#Kotlc discourse

[fintan-pyren]

since you've said you dislike keefe before, wondering what your opinion on the keefe-infantilizes-sophie thing is? i'm kinda caught

It would be more accurate to say that I dislike the role Shannon has given him in the series. I don't have anything against him as a person. His humor isn't really my thing, but he's a great guy who cares a lot about his friends.

I have to admit, I haven't been keeping up with posts on Keepblr like I usually do recently, so I'm not that familiar with the infantilization debate.

From what I've seen, though ( @the-way-astray , correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything), it centers around Keefe's habit of calling Sophie cute/adorable when she's angry or worried, or referring to her as feisty when she's angry. That sort of thing.

Calling her cute/adorable is not the issue here. The context—that he's doing it when she's angry or upset—is important.

I think you have to imagine someone saying a similar thing to YOU.

You're upset about something. Something's happened, something's gone wrong, and you're trying to deal with it. This is a serious problem, and you're frustrated and stressed.

And you're talking to a man about it, and he sees that you're frustrated and stressed, and he goes "aww, you're cute when you worry".

How would you feel? Would you feel as though he was taking your problem and your feelings about it seriously? Would you feel as though he was actually engaging with you and your problems with respect?

Infantilization is a pretty broad and vague term which different people define in different ways. I'd probably say that not treating someone's emotions as serious could fall under that, but I don't honestly think that the exact term that we use for it is particularly important. A rose by any other name, and all that.

Whatever you call it, it's not a very good way of responding to someone who's upset.

(I think it's mostly a byproduct of the human culture Shannon Messenger has been immersed in her entire life. It's not uncommon for men to say this to women, so I don't think she'd necessarily recognize it as something that's invalidating, or out of character for a character who's intended to be a relatively nice guy)

[confessionsofkotlc]

A large majority of the character complaints people have about kotlc stem from the fact that it’s lead cast has outgrown its target audience, and SM can’t bump up the maturity rating as the series goes on.

They’re all borderline adults now, but they can’t have adult conversations or adult conflicts, and that rounds out their characters and makes them stagnant. They have to be just as mature as they were when they were thirteen in book one. I’m not saying KOTLC should become a mature series, but its characters are in a Peter Pan limbo of reliving childish conflicts and behaviors because of it

[kotlcpuppetshow]

would u guys be able to handle it if i started posting fitz/tam things

[the-way-astray]

I really love reading your anti Keefe posts-they make me think a little and they've definitely made me a little more critical of him than I used to be, which I think is good! at least now I recognize that he CAN do weird things, which I didn't before

so thank you :)

aw, you're welcome, anon! it’s nice to know there are people out there that are able to scrutinize him a bit more now.

i think, and obviously i’m super biased, when it comes to a character like keefe, it’s incredibly important to be able to see that he’s just not that well-written in canon. which is why i say i do enjoy tumblr fanon keefe, because fanfic writers tend to actually acknowledge his worse flaws (or they erase them entirely, which is just as good, i feel). so it’s good to know you see keefe as more capable of doing weird shit now. most reasonable keefe lovers are aware of these sides of him, so i hope if you’re a keefe lover, you're loving his entire character, and not just blindly devoting yourself to the good aspects of his character.

[floofeeeeee]

I’m writing up a rant about why I dislike the Kotlc sub reddit but I’m sacred to actually post it when I’m done 😭

[castleofravens]

unpopular opinion but you're allowed to say that characters such as fitz or keefe or sophie exhibit toxic behaviors.

teenagers can be manipulative. teenagers can be cruel. teenagers can be jerks sometimes because they are still learning how to be people.

and saying they exhibit toxic behaviors isn't calling them toxic, just as saying a kid did something naughty (drawing on the walls, breaking something, etc.) doesn't make them a bad kid, you aren't defined by your behaviors because those are things you can change.

