#NORMALISE COMING OUT AND BEING GAY!

[goosethepumpkin]

NOTE: i am not saying that we cannot speculate someones sexuality, i am just saying if people get to assume someone is straight, then why cant we assume someone is a part of the LGBTQ+ community?

also always make sure that the person you are assuming or talking about any of this stuff is ok with it! if they have publically voiced that they do not want speculation and controversy amongst their sexuality then respect it! always respect boundries! and always respect other people. do research before saying anything possibly controversial! <3

i have smol brain so if there is anything offensive in this tell me! and i'll hopefully get rid of it, i just wanted to voice some of my personal dislikes. and dont be surprised if i do more of this type content, or mental health advocation cause i believe its super important and that everyone should be aware of stuff. theres a lot btw i get rlly into stuff im passionate abt or want to talk abt something so buckle ur seatbelts and dont yell angrily at me please! :) thank u <3

quick question: all over twitter i see all these posts like 'dont assume someones sexuality' yeah dont assume someones sexuality?? THAN WHY ARE WE ALL ASSUMING EVERYONE IS STRAIGHT?? that is a sexuality, we all assume at first glance that someone is straight. then why is it when people speculate or think someone is like gay or bi then its immediately bad? isnt that like saying someone is straight??

so then why are people who simply do exactly what other people do but instead of assuming everyone is straight, they assume a few people are gay? like its fucking bullshit why cant we normalise being gay?? like its who we love and yeah i guess we shouldnt assume but we cant help it sometimes, like how people assume 'oh there is girl with boy at dinner so they dating!' no fuck no? what if i just wanted to spend time with a friend?

so basically people around here always like 'dont assume sexuality' when we technically do that every single day, and i will admit i do that too. being straight has been more embedded in our culture than being gay but its still assuming isnt it? dont hate me for it but this is really what i think about this whole thing cause isnt this true? isnt thinking someone is straight just like thinking someone is gay? im sure the gays can agree though, like we are probably always assumed by other people to like the opposite gender but thats not true, so why is it when people think someone is gay they immediately get hated for it?

some more stuff: yes it doesnt apply to everyone like if u assume someone is gay u dont always get hated for it. ive seen some tweets on twitter of people just like 'oh this person is straight' blah blah blah, but in reality no one but that person knows that, so who are we to assume they are straight? or gay? this is why i like to keep an open mind like oh yeah this person can like men and woman and non-binaries and intersex and others, even if they dont voice it.

also dont hate me for this, im just making some observations and stuff and applying random shit that i know. cause isnt this technically true?? (and yeah again pls dont hate me for this cause everyday i feel like writing something like this, to advocate for problems like this cause why cant we normalise being gay and coming out? but i always get scared of hate, and i know that sounds super shitty and stuff but ive always had a weak mental state, which has gotten a lil bit better cause i found someone on twitter and a lil community but its still not the best)

i also wrote this because of taylor swift, i see a bunch of people saying 'oh dont speculate her sexuality' but like arent u speculating shes straight? cause being straight is a sexuality too? and plus shes never publically spoken abt it (i think) and same with a bunch of other people.

and im not saying u shouldnt speculate someones sexuality im just saying that if people get to assume someone is straight, then why cant we assume someone is gay? (or LGBTQ+)

actually feel free to do whatever u want, im just here saying that its not fair that people get to assume someone is straight yet others dont get to assume someone is gay. cause technically thats the same thing? sure there are probably more straights in the world but still its not exactly equal.

and to all my fellow closeted LGBTQ+ friends out there, i love yall and be true to urself and dont let them haters get u down!

(haters gonna hate hate hate) sorry ive been obsessed with Taylor's music like omg the eras movie was so good?? like they better put it on a streaming platform like im gonna def watch it again, yall should too if u like Taylor :D

[s0fter-sin]

sometimes i think about how wild a mw2 movie would be if they just dropped soapghost right in the middle with no warning or marketing. like imagine it being beat for beat the exact same, it’s your typical military action movie, promoted as just another military action movie then after they get to the safe house, ghost has to patch up soap and he’s still out of it, overwhelmed by the betrayal and everything he’s seen and ghost needs to ground him and keep him in the present, to remind him that he’s alive and safe so he kisses him and they have sex. the tantrums and the rants and the “ReAl sOLdiErS aRen’t liKe ThAt”, god i can taste it and it’s delicious

[celestialholz]

Live long and fuck in Hondas (or 'why that Vulcan salute is way more significant than you think it is')

Hey. Hey Holz. Did you know Deadpool and Wolverine fucked in the Odyessy? Did you know that they now live in a one-bed with Blind Al? Did you know that -

Yes, friend. I know all of it. And you're all super fucking valid for pointing it out.

... But maybe all of you aren't seasoned Trekkies like me. Maybe not all of you gorgeous people understand the true significance of this.

Or maybe you just want a definitive way to win the argument of "are these two fucking?"

But either way, I'm here to help, and to tell you why, amongst all the absurdly homoerotic text of this film, this moment? Might be the gayest of them all.

Now, we must start by saying that although you wouldn't know it from the bullshit Abrams films, these two:

Are the fathers of gay fanfiction. Spock and Kirk here are the reason you're living in the fantastic timeline where you can write/read men fucking without any other shred of plot and that this is a legitimate and normalised internet experience - everyone say thank you, iconic papas. These guys were so homoerotically coded that even in the 60s, the era of wondrously overdramatic performances of all kinds and fairly prevalent homophobia, The Girlies still took notice, still started mailing each other fics and making zines and being just hugely excited at the thought of these two getting space-married. They are fandom as we know it today's beginning, and seventy years later they're still an enduringly popular ship on AO3. (You should all go and watch Amok Time, by the way. Contains the Honda Odyessy scene of the 60s, except there's weird biology and wrestling and just go and put it on your screens, thank me later. They fucked on that planet.)

Anyway, these two were as close as early colour TV could ever allow two men to be, deepening their *coughs* friendship almost every single episode or film - Trek's creator Gene Roddenberry even gave them a unique word in Spock's Vulcan language, with the meaning of 'friend, brother, lover.' (And if that isn't ringing any Poolverine bells, I'm not actually sure what you want out of this post. Enjoy it anyway, love you.)

... And then we get to 1982's The Wrath of Khan, and to that moment that every iconic screen couple must face - the ol' classic, it's you or me and I won't let it be you.

Sure, the set-up's a little different here - the chamber Spock's in is filled with radiation, and the scene's quieter, softer. And Kirk isn't a mutant so he can't smash his way in, he can just sit there and inwardly die as his emotional support Vulcan does.

... But you get where I'm coming from here. Ryan Reynolds doesn't take a million other potential love scenes from across the cinematic ages - no, he takes this. What is for many the romantic acknowledgement of a whole generation. The humble and desperately sweet beginning of it everything we fans know and love nowadays. The most ambiguously romantic homosexual relationship in television, directly comparative to what is now arguably the most ambiguously romantic homosexual relationship in cinema. And lest we forget, Wade doesn't believe in a fourth wall - this is a conscious choice, both in canon and in the writer's room.

Oh it's so clever and so beautiful a girl could weep. Ryan just introduced the MCU to the gays, just as Kirk and Spock did all those years ago to the masses of the time.

