#as an inherently queer or less masculine thing

[neonfretra]

fruity is the new metrosexual and my honest to god belief is if you want to call a stranger kind of zesty for wearing too tight pants just replace the new buzzword of the day with the f slur and reconsider your statement

[trans-androgyne]

For men having a rough time right now, my friends and I have put together a couple reminders:

1) You are not a monster. Nothing in your nature predisposes you towards violence. Your presence does not harm others and there are people who love having you in their space. Yes including around women. Yes including around children. You are not inherently dangerous, you are a person just like everyone else. Your body is not a weapon.

2) You don’t have anything to prove. You don’t have to be strong. You don’t have to serve and protect others if you don’t want to. Even women. You don’t deserve to be treated as a punching bag for others’ anger or trauma at the hands of the patriarchy, and it’s not okay for them to take it out on you. You deserve to be protected too.

3) Your emotions matter. All of your emotions. Your anger isn’t dangerous. You can be sad and hurt and jealous and guilty and a million other things and express them in whatever way you need, all without being less of a man or more of a threat. Women’s needs and emotions are equal to yours, not more important. You’re allowed to talk about sexism and other issues you experience as a man—it doesn’t make you anti-feminist and it sure as hell doesn’t make you weak. Being mistreated can hurt, and you can let yourself feel and process it.

4) Manhood can be wonderful—make it your own. You don’t have to be masculine if you don’t want to. You can present and act however femininely you want without being any less of a man. You can also be the most masculine person alive. Masculinity is not toxic by itself. Being masculine does not make you toxic. Being a man does not make you toxic. Nothing about you is inherently toxic. Your attraction is not immoral and being attracted to you isn’t either. Manhood is not a contagion. Be whatever kind of man you want to be, it is completely up to you.

There are people who love and care about you. I care about you deeply and as an intersectional trans feminist I will advocate for you until my last breath. This goes for every single man alive. Cis men, trans men, intersex men, multigender men, straight men, queer men, White men, men of color, disabled men, and more; every single one of you. You deserve care. Let us care for you.

[hillbillyoracle]

So I saw this screencap earlier

And I thought it was a great chance to talk about something.

A lot of progressive folks are familiar with the fact that right wing circles use feminine as a derogatory term and that there's a real cost to that for women.

What people are less familiar with is how it hurts men - queer and straight, cis and trans.

And I'm not shocked given how common it is in left leaning spaces to be reactionary (read: dismissive or outright harass) when men try to talk about these what these issues look like for them.

When men talk about how they've experienced toxic masculinity and anti-feminine bias, in addition to the usual right wing responses, I'm starting to see a bunch of supposed feminists and trans/queer allies harass them as well - saying they're hurting women/feminine presenting folks by "centering men", dismissing their concerns as made up (even when there's research to back it up), "why aren't you talking about what this is like for cis and trans women instead??".

I've seen trans men accused of being TERFs or being liars (by other trans people even - wtf) when they talk about their experiences of allies actively excluding them from trans spaces or harassing them for using T4T tags. I've seen men be accused of lying about publicly accessible clinical research that shows men make up 75%-77% of suicide cases - or worse suggest they deserve it. I see posts about how men's complaints "aren't unique to them" and dismiss them because women also suffer things those authors assume are the same (even when the research contradicts this).

And here's the thing:

When you assume feminine=good/safe/gentle and masculine=bad/unsafe/enemy - you're parroting a conservative talking point.

There is no way around this fact.

A big part of what underpins child rearing being "the woman's domain" in conservatism, is the idea that men are inherently dangerous and therefore shouldn't really be around children without women present.

The reason why they blame women for abuse and rape - because they believe men are inherently dangerous and if a woman trusted them then it's her fault.

Part of why women have been effectively banned from many trades and careers for so long is the assumption that being around that many men presents an inherent danger to a woman.

"But!" you might be saying, "This person is clearly talking about men engaging in open conflict as good here!"

Yeah because conservatives see politics as an inherently male/dangerous/toxic sphere and uphold it as such.

I could go on and on really.

All of this is to say - please be more thoughtful in what you consume, comment, and reblog.