however it is still a perfectly valid thing to say "hey this behavior isn't healthy and they should be held accountable for this" because that's... something that is applicable to real life as well?

i'm a little older than a lot of the main keeper crew but still a teenager and i've dated people my age who were manipulative/toxic. you can absolutely have those behaviors as a teenager, and a shitty home life or mental health issues are explanations but they should never be excuses for that behavior.

topics such as this especially when they deal with trauma, mental illness, abuse, and interpersonal relationships should be looked at with way more nuance than a lot of people give it.

because yes, keefe (just as an example) does have textual evidence of toxic behaviors regarding his relationships (particularly with fitz and sophie), however that does not make him a toxic person. he does care about his friends and girlfriend (i don't remember if they made that official or not), he's just... inexperienced with relationships? and doesn't have much healthy examples from older figures to go off of for how he should act (just as fitz doesn't have healthy examples from older figures for how he should manage his emotions). (i would love to write an essay on cassius and gisela's relationship and how that affects keefe's relationships) (or the vackers' attitudes towards image and how that affects fitz - and biana's - self image)

i think a lot of keefe hate just stems from frustration that he doesn't really get held accountable a lot the same way other characters do, and i get that, but that still isn't an excuse to claim he's some horrible unredeemable person. he is a realistic and flawed character, you can't fit him in any "keefe good" "keefe evil" box, he simply is.. keefe? he definitely has shit he needs to work through but he's not... forever doomed to be some monstrous villain or whatever, a lot of people need a little (or big) nudge in the right direction to self awareness. people change, that is the nature of... i would say humanity but they're elves but i think the point would end up the same

[cogaytes]

okay so i have lots of thoughts about this. (this being kotlc smut)

personally im a huge fan of Don't Like, Don't Read. like, i think it's fine that people are writing kotlc smut. it's so easily avoidable on ao3 as long as it's tagged.

and yeah, most of the main cast are minors. they're also 15-17, which is a pretty normal age to get curious about sex and experiment with it and stuff. and i don't really think its wrong that people are writing smut for them? it's not harming anyone, and they're fictional characters.

plus, smut is a normal thing. it's not inherently wrong or immoral. its just written sex, and i doubt a lot of people here have an issue with it in published literature or in other fandoms.

sure, it might be preferable for some people that it's only written about adults, but again, we control our fandom experiences. the back button AND ao3's wonderful filter system exist for a reason. if you don't want to see it, you have the option to filter it out!

i hope this doesn't come across as too rude or antagonistic. i just have a lot of feelings on smut in fiction (and in art) so yknow

i'm reaching the point where i feel like i've expressed most of my feelings so i'm just kind of. sharing people's responses but yee thank you for your thoughts!

[everliving-everblaze]

Hi genuine question! What is the discourse/problem around Laura Hollingsworth? (NOT TRYING TO START ANYTHING IM GENUINELY CONFUSED AND WANT TO KNOW)

Because of the things I mentioned (blocking solinh shippers, being annoyed about backlash, refusing a commission), it's widely believed that she's homophobic. I think that's a fine interpretation of the evidence. The issue arises when many, many people believe that she is a violent homophobe spouting hate at every corner who "can't shut up about hating gay people," which is not at ALL true. She has never said anything about her opinions on gay people.

The belief that she is violently homophobic is, likely, the reason she stopped being hired as an artist for the series. After she was hired to make art for Unlocked, there was wide backlash, and people threatened not to buy the book. Obviously, that endangers Messenger's sales, so there was little choice in not hiring Hollingsworth anymore.

Like I said, I think you're entitled to your opinion on her. You're entitled to dislike her and to think she shouldn't be hired. But I think it's disgraceful how much misinformation has been willingly spread without evidence. If you're going to ask someone stop being hired, you can at least have your facts straight, and maybe like.... have seen evidence she said anything you think she did? Instead of just taking word of mouth on it? It matters to be truthful in your accusations, even against people who you may rightfully dislike.