And then there's what it means.

This is the Vulcan salute, created to mean either 'live long and prosper' or 'peace and long life' - it's used more or less interchangeably.

But part of that's irrelevant when you're as immortal as these two.

So we're left with the sentiments of prosperity and peace, given to a man who up to this point can't imagine ever prospering again, is the furthest thing away from being at peace. Wade gives Logan the opportunity to go on, to find the things he's been lacking for so long now - things he has already helped him find. Spock tells Kirk during The Wrath that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,' and that's exactly what Wade's doing here - sacrificing himself for the greater good of his friends and his newly beloved, however much it will hurt them all.

And that's lovely, and poignant, and character-growing, and I think we all would have been content to leave it at that and have our noble sacrifice, however much we would have wept. Kirk goes on to find the remnants of Spock's soul in the next film in the series, to bring him essentially back from the dead because he felt it was more than his own soul's worth not to have done... which, again, ringing a bell anyone?

Because Logan, in not so many words, tells dear Wade to fuck right off, and we get this.

What we've got here is a direct translation of one of cinema's gayest moments, made somehow infinitely more gay. A true achievement here - I genuinely think I spontaneously acquired tetanus in the cinema for a good minute, my jaw dropped so hard on seeing this. The pillars are the same colour as Kirk and Spock's original uniforms, for fuck's sake. I'm dying out here.

What we've done here is create narrative equality. The whole film's kinda done that leading up to this anyway - they're both mentally fucked up men who can't die, who are constantly dying anyway, who are evenly-matched in battle and both enjoy Honda fucking, who have forged a real love even as they piss each other off at every turn.

But here, they place one another in narrative equality for the first time. It's not about a sacrifice, not now, even though they're assuming it is one - it's about what should be done. It's about righting wrongs, being heroes, being together because every option other than that is unacceptable, because neither understands quite how to lose anyone else. They've both made the same choice, and that's not to let the other die alone.

It's about holding hands and loving and never letting go, even if it kills them.

... It's just about the most romantic and gorgeous thing I've ever fucking seen.

There are no more instances of masks, once they're done in this station. They don't need them any longer; they will never need them again.

And that's only emphasised by the parting shot we get of this... almost directly after Vanessa and Wade share a final sweet look.

I don't know, man. It's almost like the true conclusion is hidden behind the acceptable masquerade. Imagine that in the MCU, folks.

They've taken one of the most intimate and sweet moments in screen history, and made even more glorious.

They did The Wrath of Khan better than The Wrath of Khan did it.

And that's... that's gay. That's just about the gayest thing they could ever have done, and I adore it to the smallest pieces.

So remember, the next time your friends disbelieve you... show 'em this. Show them that they redid the very beginnings of slash fandom, and did it better.

(And then you can add on that they now live in a one-bed with their grandma, daughter and dog, and will do for the rest of their lives. Kirk and Spock didn't even get THAT shit.)

[ranticore]

Now that you mentioned it in the tags; I really enjoyed how you did the queerness of characters in-text and I saw you mentioned more than once before how they consider/call themselves gay or anything and I was wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate on that (in Ironwall, MVF etc), but more from a writing standpoint than a worldbuilding one. Hope Im making sense lol

i looked up the invention of the word 'homosexuality' and found that it was invented 6 years after stbh is set

ghksjdg i mean there's more to it than that but it meant that my language was constrained, which also means that the characters' language is constrained as well. i have to think about ways i want this to come across to the reader. at the time i was thinking about how the basic concept of "btw this character is not straight/cis" is communicated in some of the stories i'd read, and one that stood out to me was a comic i read in a fully fantasy setting where the writer brought the narrative to a juddering halt to explain exactly how gender & sexuality are handled by the people here. as in the characters essentially turn to the camera and give the main character a lecture. i really didn't like it, the author's hand was too visible behind the panels.

but i took it as a learning exercise as well on what i didn't want to do. i didn't like the neon signs pointing at any instance of non-heteronormativity and i also don't like stories that market themselves based on the characters' gender identities, particularly stories which do not involve a coming-of-age/character learns to discover themselves narrative. it's a book about two trans men but it's not a book about being trans. that's none of the reader's business, that's hidden from you (particularly in islin's case, intentionally). i never wanted to foster a sense of voyeurism towards trans people particularly knowing that most readers, statistically, will not be trans. crucially the characters are stealth to literally everybody but like 3 people. their transition is done.

i never wanted a coming out moment, or an "i'm here i'm queer" moment either - not even because Society in the setting just because i don't like those things. to completely normalise it in the narrative between these characters is the goal - almost to the point of never even pointing it out at all except when it has to be. the vibe i wanted was like... hanging out in not necessarily a gay space, but with gay people, talking about random other stuff. i didn't even like the One coming out scene i had to put in (senca being like "i only fuck women" to bowman so that he would stop hitting on her)

so when writing i had a pretty good idea of what i didn't want. for the setting i had some strict rules to follow as well. characters would not identify as gay or bisexual or even some fantasy equivalent because those were not identities, they were acts. and heterosexuality wasn't an identity either, it wasn't even "the natural way of things", it was the means by which wealth could transfer between generations. if you do not marry, then you are not conforming to your gender. the four unmarriagable men in mvf are all denied entry to normative manhood for many de-gendering factors (disability, unmanly hobbies, vow of chastity, etc) but the culmination of those factors is that they can't marry, which is the whole POINT of being a man. three of them are entirely denied generational wealth - forcing them into poverty (it's not a coincidence that gay people are overrepresented in the criminal organisation)

from a writing standpoint this leaves them in a grey zone. when writing i tried out different language to see if it read nice to me (19th century equivalents to 'boyfriend' etc) and they all rang quite false, because outside of the whole 'can we put a label on something that doesn't officially exist in society' thing, the characters themselves are not the types of people to think that way. Bowman was dating Léa but he was never dating Félix. you can't date another man. the only people who date men are women, and Bowman is not a woman. therefore he is not dating Félix. to give just one example. ultimately for the language used i found that just leaving it as-is worked the best for me.

so after working all that out i wrote tha thing and then wanted to kind of explore - at what point does it become romantic? is there an actual border between romantic and platonic when you've kind of already fallen between the cracks in society into the grey zone where nothing is defined because it doesn't affirm the power of the ruling class. and in these particular friendships, where they've already been all things to one another, they've already done everything together, good or bad, does adding 'romantic love' to that list of things wildly recontextualise it retroactively or does anything change at all? just like the ending reveal of stbh says: who actually is the guy we've been thinking of as 'félix ortega' ? does it recontextualise everything we've just read? no, right? (or does it?)

the usual 'will-they-won't-they' romance plot isn't a factor in the book, we already know they will, they have, they won't, and they refuse to, all at once.

(jean-baptiste thinks of himself as an invert because he is Learned and has read some fascinating journal articles about cutting-edge sexology, and his relation to his sexuality is very very different. it's not something he shares with his closest friends in spaces without scrutiny; his entire life is scrutinised and his social system is predicated on marriage. like i think i said in the book, probably, i don't remember: he and renard are two guys clinging to the same life raft. they hate each other! but if you push the other guy off the life raft, then you're just one guy alone at sea, forever.)