There are experiences specific to being masculine. Erasing that is one, a dick move, but two, particularly violent toward those talking about trans masculine, minority masculine, disabled masculine, and queer masculine experiences.

All privilege comes at a cost. Listening when people talk about that cost is key building a new more fair reality. Seeing the privilege is not worth the cost makes fervent allies. Want more allies? Don't be a dick to people having that realization.

Push back against the assumption of woman=good and man=bad when you see it - especially in community spaces. The amount of times I've seen domestic violence services only available to women is insane...

Do not let identarian politics blind you to the fact we're all human and working toward our own liberation should not come at the oppression of another. Believe me, those with real power would much rather you stay raging out at men in a similar class with you than directing your efforts at them.

The right wing wants you to believe it's either/or. Fuck that - it's both/and.

[mvmnbnv]

It gets upsetting to see people try and strip vi of everything that makes her noticeably afab in the name of butch/masc/gnc rep. Like headcanons and getting rep out of her character is one thing, but putting on blinders and acting like everything not traditionally masculine about her has to be canonically not there is insane.

Her soft voice? Take it down a few octaves bc butches aren't allowed to have soft voices apparently. Pretend it's a little lower

Her hands? make them look just like Vanders even though theyre actually feminine looking

Her blatant use of makeup? It has to be stylized drawing

Her hair getting longer? "Ew no I hate it give her her "butch haircut" back!!!" (bc apparently butches can't have long hair ig...)

Her body? Ignore the fact that she has curves, she's only allowed to have muscles and no hips (like both can't exist simultaneously)

Her vulnerability? Doesn't fucking exist...despite the numerous times where she was...

People love to go on about "listening to butches/mascs/gnc ppl" until it's time to listen to those of us who aren't traditionally masculine or androgynous...like rep for the trad masc ppl is great but those of us who aren't see ourselves vi too...I know for myself there are a lot of things about me that wouldn't be considered very masculine, from looks to behaviors, and vi is perfect rep for me. I'm a masc woman with what could be considered more feminine traits. Sometimes it's hard asf to even pass as masc, but regardless I'm still masc. Seeing someone like vi who has all these traits that would be considered feminine while still carrying herself in an inherently masculine way is the epitome of perfect rep for me. And probably many other masc/gnc ppl. Take the "butches can only be one way" lenses off when acknowledging vi...she's perfect rep for a variety of queer ppl, and it's a deservice to act like her canon traits make her any less butch, so you feel the need to turn them down to make her more "adequate" in your mind

[ventbloglite]

The thing is...I've read a lot of posts and listened to a lot of videos by binary trans men & women and non-binary people of any AGAB and intersex people to whom masculinity is assumed or desired.

Each group has unique experiences with unique bigotry targetted at them for being who they are. But each group also experiences misplaced bigotry, aimed at a different group but used to hurt them anyway.

There's also a distinct and very real overlap between transmisogyny and transandrophobia. The thread that connects these concepts for binary and nonbinary trans masc people, AMAB's of any identity (intersex and not), and yeah even some butch cis lesbians is what we've been harking on about so long - the inherent villianising of masculinity in particularly when deemed to be in the 'incorrect' place!

A butch woman is not expected to be 'too masculine'. If she's seen as failing womanhood in this way, she will face discrimination from others for doing this even amongst other lesbians.

Attending groups or events for 'women and nonbinary' only to find out they mean 'women and women-lite' and don't want anyone with any proximity to masculinity to be there. Being told or being able to quickly understand that your masculinity is making others uncomfortable despite the fact that you are amongst other queer people/trans people. Being expected to preform femininity to a certain stereotyped degree to prove you are 'safe'.

These are all specific things which could be considered both transandrophobia OR transmisogyny, depending on who they happen to but...now here me out, doesn't that just mean we need to sit and realise that the distinction between them isn't always rigid? That there is an antimasculine issue within the trans and queer community but it doesn't target any one particular group over another. The acceptance of queer masculinity is a must. It won't solve all issues not by far, but would go a long way into making sure trans women (especially but not just those who 'don't pass' and maybe never want to be feminine anyway) feel more accepted and less like they'll always be seen as predators for being born male/assigned male at birth. It'll go a long way into accepting the 'men' part of trans men and the 'masc' part of any trans masc. It'll go a long way to accepting butch lesbians are still women despite their outward proximity to 'maleness'.