[crymeariveronceagain]

why do i go here

[lucentstarss]

Why is there just so much

ALSO CAN PEOPLE STOP GOING INTO OTHER PEOPLES ASK BOX TO POST THEIR OPINIONS

It’s not very nice especially since it’s generally just hate and very strong and skewed perspective

at least have the dignity to not shove it anonymously into someone else’s blog

[myfairkatiecat]

can I be blunt? I think the reason the anons were sent to you is because you’re one of the aforementioned ‘painfully cishet’ people, no one wanted to start a debate in a random ship blog’s ask box, and you’re one of the most well known new people

Well I’m definitely a cishet person who is painfully responding to all the asks I got about this situation

[thefoxysnake]

What the hell happened to my dash

[the-way-astray]

The Keefe Sencen Infantilization Argument (because I've seen people say that saying he infantilizes Sophie is a bad-faith argument):

(Note: This post is a repost. I had my thoughts scattered out over a few posts, so I wanted to put them all together in one cohesive post. If you've already seen all the original posts, then aside from like two sentences being reworked and the format being better now, there's like nothing new here for you. Sorry.)

Examples of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and my explanations as to why this is infantilization and not okay:

Lodestar, chapter 4. What I originally said: “There you go, rocking the whole adorable-when-you’re-angry thing. I think that’s what I’ve missed about you the most.” Keefe infantilizes Sophie by saying she’s cute when she’s angry. She is trying to express her feelings, and all Keefe can do is be all Awwwwww. Isn’t that so cute? She’s angry! How adorable. It’s a form of invalidating someone’s feelings, by treating them like they’re just entertainment or by brushing them off like that. It’s some of the most manipulative behavior out there. It also saves Keefe from having to actually take Sophie’s feelings into account. His infantilization of her also shows up in his incessant need to protect her. It’s icky and gross, and authors should stop encouraging this behavior.

Sophie and Keefe are having a mental conversation and Keefe starts talking about Sophie's love triangle/square situation and Sophie doesn't want to talk about it. Not a fan of this, because Keefe butts into Sophie's personal business, then when she gets worked up, he heavily implies that he thinks it's cute. But this one isn't particularly bad compared to the others. Don't get me wrong, I still think this is infantilization, but the best I can say about it is it's not the worst example.

Lodestar, chapter 46. What I originally said: “You’re so cute when you worry, he told her.” More classic Keefe infantilization. He once again invalidates Sophie’s feelings by dumbing them down and acting like they’re this cute, quirky, inconsequential thing.

Sophie is obviously incredibly worried. Keefe clearly knows this. And his comment is to be like Yeah, but don't you know that makes you sooooo cute??? Like, sir.

Lodestar, chapter 65. What I originally said: “Is this going to be another one of those nights where you spend the whole time yelling at me to come home? Keefe asked, making her sit up straighter as his thoughts filled her head. Because as much as I love it when you get all feisty on me, now’s really not a good time.” God, Keefe is so subtly invalidating. He treats Sophie like she’s just his personal worry machine, not a person with valid concerns and ideas. The flippant way he talks about her worry for him makes me so mad. He takes her worry for granted and throws it back in her face, without a care for how it would affect her mental health. He brushes her off and invalidates her because he thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else. Not to mention he calls her worry “feisty” and further infantilizes her feelings and ideas.

This one honestly stands alone. Context doesn't really do anything to it. The infantilization for all these quotes is in the quote itself, because it is invalidating to treat someone's outburst of negative emotions as entertainment. Keefe basically just says that he finds it cute when she insists he comes home because she's worried about him??? He's like, yeah, Sophie's worried about me, tearing up her mental health over me, but like. She gets feisty when that all becomes externalized and she begs me to come home! Again, it's just a way he's able to brush Sophie's feelings off and disregard her opinion entirely.