[bluecrocss]

Following up on the RACIST PJO Fan artist that likes to antagonize other Fan artists (Sevsalio)

So, I recently made this post detailing a racist interaction I had with this user.

Aka the person who made the following fanarts:

And despite other people reporting similar interactions, I have a lot of non-black people white-splaining how they're not anti-black or how what they said is fine.

Newsflash, my first post was for non-racist pjo fans to be aware, in case they interact with that user. For those of you that defend them, idrc, keep engaging with them, its so clear how normalised anti-blackness is in this fandom.

The user themselves had this to say:

That is called deflection. They're trying to make it seem as if the issue was that I disagreed with their opinion about mixed fanart between the book and the show.

First of all, their initial post that started all this was them accusing artists that draw Show!annabeth (black) with book!percy of being Racist. That is what they said. They have literally used the term "reverse-racism" in 2024.

They claimed that it was unfair that artists that draw Book!annabeth and Show!percy get "lynched" (more racist language btw), yet when asked, they couldn't give ONE example of that happening.

This user is not a victim being attacked for no reason. They hate seeing fanart of Show!annabeth with book!percy, and decided it was their place to call artists that did that racist. Then made up imaginary scenarios of the reverse to justify their statement.

The whole interaction can be read here, if they want to accuse me of hiding context or whatever.

They also specifically used the "Leah Sava Jeffires" tag (aka the black actress for show annabeth, who dealt with 2 years of relentless racist hate mobs & death threats), so that any fans of hers or the show would see the post.

I'm not just calling them racist for that though. Their response to my prodding had them revealing a lot of their blatant anti-black views (which they quickly deleted. wonder why?).

This is what they have to say about black people:

(Pretending to be black to deflect accountability. Nice).

And when confronted on their bigotry, this is how they like to respond to people:

Oh, and funfact, they're also transphobic (or atleast enjoy antagonizing other queer people. And no it doesn't matter if they're also gay):

Fyi, "I hate everyone equally" isn't an adequate response when people are telling you you're being bigoted :)

This person intentionally antagonizes other artists and has made it clear that they believe that there is too much representation for black people, racial minorities and queer people (all statistically under-represented groups).

I don't care if they said they're not racist, or transphobic or anything else. You think conservatives or homophobes openly think they're hateful? But if you enjoy antagonizing marginalized groups and multiple people within those groups have called out the shit you say... maybe it's not up to you to determine if you're a bigot.

The creator of the series himself, has literally made it clear even he doesn't appreciate people like you in the fandom, so your sense of entitlement is baffling.

Stop coming into my comments/messages to defend this person. IDC if you still wanna be friends with them, but y'all wont gaslight me into believing this rhetoric is okay. Good day 🩷

[swaggy-lee23]

We’ve all heard of internalised homophobia Damian but I raise you never even heard of homophobia Damian.

Talia has been hinted at being bisexual ( or at least not fully straight) in a few different comic panels that I literally cannot find for the life of me. So I don’t think that she would care too much about Damian being straight.

I can imagine that sexuality literally didn’t matter in the league people were probably more concerned about staying alive and all that.

Furthermore I can’t see Ra’s caring too much about what sexuality Damian is either . The only reason that I think would make him disapprove is making heirs but at the end of the day they have cloning technology so that makes that argument invalid.

I doubt homophobia was even a thing in the league or that homosexuality was talked about at all. I think being apart of the LQBTQIA+ community would be very normalised there.

Because of this Damain doesn’t feel the need to bring up his sexuality to the Bats. Why would he it’s normal for him, people don’t come out in the league because nobody cares who you’re attracted to. The Bats obviously don’t know this though so when Damian starts going out with boys they think that he’s trying to hide it from them. ( He isn’t hiding the fact that he’s gay it’s just what he’s doing on his dates he doesn’t want them knowing about. )

The bats decide to bring it up to Damian and have a heart to heart conversation with him, about how they will love him no matter what. Damian is confused the entire time. At the end of the conversation which is just a huge PowerPoint made by Tim that everyone gets sick of 45 out of 390 slides in, Damian is like “ Yes I am Gay, literally why do you care?” And walks out because this is just so cringy to him.

[radfem-on-toast]

I’m not sure why nobody’s talking about this, but I’m going to say it: sex between men is damaging in the same ways BDSM and autogynephilia are. And now don’t come at me with your qu**r bullshit, hear me out.

We all know men just think with their dicks, right? And gay men are no exception to this, not by any fucking means. Grindr (the gay “dating” app, if you’re lucky enough not to know) literally has an option for “sex right now” in the “I’m looking for friends/a relationship etc.” column.

When a man penetrates another man, that is an act that normalises abuse much like BDSM. It’s often painful to the receptive partner, and a huge part of the pleasure for the penetrative partner is in relishing in that pain. Normalising practices like this leads to stuff like more than 25% of gay men experiencing abuse from their partner (Source, from a “pro-lgbtqia+” source if you have any doubts: https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/).

This does not mean that the receptive partner is blameless. Arguably, their paraphilia is even worse. Think about it: how many men do you know that would let, let alone say they enjoy despite the obvious pain, another man penetrating them? It is clearly a form of autogynephilic paraphilia. Just like TIMs get off on assuming the role of a caricature of a woman during sex, receptive partners in gay sex get off on the degradation of penetration, of being made to assume the role of a female caricature subjugated to a man.

Women should not be afraid to call this out! If you’re willing to call out the excesses of BDSM and autogynephilia, you shouldn’t be silent on the way gay sex perpetuates patriarchal values like domestic abuse and the degradation of women.

[lestcat-de-lioncourt]

People are saying it's like watching paint dry with Louis and the Brad Pitt vs. Jacob in Interview With The Vampire, yes, because they cast roles for appearance and not to harness their full specialist potential. That was often as happy second.

It wasn't a character he could clearly do, a genre. There's loads of other material he's much better at. This is where casting just a cis white straight guy for his "looks" can stunt a performance.

Now, wild, Hollywood branches out to us minorities, who have grovelled in the dirt to tone our talents, who really want this, and not a person who is beautiful, with a lacklustre for the topic, the genre, it's not their Thing, they are a PERSON with their own interests, wow beautiful, okay, actually, "I really love Aerodynamics and I'm gadd awful at acting" kinda person, in fact, but.. yeah...

Hollywood: "ur prety so u must."

And all that.

•

Can you see where I'm coming from?

The act of acting has been lost in portion, due to film, ONLY, because people can fall back on the outtakes, which, makes it so much more accessible and I love that too, but, drumming out an acted, ingrained performance, if you will, is something else.

It's safer this way, so we don't get too hung out by the character we play to the point it becomes reality, I know, but still. People love to say they pick actors PERFECT for the portrayal, but they just look like the character/same skin colour as the character/gender as the character.

•

If you cared that much, why not get a person that totally encapsulated the character, and make them look like you envisioned?

It's complex, for sure, but, please, why cut corners for just the standard beauty trope at the time, the biggest names, and so on. I know you gotta sell. But..

It's all a building process though.