And if you're seriously reading this and are about to go on a tirade about how masculinity is praised and desired in society - stop. Cis masculinity is praised and desired and even then it has rules.

The world is a lot more complex than men and masculinity good anything else bad but unfortunately if you keep seeing it this way even if you disagree you are going to be responsible for both transandrophobia and transmisogyny persisting.

[trannytink]

i’ve seen an uptick in positivity posts for feminine trans men (which is a good thing!). but it’s come at a time where many parts of the queer community are directly equating queerness with femininity and masculine queer people are being mocked, excluded, or shunned. so i feel a reminder is in order that we also need to let trans men be masculine.

if you’re ftm or a trans guy or a transmasc person and you’re not comfortable being feminine, you deserve just as much love and support as any other trans persom.

if you’re ftm or a trans guy or a transmasc person and you “pass” as a cis man you still deserve access to queer spaces and you deserve just as much love and support as any other trans person.

you shouldn’t ever need to hide or soften or deny your masculinity to gain acceptance and support. you’re allowed to feel hurt or angry when people say they hate men. being masculine does not inherently make you “threatening” or “less queer”. you are beautiful and you are loved and queer masculinity is, has been, and will forever continue to be an important facet of queer identity across time and space.

[reveriesofawriter]

it's no longer morning and I've had time with my thoughts so, some words (from a writer perspective):

elle woods taught you better than this

when a caricature is done right it can be fun, but when it's reductive and boils a person down to harmful stereotypes, then it becomes something akin to bullying even if it's done with allegedly good intentions

there's some kind of transphobic violence in reducing a person's self expression down to just princess or bimbo like maybe you think it's subversive somehow to flip the script and reduce a man to those characteristics instead of a woman, but painting a man as femme and then degrading him like society does to women is not the feminist take you think it is

if you're writing a man who dresses super feminine and all his defining characteristics are soft and delicate and pretty But He's Not A Woman, it feels like calling a gay man a fairy, it feels like reducing him to a slur and not in a way that he can reclaim because it's so often accompanied by a narrative of inadequacy or a storyline that suggests there's something in that version of queerness that needs to be overcome, not embraced

there are great fic writers out there who are writing luke over and over as distinct characters who all have that through line of being based on the same core personality without being degrading or reducing him into the same 2-dimensional typecast every time

this one's a jess quote: "there's nothing woke or good about putting feminine qualities on a man and treating him like he's subordinate because of them"

in conclusion, if your view on luke either as a real person or as a fic character is that he's just a dumb blonde, you're simply wrong <3

taking deep breaths so I don't start my morning with a rant

[degenderates]

i'm like so genuinely surprised that considering breaking bad has been one of the most popular and well-acclaimed shows of the past decade that there isn't a larger transformative fandom surrounding it. like there are only 860 works on ao3 for walter/jesse and less than 4k works under the "breaking bad" tag as a whole. i guess that's because it was considered a mainstream, cishet-type show but it really is quite homoerotic and even without that, its honesty and viscerality in portraying long-term abuse is incredible. i compared it to hannibal to one of my friends, except with a greater age gap and even more unequal balance of power (both due to age but also the personalities of the person being manipulated--will vs. jesse).

i think it's a combination of the toxicity of their relationship as well as the concept of the show that prevented breaking bad from being a huge fandom a la tumblr style. because you have hannibal being super popular a decade after it's off the air, but breaking bad is not inherently queer the way hannibal is, both regarding the creators of the show and the content itself. however i think, like supernatural, the show says a LOT about toxic masculinity and is a very smart commentary, and the tumblr girlies would like it if it wasn't just known as a meme online (funny how again, the same thing could be said for the actual subtexts and commentaries of supernatural)

anyway this post came about because i just wish there was more waltjesse fanart</3

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

I want to write a meta on Stede Bonnet of Our Flag Means Death and internalized homophobia. A lot of this is going to be a rehash of something I said to an anon back in october of 2022 but I feel like it deserves to be put out without rancid anon takes attached.