When I say Keefe acts like Sophie is his personal worry machine, I'm saying he acts like her worry only exists for his amusement. He doesn't see the deeper feelings behind that worry (or if he does, he certainly doesn't respect them), and only see it for what he sees it as: something cute and adorable.

Nightfall, chapter 24. What I originally said: “‘I know! Our little girl is growing up and getting so snarky!’ Keefe pretended to wipe his teary eyes. ‘I’ve never been so proud.’” “Our little girl” . . . that totally isn’t creepy or infantilizing at all. The way Keefe talks about Sophie here is genuinely so gross, even if it is a joke. 

This is a joke. 100%. But it's a joke that sat very poorly with me because of the way Keefe verbalizes this. The problem for me is in the quote itself, again, because I feel like saying these sorts of things constantly is just so weird.

Nightfall, chapter 32. Wouldn't say what I originally said adds anything new, so I'm just gonna move past that. The larger problem here is 100% the fact that Keefe is clearly trying to joke to deflect Sophie's anger away. My argument isn't about that. My argument is that saying that someone's anger is adorable is textbook infantilization. In context, Keefe uses it as a way to deflect or joke. But the simple act of saying that is a form of invalidation where Sophie's emotions are made out to be some silly, inconsequential thing.

Anyway, about this quote in particular. Sophie is obviously freaking out, and she is clearly and seriously trying to tell him that his joking behavior is unacceptable. Keefe responds, not by listening at all to what Sophie said or what she's feeling, but by instead saying this. This invalidates Sophie's very real feelings as well as saves Keefe from having to confront what Sophie's telling him. And yes, this is a product of his deflection, but my point here is that saying someone's anger or worry is adorable or cute when they are trying to be serious is textbook infantilization, because it treats that opinion they have as a silly, child-like tantrum. "Awwww, isn't that anger adorable???" is what you say about a tantrum-throwing toddler who just got their favorite toy taken away, not someone your age presenting a valid, serious opinion. My issue is with the statement "Your anger/worry is adorable/cute" itself, not how Keefe uses it to deflect. It also presents Keefe, subtle as it may be, as the only one with valid opinions on things because Sophie's adorable little feelings get in the way of her rationality.

And before you say Sophie calls him out on this, yes, but he doesn't change. I'm not going to talk about it at length here, but Keefe apologizes to Sophie in the Nightfall scene after his bed rest more out of a desire to make up with her than a desire to change his bad habits. You can see this because he continues to do it into Unlocked.

Nightfall, chapter 34. Again, I don't think what I originally said adds anything relevant, so I'll skip that here.

The famous scene. I do admit that Sophie calls Keefe out this time. However, as I've already said, this doesn't stick, so it hardly matter. Keefe continues with this behavior through the series and into Unlocked, where he doesn't necessarily say these things out loud, but you can see he still thinks them.

Nightfall, chapter 70. What I originally said: “‘Much as I’m enjoying this sudden overflow of adorable Foster-rage—it’s not worth it.’” Ah, more of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and invalidating her feelings. If someone finds your anger or worry “adorable” and acts like it’s this cute little quirk, then that’s never a good thing. Especially if they enjoy it. Someone who cares about you should never enjoy seeing you angry or worried.

Sophie's having a serious, key word here is serious, discussion (we'll call it a discussion, even though that's not particularly correct) with Cassius, and even though her rage isn't aimed at him this time, Keefe telling Sophie her rage is adorable when she's being serious is still dumbing down her emotions to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum, not a grown-up (at least relative to Keefe) having a very valid reason to be angry. Just because he agrees with her anger, doesn't mean he can't still infantilize her.

Flashback, chapter 1, page 12. I think what I said in my original post just about sums it up: “‘You’re so adorable when you worry. I’ve told you that, right?’” (12) Yes, you have, and saying it more doesn’t make it any less icky and gross and infantilizing. It’s like he’s dumbing Sophie down to this object who only exists to entertain him with her adowabuw wittle feewings, instead of a person with very real, very complex emotions.