•

I would've said, just to make sure queer fiction managed to get the limelight it mutually deserves, but, I can't even go with that because it paints Lestat as a nasty scary queer guy who's after all yo' partners in IWTV(1994), and at the time of when it came out, was quite a remarkable thing in many ways.

Troped up as "gays are monsters" and, so on, ignoring all the straight vampiric action, many wish to see, 24/7, is what it also developed a presentation of.

But now the being a "vampire" is normalised to the point where we can have "why are all these vampires gay in this series, ugh?" On YouTube coming up, even for me, we can accurately spread our wings, playing queer monsters, without, y'know, the witch hunt cult actually treating us like one just for being born.

[that-ari-blogger]

On Grim Spectacle and Greatest Fears

There's a reason Enchanting Grom Fright is beloved by fans of the Owl House, not only is it just a plain old good story, it's also a phenomenal queer story.

But why is that so, and what makes it so important? That's what this post is about.

And if you're wondering whether I'm going to talk about @moringmark in this post, you bet I am.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD

If you look at online discourse, there is a lot of discussion about "good representation" and that is certainly an interesting discussion, but I don't think there is much explanation as to why representation is important in the first place. It is a good thing, we all know this, but why?

One word: Normalisation. Representation of varying identities, cultures, and ethnicities is important because it takes apart the implicit bias inherent in society.

The generic individual in western society is white, male, and straight, and while there is nothing wrong with these character traits, this means that anything added to that template becomes a statement. It becomes an important metaphor for the story which doesn't get applied to someone with the three characteristics I mentioned earlier.

For example, there is a question in analysis of what a character being gay does for a story, where a character being perceived as straight doesn't get that level of scrutiny.

This is a problem for a number of reasons, most notably it abnormalizes certain traits that a large proportion of society (myself included) exhibit, effectively othering those people as a result.

Representation does the opposite of this, it allows real people who are not the generic individual to be treated with the same level of respect and for audience members who don't usually see themselves in media to find characters like themselves, to see their own stories reflected in fiction.

I think the best reason for representation actually comes from Ordinary, by Joriah Kwame, the sequel to Little Miss Perfect. This song, written explicitly from Luz Noceda's perspective, says this:

"The characters I read never act or look like me I can't depend on them to lead me through the right door"

Stories are a way of learning about the world and yourself, and in stories with extremely low representation for marginalised people, that lesson is pretty clear.

@jameswoodall has a video essay on YouTube titled How Much Representation Is Enough. In it Woodall discusses the benefits of representation through a queer lens, and argues about the end goal thusly:

"It's not about achieving a certain percentage. It's about making that percentage stop mattering. When queer representation is no longer noteworthy. When queer inclusion is so naturally assumed that nobody feels the need to count anymore. When even if we did put queer rep in every story, nobody would bat an eyelid. Because we have just as much right to be there as anyone else."

So, let's talk about Grom.

Meromorphic is a channel with a two-hour long video about The Owl House as a whole, and while there is a lot in that video that I disagree with (as is the nature of media analysis) it is comprehensive and fascinating, and I would recommend giving it a watch.

However, I am not bringing up that video to talk about its points, instead, I would like to shamelessly steal borrow a term from it: Magic Literalism. In this context, it means when a piece of media uses magic to make physical an intangible concept. In this case, it turns fear into a monster, that being Grom.

When Grom looks into Luz, she sees Luz's mother, and she sees Luz's fear of disappointment. She sees that Luz has a secret that she hasn't told her mother in case she breaks her heart. It's literally about the Boiling Isles, but there's something written between the lines here.

It is possible to read this as Luz's fear of coming out to her mother, and by "it's possible", I mean that this is how I read this.

Coming out is terrifying, even if you have supportive parents, it's still asking people to accept a part of you, and that comes with risk, because if they don't accept you, what do you do?

That's what I think Luz is afraid of.

Amity, on the other hand, is afraid of getting rejected in a similar way, although hers is more direct. Amity is scared of falling in love and not being loved back.

As a side not, I think it's a really cool detail that of Odalia's many flaws, homophobia isn't one. As in, Amity isn't afraid of coming out to her parents, and when she makes passing remarks about having a girlfriend to her mother and father, their surprise is that it's with Luz, not with another girl. Bellos kind of keeps this going, and the message with that is clear. Homophobia is too low, even for these villains.

Anyway, Amity's experience with Grom is the other side of being queer, the romantic part. I am aware that romance isn't something everyone experiences, but when you do, especially when you are queer, confessing your feelings for someone is terrifying.

So, Amity avoids the question and doesn't really confront it directly at all. Even at the end of the episode, she has everything thrust upon her and still doesn't confess. Luz does the same thing with her mother. Fear is a powerful force, and I would argue that the best time to deal with it is when you are ready, not before.

I really like the scene in the forest. The light gives the two a feeling of warmth and safety, and it wards of the night. Once again, it's Luz giving hope to those around her, and here it is in a more personal sense. Light, do not falter.

The colour palate of the scene (that warm light) conveys that these two people are comfortable in each other's presence and can talk freely around each other. They are already in love; someone just needs to say it.

However, there is another side to Grometheus that also factors into being queer. When Amity explains the event, the art style changes into this style that I want to call classical, even though it probably isn't (art nerds, rise up in the replies and tell me what this is please). But she also directly calls the Grom event a tradition.

"Every year it tries to break out and a student has to defeat it before it invades town. Ever the optimist, Bump holds a party and calls it tradition."

Perhaps tradition, at least in the Boiling Isles, isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Perhaps there is an issue with seeing a problem and instead of trying to fix it, stalling it and making a spectacle out of achieving nothing. Maybe there is an issue with willingly putting children in danger for the drama of it. Maybe the fact that certain sports are just the audience enjoying people getting life threatening injuries might be an issue. I'm just throwing ideas out at this point.

If we link Grom with fear, there is the idea that fear spreads from schools and it is the role of the students, as decreed by the adults, to contain it. See the plot of Footloose for an example of this, or certain places in the real world today, where fear of the other (mainly bigotry) takes the form of arguments about schoolbooks.

This is a valid reading, but I'd like to go a bit wild with my interpretation and talk about @moringmark's comics.

Chapter three of A Little Hint of Blue is a brilliant piece of storytelling that actually characterises Bosha a ton. It carries the theme of fear over to both Skara and Bosha, but it shows them in real time. Skara is scared that Bosha won't let her spend time with... (*checks notes*)... Fledermaus?

She has good reason for this, Bosha is overprotective to the point of toxicity and runs on her own fear. Bosha's hierarchical worldview comes from a place of fear as well, she's afraid of being out of control, and a really subtle thing that gets done in this comic is the association of Bosha with fire.

It doesn't really get done in the original series, but Bosha and fire are such a neat thematic paring. They both consume, they both try to reach out, and fire is heavily associated with strong emotions, like anger and fear.

Bosha tries to control everything in the same way she controls her flames, but as it turns out, people aren't fire. People, when they are free, don't immediately destroy things, and a lot of people actually benefit from that freedom. Most notably, artists and musicians, like Skara.

Grom Factor also deals with the subject matter, but from a slightly different perspective.

