke sort of popping up, if that makes any sense, whether the creator meant it or not.
But, if Crowley was presenting as female at the crucifixion scene, that’s a different angle. Because nobody is drawing any attention to his presentation, and the only jokes going on have nothing to do with how he’s presenting himself. (In fact, that scene is appropriately grim, overall. The biggest joke is a very dark one about how of course preaching a message of love and peace will get you horrifically murdered by the government.) Crowley’s presentation is just … there.
And if you ask me, that changes the context of the Mary Poppins bit a little bit, too. Presenting as female is not something that Crowley did one time, for a disguise. Presenting as female is just something he does every now and then.
I wish we’d seen a little more of it. Another historical segment, closer to our own time, when “female presentation” looks a bit more like we’re used to seeing and the issue isn’t confused by everyone wearing robes. But even so, I’m glad to have it there and even more glad to have it confirmed.
I bet that post-canon Crowley sometimes dresses up in a black dress to go to the opera with Aziraphale. Probably with high heels that could kill a man and very snake-themed jewelry.
Yes, oh yes. He’s wearing women’s jeans in the modern scenes too and that is a tiny detail that just gets to me, because it’s such a secret queer move: wear one forbidden thing, the least noticeable, as a comfort, a small assertion of yourself, if just to yourself. At the crucifixion he’d have an easier time staying close dressed as a woman, since they allowed the female disciples to follow along, and as Nanny he had the perfect excuse to dress up, but any other time it could have brought him trouble, and not the properly hellish kind. It would have been a self-assertion of a very human, personal kind.
I think the less it matters if he draws attention to himself, the more he’ll try on more feminine elements. He was always so frightened of being watched. His outfits were dramatic, but they were the kind of dramatic that told you not to mess with him. I think the new vulnerability and safety he feels with Aziraphale would help, and so would the knowledge that no one’s going to check up on him, no one needs intimidating, and he isn’t anyone’s secret agent. There’s no agenda any more, no secrets to defend or forbidden softness to armor up; he’s just Crowley.
I can’t locate it again, but I remember seeing a post saying that his glasses in the modern era are three hundred dollar women’s sunglasses. (Of which he evidently owns … well, as many as he wants, I suppose, he can warp reality after all.) So, yes, there’s also stealthy self-assertion to look for.
Oh yeah, I remember seeing that too! I’d forgotten. His hair is always just on that fine line between fashionable and femme too.
Thanks@aredhel-of-doylkien none of us remember our sources but we all remember that Crowley is That Snake when it comes to accessories I guess
I am also solidly convinced that the waistcoat he wears in the 2012 scenes is a woman’s waistcoat. I’m aware that men’s waistcoats can have different cuts and styles, but (at least to my uneducated eye) Crowley’s waistcoat specifically looks like it was tailored to cinch in above the hips, and to accommodate breasts.
AAAAAH I suspect I’m the last person to notice this, but check it out – they’re wearing the same outfit. Trousers, waistcoat, shirt, jacket, neckwear. They’re just doing it in *completely different ways*. How cool!
It’s kind of interesting – Crowley’s riding the edge of femme/is femme if you know exactly what to look for, but reads as just cool slinky dude to us. Aziraphale is dressed out of time, fussy and unfashionable, and reads as gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide. His femme characteristics are all personality-based: he’s soft, he’s kind and gentle (with an asterisk, that’s a meta for another day), the general cultural link between presenting gay and being femme. Aziraphale’s genderfuckery is how he approaches the world; Crowley’s is how he visually presents. I feel like there’s more here to dig into, but I’m not quite grasping it right now.
I do the same thing Crowley does in the series re:stealth-assertion and self-expression so not only I am now incredibly happy but I am also incredibly moved.
Those two queer idiots are exactly what I needed when I needed it.
Here are the glasses. They are indeed from the women’s Valentino line.
Film masterpost highlighting the stories of women of color. Representation of women of color in film is quite scarce, so here are some films I think showcase a wide range of perspectives and experiences that we don't get to see on our movie screens.