Keefe fans the air, so we have physical evidence he knows exactly how worried Sophie is. And his response is to be like, so cute! So adorable! Once again, this is serious, and Keefe is acting like Sophie's worry exists only to amuse or entertain him. I don't know else to communicate that that isn't a good thing. Someone being worried usually means they have something they're worrying about, worry doesn't just manifest out of thin air for entertainment's sake. Sophie also responds poorly to his writing her off, with what and the glare and all.

(Side note: When I was looking for that quote, I found a quote where Fitz says the exact same thing, I'm talking word-for-word "adorable when you worry" stuff. Like I mentioned in my disclaimers, I'm not saying he's more right for this and I'm not letting him off the hook. It's icky when Keefe does it and it's icky when Fitz does it. But I'm solely focused on Keefe, which is why I'm not bringing that up. It's also worth it to note that Fitz doesn't say this over and over again, the way Keefe does.)

Flashback, chapter 17, page 304. I think I'm just going to copy-paste exactly what I said in my original post because it's exactly what I'm trying to say: “‘Hear that, Ro?’ he interrupted. ‘She’s giving me her serious voice.’” (304) Another example of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and dumbing her feelings down for the sake of a joke. Awwww, isn’t her serious voice so cute? She only does that when she thinks she has something important to say to us grown-ups! Awwwwwww. 

Apparently, people don't get why this is a bad thing, so: acting like someone isn't being serious when you can literally feel their emotions and know they're being serious just because you don't like what they're saying is not just invalidation, but infantilization, because you are dumbing their emotions and the complexities behind them down to that of a child attempting to be serious.

I'd also argue that this shows Keefe's true colors: he only really listens to her opinions and respects them when he agrees with them. Disagreeing with someone is all fine and good, but you can still respect the other person's opinion and not dumb it down and act like it's lesser than your own. If Keefe said "Sophie, I hear you, but I think you're wrong" (in Keefe jokester language, obviously, not word-for-word what I wrote) then I wouldn't call this infantilization, I'd call it respect. My problems arise from when Keefe acts like Sophie's opinions are stupid because Sophie is the one saying them with that adorable little pouty voice.

Flashback, chapter 21, page 355. What I originally said: “It’s always fun when you get feisty.” (355) I’ve said this about a gajillion times, but Keefe’s infantilization of Sophie is so horrific, it’s like he doesn’t care about her at all. He just sees her emotions as amusement for himself.

This is a sad scene, and Keefe has every right to be emotionally . . . off in this scene. But it still doesn't change the fact that he calls Sophie's anger "feistiness" and then says it's fun when she gets angry. You could say that's not exactly what he said, but it's likely that's what he meant given the past few quotes I've shown. Keefe has demonstrated a pattern of thinking Sophie's anger is amusing or adorable or fun. Anger is a negative emotion. When Sophie feels anger she doesn't feel good. And Keefe is like, yeah, but it's cute! Do you see how that's not the greatest thing to say? It says a lot about his internalized beliefs about Sophie, and is essentially confirmed by Unlocked. And even if that didn't represent the way he saw Sophie inside, that's still a really shitty thing to say because it still carries the invalidation.

Legacy, chapter 3, page 70. What I originally said: “‘Tell me why you have that cute little crease between your eyebrows.’” (70) You already know what I’m going to say. Keefe finding Sophie’s worry cute is textbook infantilization. But also, if he finds her worry and anger so adorable, what’s he gonna do when the Neverseen are defeated and Sophie doesn’t have as many things worrying her?