First up, the most obvious, at least to me. Enna saves the town but it outcast in the process because what she is scares people, despite her heroism, she is not accepted. The metaphor isn't perfect and reading it as a one-to-one analogy is a detriment to the story. For example, the reason for Enna being outcast is because of a curse, and queer people are generally not magically cursed to be queer, they are born that way.

But, there is also the idea of Luz's fear as an adult being the exact same as when she was a child. She is scared of disappointing people, specifically her family and her daughter. This means that she is acutely aware of Ayzee's own mirror of that, and this line is spectacular:

"Make yourself proud"

It's ok to be afraid of what others think, that's part of being human (or a witch, or a demon. It's part of being sentient), but in the end, the only person who you have to make proud, is yourself.

Final Thoughts

I've been dying to talk about the Moringmark comics, and I do plan on talking about them more, but that will happen when I get there. I will do more gushing about their serious artistic and storytelling skill when that happens, so buckle up.

Enchanting Grom Fright is one of my favourite episodes of the series as a whole, and its a testament to the writing of it that there is more that I am yet to cover, and more that I am discovering as I watch it. For example, the storyline with Gus and King is a big part of the episode, but I didn't mention it because it wasn't really relevant to my main point, and the whole thing with the dance is stellar.

Next week, I am looking at Wing It Like Witches, so stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

[sonik-kun]

Reminder that WWX did use a homophobic slur (cutsleeve) before he found out he was, in fact, a "cutsleeve" himself.

I'd also argue that him taking advantage of MXY's body and the rumours associated with him by acting as a "stereotypical gay" to get out of situations was a form of homophobia in itself.

He assumed this was how crazy, gay people act - like sexual deviants. He used that stereotype on top of the rumours about MXY just to get out of sticky situations and avoid being captured.

Whilst this isn't aggressive homophobia, nor would I consider him a raging homophobe myself, he still took advantage of the world view he was raised in, which, in modern terms, was problematic in itself.

Think the harmful, stereotypical, predatory gay trope in anime that a lot of anime fans have taken issue with. That's the stereotype WWX was trying to perpetuate and brush off as a silly joke which is bordering that harmful stereotype territory mentioned above. And yet I don't see the moral "holier than thou" crowd talking about that in their analysis on "fictional characters in an ancient Chinese setting."

(Note before I get jumped on: I don't think WWX was being cruel or malicious when he did this. Nor do I think he purposely intended to sully poor MXY's image further. And I ofc don't think that WWX is a terrible person for doing so either. The guy was desperate and needed to pull tricks to avoid capture. But that still doesn't make things right by modern standards. Even if said stereotype was used to goad a load of "homophobes." Would also like to add that even after coming out, WWX didn't really challenge the societal standard or think ill of anyone who thought like that. It's not like he toured the CW with LWJ, promoting gay rights. He'd be very extraordinary for doing that and brave, too. But he didn't. Instead, he just got up to sexy times with his husband daily and lazed about living the good life. Which is valid of him, tbh, giving the shit he went through. But my point still stands. The social norm persists.)

Also, bare in mind, WWX was heavily in denial about his own sexuality at first and struggled to come to terms with it in the beginning due to the societal norms back then, anyway.

Homophobia was the norm. Stop denying that when you know most of the characters found it bizarre.

By their standards being gay was, unfortunate as it is, unusual and to them, perhaps even immoral in its own right.

By modern standards, we know now that it is wrong. And the moral consensus is that being gay is normal and should not be vilified (even then, not all cultures today have reached that consensus and LGBT rights still have a long way to go).

With this in mind and the notion of what morality meant to people back then, you mustn't hold the characters to modern standards because that was simply the world view. What was "right" back then.

You cannot say with certainty that you wouldn't be homophobic back then, in a world where people called it strange and immoral. As much as I'd like to believe that I would be one of the few who find it wrong to treat gay people poorly, most of us probably would find homosexuality strange because that was the moral consensus of that time. As such, it is unfair to hold characters like JC, JL, and JGY to modern standards for that reason. That's the point we've all been trying to make here.

(Even then, JC and JL both watched as WWX left with his hubby into the sunset and didn't speak illy of their relationship again, nor consider them social outcasts like the Jins and Mos treated MXY. It's almost as if people can change their world views entirely (or to some extent) after things become normalised. Hmm. 🧐

Furthermore, MXTX herself said that JC wasn't a bad person. She wouldn't say that if he's the "aggressive homophobe, incapable of change" like you all seem to imply he is.)

You all make this point about historical context when us JC fans criticise WWX for his clear breach of bodily autonomy with the core transfer and his own war crimes. You should apply that logic to the period typical homophobia too. Because as I have said before, you cannot say for certain that the characters would be homophobic had this taken place in a society where being gay was the norm whilst homophobia was frowned upon. Let's use some logic and context when talking about characters from an ancient time period, shall we?

[gay-disabled-characters-showdown]

LGBTQ+ Disabled Characters Showdown Round 5, Poll 6

Please be civil in the notes. We will block people if we feel it is necessary. A character being canon LGBTQ+ and disabled was not required to be in this competition. Please check qualifications and propaganda before asking why a character is included. This is not a competition of who is better representation.

Check out the other polls in this round here.

Harrowhark Nonagesimus-The Locked Tomb

Qualifications:

She's a lesbian and the author Tamsyn Muir has confirmed she's written as schizophrenic, based on her own experience.

Okay SO Harrow is a necromancer nun who is also a huge lesbian. She spends the books of TLT series being super gay and repressed about her emotions for 1. Butch lesbian Jesus and 2. Human Barbie the death of God. She narrates the second book (Harrow the Ninth) and is author-confirmed schizophrenic. She experiences hallucinations thru the whole book and has since childhood. She’s also WIDELY headcannoned as autistic by the fandom (me too) because. Because she IS SO FUCKING AUTISTIC (source: I am autistic too)

Schizophrenic lesbian with a traumatic brain injury

Schizophrenic and sapphic

canonically a schizophrenic lesbian. neither word is used in series, she isn't in a position to get a diagnosis and queer identities are so normalised in the universe that labels just don't get mentioned, but she is written as both by an author who is also both.

Canon schizophrenia

Canon lesbian with canon schizophrenia

She's a schizophrenic lesbian with a traumatic brain injury

Propaganda:

The Locked Tomb is pretty popular on tumblr but I might as well submit her anyway

She’s a lesbian necromancer nun. She’s a saint and also woke up the death of God, who is a human Barbie, who she is in love with, tho she’s also kind of married to lesbian Jesus. She’s schizophrenic. She’s scrungly. She puts bread in a drawer. She’s even autistic

Harrow first started hallucinating (visual and auditory) when she was ten years old! The traumatic brain injury and seizures are much more recent. Unironically gotta love a pov protagonist who makes you struggle along with her in sorting out hallucination and false memory to figure out what's going on. Also while Harrow's disability shapes the narrative, the book isn't at all about her being disabled. It's a fantasy/scifi gothic horror novel about being trapped at a work retreat with God.

so many women want her but she’s determined to be in love with the soul of the dead earth trapped in a 10ft barbie doll instead. she’s a lesbian disaster and is trying to deal with both schizophrenia and over 200 actual ghosts haunting her.

a schizophrenic lesbian, written by a schizophrenic lesbian! she's in love with multiple dead women, but she's also a necromancer so that's not as big of an obstacle as it sounds. weird little bone-obsessed necromancer lesbian. I care about her deeply

Author Tamsyn Muir has discussed how Harrow's schizophrenia is modeled after her own experiences. It matters a lot in her eponymous novel, where her inability to trust what she sees and hears is compounded by her self-inflicted lobotomy to save her girlfriend's soul from getting absorbed into her own.

Harrow is one of the protagonists of her series & both her lesbianism & her schizophrenia play major parts in the story. The author has spoken about how she wrote Harrow based on her own experiences, and the authenticity comes through strongly. Beyond that, she's a teenage gothic nun in love with a holy corpse & she's the greatest bone magician ever born. What more needs be said.

She's a lesbian, she's psychotic, she has seizures, she faints regularly and can't rely on her own memory worth shit. And the only reason she's not going to kill god is so she and her girl can escape the cycle of violence. Basically, Harrowhark Nonagesimus is the entire package.

Anything Else?:

Listen. Listen. I’m not doing Harrow justice here. I LOVE her (Submitter 2)

The author is also schizophrenic! Which is pretty cool. (Submitter 3)

The author of the series is openly schizophrenic, and has mentioned in interviews that she's drawing on that experience when writing Harrow :) (Submitter 8)

Wei Wuxian-The Untamed / Mo Dao Zu Shi

Qualifications:

Goes through a somewhat unethical organ transplant (in that the person he is giving the organ to doesn't realize that's what's going on) where he gives up his "golden core." This is like his center of power and by giving it up, not only is he not able to do most of the more "magic" things he could do before, but he's also noticeably physically weaker and gets injured much more easily (and takes longer to recover) as well as faints more often (iirc he only faints once pre-golden core removal and that was after sustaining major injuries and going on for a significant time without any healing while also fighting and traveling). Like he finds ways around it and invents new methods so that he can still do some things that he did before, just via a very different method. In the show we don't really see any characters who aren't cultivators, or at least part of that world, so Wei Wuxian is like the only character we really get to see without a golden core.

Also gotta say that this boy is severely depressed. Like "I'm-going-to-ask-my-doctor-friend-to-perform-a-mutliple-day-long-surgery-on-myself-in-which-I-will-be-awake-where-she'll-rip-out-the-core-of-my-being-and-transplant-it-into-my-adopted-brother-who-I'll-make-sure-never-finds-out-what-happened-even-though-he'll-come-to-hate-me" depressed. he has no value for his own life other than what he can give to others, even if it's his own body. like I think some fans unfairly classify him as being insane when he's really just depressed as all hell and having the worst possible things happen to him one after another and every time he breaks down it causes more trouble and usually people end up dying because of him.

Propaganda:

https://youtu.be/swbXAVADjxY ^ok this clip kinda explains the whole thing better (and obvs spoilers)

https://youtu.be/2wO5nsnkSBk ^and this video is just for fun but it's a little thing about Wei Wuxian & Jiang Cheng because their relationship makes me unwell

Additional Qualifications/Propaganda by @transparent-internet-maker

Kinda surprised ADHD!Wei Wuxian isn't included I thought that was a popular hc. There are several signs: He seems to forget a lot of things, but at the same time he clearly remembers other things that happened a long time ago. He invented a. lot. of things. His mind is almost never where he physically is and he's really smart in that thinks-way-too-much-out-of-the-box-in-a-short-time way. (1/2)

Then there is the fact that he's actually knowledgable, more than most of the others at times, but we see him doing whatever else he wants to instead of studying more often than not. The inventions point and this put together hint at him not being focused and having hyperfixations. And the general view of not studious but still smarter than everyone else just clear adhd I think. NOT trying to hate anyone, I thought I'd just mention this since I've seen a lot of adhd wwx.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Mar 11, 2024

As a child of the Eighties and Nineties, I remember well that homosexuals were fair game in the mainstream media. One columnist in The Star railed against “Wooftahs, pooftahs, nancy boys, queers, lezzies — the perverts whose moral sin is to so abuse the delightful word ‘gay’ as to render it unfit for human consumption”. After the death of Freddie Mercury, sympathy in The Mail on Sunday was limited. “If you treat as a hero a man who died because of his own sordid sexual perversions,” one writer cautioned, “aren’t you infinitely more likely to persuade some of the gullible young to follow in his example?”

It was sadly inevitable that the AIDS crisis would exacerbate this ancient prejudice. A headline in The Sun declared that “perverts are to blame for the killer plague”. And while a writer for the Express held “those who choose unnatural methods of self-gratification” responsible for the disease, letters published in its pages followed suit. One reader called for the incarceration of homosexuals. “Burning is too good for them,” wrote another. “Bury them in a pit and pour on quicklime.” Someone had been reading his Dante.

I happened to come out in a much less hostile climate. In the early 2000s, we were enjoying a kind of Goldilocks moment, neither too hot nor too cold. We weren’t generally on the receiving end of homophobic slurs, but nor were we patronised by well-meaning progressives. My memory of this time was that no one particularly cared, and I was more than happy with that. Being gay for me has never been an identity, it’s simply a fact, as unremarkable as being blue-eyed or right-handed.

And so it has been troubling to see a resurgence in the last few years of the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that was commonplace in my childhood. Of course, it could be argued that the rise of social media has simply exposed sentiments that were previously only expressed in private. As Ricky Gervais has pointed out, before the digital era “we couldn’t read every toilet wall in the world. And now we can.”

Yet the most virulent homophobia appears to be coming from a new source. Whereas we have always been accustomed to this kind of thing from the far-Right — one recalls Nick Griffin’s remark on Question Time about how he finds the sight of two men kissing “really creepy” — but now the most objectionable anti-gay comments arise in online spheres occupied by gender ideologues, from those who claim to be progressive, Left-wing and “on the right side of history”. The significant difference is that the word “cis” has been added to the homophobe’s lexicon. Some examples:

“Cis gay men are a disease.”

“Cis gay men are truly some of the most grotesque creatures to burden this earth.”

“I hate cis gay people with a burning passion.”

“If you’re a cis gay man and your sexuality revolves around you not liking female genitalia I hope you die and I will spit on your grave.”

“Cis gays don’t deserve rights.”

“There’s so many reasons to hate gay people, most specifically white gays, but there’s never a reason to be a transphobe.”

“It’s time to normalise homophobia.”

Of course, any bile can be found on the internet, but these kinds of phrases are remarkably commonplace among certain online communities. Even a cursory search will reveal innumerable examples of gender ideologues casually branding gay men “fags” or “faggots”, praising the murder of gays and lesbians, and claiming that the AIDS epidemic was a positive thing. Many thousands of examples had been collated on Google Photos under the title “Woke homophobia: anti-gay hatred & boxer ceiling abuse from trans activists & gender-identity ideologues”. The site was taken down last year, presumably because it violated Google’s policy on hate speech — or perhaps because it revealed the toxicity of the ideology the company has spent so long promoting.

If such ideas were restricted to the demented world of internet activism, we might be justified in simply ignoring it. But we now know that the overwhelming majority of adolescents referred to the Tavistock paediatric gender clinic were same-sex attracted. Whistleblowers have spoken out about the endemic homophobia, not simply among clinicians but also parents who were keen to “fix” their gay offspring. And of course there was the running joke among staff that soon “there would be no gay people left”.