So, the crease between the eyebrows is obviously because of worry. So by saying he finds it cute, Keefe indirectly says he finds Sophie's worry cute, though I'm sure I don't have to spell that out because he's already flat out admitted he finds Sophie's worry cute several times. I'm going to sound like a broken record if I repeat what I've been saying this entire post about why this is infantilization, so instead I wanna talk about that last paragraph there. Keefe literally knows how queasy Sophie's worry can make her sometimes, and he has expressed this before, as well. So he knows exactly what Sophie's going through when she worries. And still, he acts like her worry is amusing, funny, cute, or otherwise a quirky little thing. I don't understand how Keefe can be so invalidating, having had firsthand experience with Sophie's emotions.

“But I was only half listening because she gets this cute little crinkle between her eyebrows when she’s trying to be serious, and it makes me want to reach up and smooth her forehead with my fingertip—and I’m betting she’d think I was super weird if I did that, since it’s not like she’s my . . . ” (Unlocked, very first paragraph of Keefe's diary entry, 481)

Don't have an e-book of Unlocked, unfortunately (boooooooo). So the context is that Keefe is giving us (or himself???) an intro to what he's doing here, which is writing about his drawings. He explains that Sophie gave him the idea and gives a general overview of what she said to convince him. Then he says this quote.

Here's what I said, which I stand by: I hate the way Keefe talks about Sophie. She’s just this soft, kind of ditzy, child-like sort of figure in his head. He admits that he doesn’t care what she has to say, he just cares about how adorable she looks while she says it. This is a textbook sign of a toxic relationship. You should care about what your partner/crush says, because that shows that you see them as a person, not as your personal cover model. Also “trying to be serious” paints Sophie as this impudent little child who’s trying to get the attention of the older, more experienced adults and it very much implies that Sophie is not serious, but awwww, look how cute she looks trying to be serious, isn’t it adorable? Except Keefe and Sophie are the same age. So this is another case of textbook infantilization.

Personally, I think I made it fairly clear why I think this is infantilization. Keefe did not listen to the latter half of what Sophie said because he was too busy imagining how adorable she must've looked as she said it. I don't know how to make it more clear that Keefe does not respect or care about Sophie's opinions. He did what she asked, sure, but he did not actually listen to her. Again, implying Sophie was not being serious when she was is infantilization. It takes away the weight of what Sophie is saying and makes it out to be a thing of like, Oh well, Sophie told me to, so I guess I'll humor her adorable little wishes and give it a shot, but let's get back to what's more important here, which is how cute she probably looks! I don't know how else to explain that that's not an attitude you want in someone who claims to listen to you and respect you.

Addressing some other things (Keefe calling Sophie herself cute [1], Keefe's deflection [2], Keefe praising Sophie's prowess [3], Sophie not seeming bothered [4], and The Real Problem [5]):

I don't think Keefe calling Sophie herself cute or adorable by itself is infantilization. That's just a cute, fluffy teenage crush. 100% cool with that. My problem is with Keefe dumbing Sophie's negative emotions that have complexities behind them down to something cute or inconsequential by calling them adorable. There's a quote in the diary entries where Keefe describes Sophie's blush as adorable and proceeds to describe it in vivid detail. I don't like it for personal taste reasons, but I would never argue that this is infantilization. Because. It's not. There is no dumbing down of emotions here, no shrugging off experience or maturity. There's just a kid with a crush.

As for Keefe's habit of deflecting stuff through jokes, yes, it's a flaw and yes, some of the times Keefe infantilizes Sophie, he's using it as a joke to deflect. Yes, that's the larger issue. But the point still stands that the way in which he thinks of Sophie's worry and anger is infantilization.

There are moments where Keefe talks nonstop (sometimes in a very unnatural way, in my opinion) about how powerful and amazing and brilliant and talented and spectacular Sophie is and how he respects her choices and whatnot. I don't see this as particularly contradictory to his infantilization. Keefe can dumb Sophie's emotions down to cute, inconsequential little playthings while also insisting that he thinks she's amazing and powerful. I do think he does think that she's incredibly talented, but he also invalidates or disrespects her choices because he sees her emotions as adorable and unserious. Sophie is objectively powerful and talented and smart, I'm not really sure how saying those clear facts out loud changes the fact that Keefe still sees Sophie as very juvenile in his head. He can respect her prowess and capacity for talent while still disrespecting her opinions and emotions. The two can coexist. This is why I say Keefe pedestalizes and infantilizes Sophie simultaneously.