And now a series of leaked internal messages and videos from WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), has revealed that clinicians in the leading global organisation for transgender healthcare have openly admitted in private that some teenagers mistake being same-sex attracted for gender dysphoria. The result of the “gender-affirming” approach has amounted to what one former Tavistock clinician recently described as “conversion therapy for gay kids”. Homosexuality was removed from the World Health Organisation’s list of psychiatric disorders in 1993, and yet here we are medicalising it all over again.

So how did we reach the point where gay conversion therapy is being practised in plain sight by the NHS? Much of the responsibility has to lie with Stonewall, a group that once promoted equal rights for gay people but now actively works against their interests. It has even gone so far as to redefine “homosexual” on its website and resource materials as “same-gender attracted”. It should go without saying that gay men are not attracted to women who identify as men, any more than lesbians should be denounced for excluding those with penises from their dating pools. What trans activists call discrimination, most of us call homosexuality.

Indeed, activists often claim that “genital preferences are transphobic”, or that sexual orientation based on biological sex is a form of “trauma”. The idea that homosexuality is a sickness was one of the first homophobic tropes I encountered as a child. Now it is being rebranded as progressive.

As for Stonewall, its former CEO Nancy Kelley went so far as to argue that women who exclude trans people as potential partners are analogous to “sexual racists”. She claimed that “if you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions”. It is worth remembering that Stonewall is deeply embedded in many governmental departments and quangos, as well as corporate and civic institutions. Anti-gay propaganda is being reintroduced into society from the very top.

Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service has been meeting with trans lobby groups such as Mermaids and Stonewall to discuss changes to prosecutorial policy in cases of sex by deception. Since these meetings — only revealed after sustained pressure from a feminist campaigner who submitted Freedom of Information requests — the CPS has recommended what Dennis Kavanagh of the Gay Men’s Network has described as “a radical trans activist approach to sex by deception prosecutions that would see them all but vanish”. In trans activist parlance, the barriers to having sex with lesbians and gay men are known as the “cotton ceiling” and “boxer ceiling”. Now it seems the establishment is attempting to support the coercion of gay people into heterosexual activity.

Consider a recent post on X by Stephen Whittle, OBE, a professor of equalities law at Manchester Metropolitan University. In a reply to LGB Alliance’s Bev Jackson, Whittle took issue with the notion that “love is all about genitals” (an argument that Jackson has never made). Having dismissed this straw man as “a very hetero/homo-normative perspective”, Whittle then claimed that “a lot of gay men can’t resist a young furry ftm [female-to-male] cub”.

While it is true that there are some bisexuals who identify as gay, it is simply not the case that homosexual men “can’t resist” certain kinds of women. As Jackson rightly noted in her response, this is rank homophobia, “disturbed and disturbing on every level”. Yet it has been expressed by an individual who has been described as a “hero for LGBTQ+ equality”. With heroes like these, who needs villains?

Another example is Davey Wavey, a popular online influencer, who has encouraged gay men to perform heterosexual acts in a video called “How to Eat Pussy — For Gay Men”. It may as well have been called “Gay Conversion Therapy 2.0”. We are firmly back in the Eighties, where gays are being told that they “just haven’t found the right girl yet” and lesbians are assured that they just “need a good dick”. And yet now these demeaning ideas are being propagated by those who claim to be defending the rights of sexual minorities.

The Government’s recent guidance on how schools are to accommodate trans-identified pupils — in which biological sex will take precedence over identity — has been met with horror from gender ideologues. One of the common refrains one hears from activists is that it represents “this generation’s Section 28”. But this is to get it precisely backwards. Gay rights were secured on the recognition that a minority of the population are same-sex attracted. In dismantling the very notion of sex and substituting it for this nebulous concept of “gender identity”, activists and their disciples in parliament are undoing all of the achievements of previous gay rights movements.

The widespread homophobia of the Eighties, epitomised by Section 28, was based on the notion that homosexuality was unnatural, dangerous and ought to be corrected. Present-day gender identity ideology perceives homosexuality as evidence of misalignment between soul and body. In other words, it seeks to “fix” gay people so that they fit into a heterosexual framework. It is no coincidence that so many detransitioners are gay people who were simply struggling with their sexuality. Gender identity ideology is the true successor to Section 28.

The proponents of this revamped gay conversion therapy dismiss our concerns as “transphobia” and “bigotry”, or as part of a manufactured “culture war”. Worse still, the new homophobia is being cheered on by those it will hurt most. While prominent gay figures continue to feed the beast that wishes to devour them, we are unlikely to see this dire situation improve any time soon. It was bad enough in the Eighties, when gay people were demonised and harassed by the establishment. Who thought we would have to fight these battles all over again?

[alarrytale]

Turning to you because you always brings interesting points when there´s a queer convo. Maybe I´m not even the only one who´s writing this. So, there´s a photos from G*mma´s book under the chapter Knowing me, knowing you? and unfortunately it may be taken from the larger context as author of the photo didn´t take the photo of whole page. So she writes: "I understand that many people feel strongly that queer parts in TV and film should go to queer actors. But to harass someone on social media like that, especially someone who is only 18 years old - and who described to UK V*gue the sudden and extreme level of fame the show brought them as ´scary´ and ´overwhelming´ - seemed cruel and sad, not to say very much against the spirit and message of the show. When someone uses a label for themselves it can be empowering, but nobody ´owes´ us a label. They should be offered, not demanded."

It´s obvious that she´s talking about K*t C*nnor and his experience of forced coming out but no doubt she also has his brother in her mind when writing this (especially the last sentence). I mean it fits the narrative when H used to keep telling in the interviews that his label is p-word and he won´t share it as he doesn´t owe it to anyone. What is your opinion to what G wrote? I guess your opinion on H´s label and his narrative how he came out to his family and friends and doesn´t owe it to anyone is just an elegant way to avoid this discussion? As he just can´t come out because of his image and the fact he´s S*ny´s golden goose who needs to stay straight as he´s been the only male singer-heartthrob in years and he needs to keep going like that because there´s noone who will replace his position.

Hi, anon!

Here is a longer quote:

Oh, boy. Where to start. Can i start by saying how tired i am of G*mma always taking the high moral ground and chastisising a group of people she doesn’t fully understand? I've lost count of how many times she's done this. She hasn't got the faintest clue what she's talking about, because she hasn't got the full picture.

Second of all, she's straight and privileged. What she shares with her mother and brother is the complete inability to understand their own privilege and view things from a minority and unprivileged position. Has she even tried to see things from other's point of view? Has she considered that she doesn’t need to have an opinon, as a straight person, on the topic of queer representation and queer normalisation and progression? Has she considered that a neuanced view, and understanding why queer people (she says "people", but who the fuck cares what straight people feel about queer actors in queer roles....) want and need queer actors in queer roles? Has she?