As for saying this doesn't bother Sophie (except in that one instance where she glares at him), I'd hardly say it matters. People can be the object of toxic behavior without realizing it. Sophie doesn't really seem to care past a handful of seconds when Keefe reads her emotions without her permission (on purpose, with intention), but I think most of us would agree that that doesn't make it acceptable. And Keefe's infantile views of Sophie say more about him than they do Sophie, which is the argument I'm trying to make. My point is that Keefe sees Sophie's emotions as inconsequential little things that don't need to be taken into account. This is all mapped into how he sees her internally. Again, just because Sophie doesn't seem bothered by Keefe's comments, doesn't mean they're acceptable, especially considering it gives us a view into the way he truly sees Sophie. And if Keefe thinks of Sophie is such an invalidating way, how are we supposed to believe he'll respect her when she argues with him, instead of just writing it off as "that adorable rage"?

And last but not least (as this is literally the reason people are annoyed with Keefe, regardless of what flaw you're talking about): the infantilization isn't the problem. Not really. What the problem is is that it is never called out by the narrative and when it is, it lasts two seconds, doesn't stick, and Keefe continues with it having not learned a thing. He doesn't change, and I can give you a thousand explanations for why Keefe may be so prone to infantilizing Sophie based on his childhood, trauma, and everything else, but none of that is an excuse. And I'm certainly not a fan of the way we're constantly told that Keefe respects Sophie when he's clearly so ready to undermine her emotions or dumb them down. If you're going to have him say things like this, it should be understandable that it's not a good thing.

I think it all comes down to this: Imagine you were trying to get a very serious point across to someone or otherwise feeling very emotional over something and then you look over and the other person's reaction is like, Aw, you're so cute when you're all worked up trying to be serious! Anger so adorable! Worry so cute! I love it when you get feisty! Wouldn't you feel like they don't respect what you're saying? Is that not incredibly icky and weird?

Here is the definition of infantilization. I think it's very difficult to make an argument that Keefe is not doing this to Sophie. And if you think that's bad, oh boy, is it so. Much. Worse. In the actual Unlocked novella. It's very difficult to deny that Keefe only sees Sophie as an adorable little cute thing that amuses him when you read it. But I'll get there . . .

Anyway I'm leaving it off with this because these are the vibes I get from Keefe every time he makes an infantilizing comment about Sophie (minus the yelling, Keefe doesn't really yell):

[let-them-sing-of-others]

everyone deserves respect and representation and it is not that big of a deal if someone wants less allocishet characters or ships

[bookwyrminspiration]

i've been complaining about uni all day, but I am aware of current discourse. so let me just say: yes, 100% everyone including allocishet people should not be shamed for their identity. but you cannot act like jokes by queer people punching up against a historically oppressive and violent society holds the same weight as the reverse.

critiques about "balancing" and "equal number of gay and straight characters" are nitpicking the wording (which, yes, could have been better phrased, but you can still clearly understand what they meant) instead of addressing that crux.

someone being personally annoyed with a sudden influx in non-queer ships is not equivalent to oppression or discrimination or hatred for your identities--or even unreasonable! way more malice has been attributed to their intention than is appropriate, and it's so frustrating to see

have I addressed everything? no. will I say more? entirely possible. but for the love of god, people

[floofeeeeee]

Wh…..

WHY IS THERE DISCOURSE SAVE ME

So what I’ve seen 

Is some Anon was like

Straight and cis people suck!!!!!! (So true/jjjjjjjjjjjjj)

(I’m cis don’t hate IT WAS A JOKE I SWEAR)

But yeah stop being shitty to random people just cuz of their identity ! That’s weird!