Has she also thought about how celebrities are chosen by popularity by the public to represent the public? And if you can’t represent, you should step down and give the opportunity to someone who can? We don’t cast white people to play indigenous people, why should we cast someone who is presenting straight to play queer? If you need time to figure out your sexuality, that's fine. If you don’t want to come out, that's fine. If you want to pretend to be straight, that's fine. But don’t take the opportunity away from queer people to have queer representation and role models! Queer people deserve queer representation. It's not that mf hard...

Aaaaanyways, no, nobody ows anyone a label. But if you are unlabeled or don’t want to disclose your label and at the same time presents straight, that means you can’t publicly represent anybody (except others who are unlabeled). The narrative around H being unlabeled is to create mystery and ambiguity around H as a person. He's gay and he's been out to everyone but the public since he was 16 at least. So, while it's a way to avoid the topic, it's also a way to be a blank slate and to be everything to everybody.

I just also want to mention how she's avoiding the topic of queerbaiting here, because that also plays a part of the outrage that Kit (and H) face. Funny that...

[saphig-iawn]

Day 7 of Turning me into Me

I've done it. My dear sweet girlies, my shes, gays, theys, and whatever-the-hays, I've done it. I have gone 7 whole days sticking to my plan. On November 12th I saw my face without a beard for the first time in 11 years and while my mask of masculinity was gone I still didn't like what I saw. I chose that day to be the worst I would ever feel about myself and made a decision to put the future me into production, rather than wait for HRT to do it all for me. I was inspired by a trans friend of mine who went through a similar journey to get surgery and she just told me so bluntly how easy it'd be. So I did.

And here I am, a whole week of walking every day, a whole week of not eating when I'm bored, a whole week of no sugar drinks (sorry monster). I am the happiest I have ever been. My head is so full of the things I'd wear, the makeup I'd try, the ways I can enjoy my body (also tbh I am really excited about the clothes holy FUCK). It was as easy as my friend said, "just don't do it, lol" were literally the words out of her mouth. I even took my first selfie that I liked.

But these aren't the only reasons why I'm still going. It is everyone who has come by and seen me talking about my journey and have shown me support. I've had DMs, Asks, RBs all telling me how they found my writing at the right time, and also at the wrong time and giving them something to think about. The fact that little old me could be a single part of someone's journey into their true self is just.. it.. it makes this so much better and so much more worthwhile.

You see, I used to be in a big discord server that belonged to a streamer. Over time it became harder to remain there. I wasn't out at the time but had so many girlies who were and they fought so well when laddish bigotry and cishet male-ry would bubble up and ruin people's day. But then one particularly bad night would result in blatant transphobia being slung in the chat and despite so many girlies calling it out, it was normalised by the server owner. I was DMing the girlies about how it just fucking sucked and that I wanted to do something but I was so scared and so tired and they sympathised with me. But I had had enough and thus turned my coming out into a weapon. I wanted them to know that their words hurt so many more people than they think; the silent queers that sit and see bigotry become commonplace in a space that has been advertised as safe, the questioning girls-to-be and boys-to-be seeing people write off their feelings under Devil's Advocacy. I told them they weren't allies, there was no support, and I was coming out and they better fucking pack it in. But when the culture is entrenched, even something like that doesn't change much. But my coming out caused a ripple, and I did see the names of people I had never interacted with before show love, and I knew that it was enough for them. I hope that me, setting myself ablaze in that server and leaving from the ashes, was enough for those names I saw.

A big thank you to everyone who has said hello, got in touch, or even just liked. I have such a deep and unshakeable love for you.

[onetimetwotimesthreetimess]

i finally watched RWRB (it was hell not being able to watch the second it came out) anyways—one scene that stood out for me was the sex scene. I personally don’t care for sex scenes in movies/shows but the entirety of cinema is filled with heterosexual sex scenes. I was watching the movie with my younger brother (I force him to watch all my gay stuff—he’s an ally *inserts Imogen’s voice*). When the sex scene came, my brother asked me “what? Gay sex can happen in missionary position? and I’m just like?? brother of mine—ofc they can. how tf do u think they do it and he just said that he always thought that it can only happen from behind and I was like????? my point is that this is a man who is very much sexually active—he knows more about the lgbtqia+ community than most brown cis straight men and yet he didn’t know this. And I’m not saying that everyone has to know everything related to sex but the world teaches kids how heterosexual sex works since like they’re what? 10 years old? and kids find out through porn and friends and other stuff. And my brother could have googled this too but there’s such a taboo over homosexual sex—especially a straight man would never Google how two men have sex and this is why that scene felt so important to me because it’s important to normalise gay/lesbian (lgbtqia+) sex, it’s so important to have stupid little rom-cons, it’s so so important to let our community exist and be okay and be proud of our lives and wants and desires. Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk byee—

[vintage-bentley]

I saw you mention Hazbin Hotel and couldn't help myself... The Charlie/Vaggie situation is even worse if you take into account related show Helluva Boss. The gay/bi men in HB are also plenty sexual and it's shown that the main m/m couple fucks nasty. While lesbians kinda don't exist? Like there's lotta dick jokes in these shows but I don't recall any jokes about scissoring or something. I found the Chaggie relationship cute and even interesting (mainly due to episode 6 spoiler reasons) but the weird desexualisation in a show that's all about hell, murder, drugs and sex (and redemption ig) is so lame. Even if they were just rly private about this stuff (for non-homophobic reasons I'm sure) there could have been at least a "Angel accidentally interupts them when they're having sex (and Vaggie almost murders him for it)" type of joke but nope. (Idc if Charlie is sunshine personified, she can still go down on her gf lol.)

Sorry for sending this to your GO blog 😂

No need to be sorry, I was actually going to make a post asking people to send me their criticisms!! I loved the show but I had issues with it just like I do with everything 😂 I’m picky, especially when it comes to depicting SSA. One of my issues is how Angel is basically the embodiment of what I would describe if I was trying to explain the fetishism of gay men.

I love Helluva boss too, and that’s part of why I was so annoyed by Charlie and Vaggie’s situation. One of my gripes with that show is the lack of lesbians (I can’t remember if there’s bi women, I know the creator has her own headcanons of everyone’s sexuality) and F/F relationships. Considering how Blitzø/Stolas is so sexualised, I can’t help but feel like it’s a classic case of “wow I love gay men so much!! Anyway did I tell you about how a lesbian looked in my general direction today? Gross, right?”.

And omg you’re so right about the dick jokes. They’re EVERYWHERE. But pussy jokes are pretty rare, and they never come from a woman if they do pop up. I think that has a lot to do with how normalised it is to talk and joke about penis, while vulvas are still considered fairly taboo.

There’d be so many ways to make some sort of sex joke with Charlie/Vaggie…I love your idea with Angel 😂

Charlie being the “sunshine” type would make it even funnier imo. You know how she blurts swear words and it’s kind of a shock? I can see that also happening with some sex comment.

This just isn’t the show for a sanitised lesbian relationship imo. If the creator wanted that, she should’ve made Charlie/Vaggie a couple in Heaven. But in Hell with everybody constantly talking about sex? It stands out like a sore thumb and honestly seems cowardly. The fact that the only mention of them fucking so far has been from the misogynist chad character really rubs me the wrong way, too. I love Charlie and Vaggie, I think they’re adorable. So I really want them to escape this trap of being all “teehee we’re girls and we hold hands” .