Our Flag Means Death as a show is trying to do a deconstruction of toxic masculinity. I feel very comfortable in saying that seeing as David Jenkins had "A lot of what we're taught about what it means to be a man is wrong" and a show about gay men with a thesis like that is necessarily also deconstructing homophobia, even if it doesn't center homophobia, which ofmd does not, it keeps it in just out of frame at all times, because it prefers to center queer joy. However that doesn't mean it's not there and I want to talk about the one place where it exists that I feel like people don't really touch on.

Stede is a character that comes from a background of wealth, of rigid adherence to social norms that he was never able to fully fit into. There are rules for what men do and what women do and those rules must be obeyed and Stede learns this the hard way, by getting tied in a boat and having things thrown at him for picking flowers. By being bullied relentlessly for being soft and weak. Under such conditions you can’t not internalize those rules.

Stede also is very insecure, in episode 2 it's established that he struggles with feelings of inadequacy. A lot of Stede’s guilt comes from his inability to preform the roles of husband and father, roles which were thrust upon him without his consent and stand in opposition to his identity as a gay man, at least in the 1700s. Stede considers himself a coward for his inability to preform these rolls. Stede is unable to forgive himself for being unable to fit into the heterosexual expectations that society as placed on him.

Blackbeard is also a hypermasculine figure. A role that Ed finds himself unable to fit into. That’s why Ed and Stede seem to be in the same place when they first meet. They’re both trying to break out of these rigid boxes that have been forced upon them. Blackbeard is less heterosexual, more specific, but it’s still a distinctly male expectation which is tied up in cultural ideals about masculinity, especially non-white masculinity. And the whole show Izzy, a gender conforming character who seems to go out of his way to talk down to any man he perceives as even a little bit soft, is trying to force Ed into it, and when he tries to imply that Ed isn’t Blackbeard enough he does it by emasculating him

Ed is open, at least when he's made to feel like he's in a safe environment, about not wanting to be blackbeard anymore. Stede suggests retirement and provides him space to experiment with reinventing himself, but at the end of the day Stede doesn't believe him because Stede venerates Blackbeard as one of the most fearsome pirates of all time (something I expect to be a large point of contention between them in the next season). When Ed finally shakes off his captaincy and tries to leave Blackbeard behind for good Stede ends up blaming himself for it, because he perceives Ed's desire to leave a role that is hurting him behind as him being ruined, the same way Stede perceives his own failure as a husband and father as an inherently corrosive thing.

Unpacking Chauncey's speech in season 1 episode 10 and why Stede agrees with it is fundamental here. Gay people have been for centuries been portrayed as corrupting influences trying to convert people to our lifestyle. We've been portrayed as horror villains. Our sex is portrayed as defilement. We're accused of being groomers who want to corrupt others to our way of life, we're accused of recruiting. This is one of the more classic homophobic tropes. So when Chauncy says you're a monster who defiles beautiful things there is venom and oppression behind it. And Stede agrees to it because he does believe himself to have corrupted Ed away from being Blackbeard into being kind of a pansy like Stede. And that he defiled his family by leaving despite it being what he needed to do.

And so his reaction to this is to shove himself back into the closet and try to be Mary's husband again.

I'm not passing moral judgement on Stede, it's just difficult to interpret the show without seeing the subtextual journey of overcoming internalized homophobia that Stede goes on.

[doberbutts]

One of the things that really confuses me (I'm a cis woman of color) is this doubling down on the idea that Black men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're Black, gay men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're gay, trans men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're trans, etc. It feels like people are being intentionally obtuse. You can't separate my identity as a POC from my identity as a woman. I am treated the way I'm treated because I'm a woman of color, those two things work together. That's where discussions of intersectionality originated. So to say you can separate a privileged identity from an oppressed one is just.... not how anything works?

I constantly see "masculinity isn't criminalized/demonized, Blackness, queerness, transness are" and it's like.... no, that's not how this happens. Marginalized men face specific oppression based on the intersection of their identities. It seems like lately people are willing to understand that for women but not willing to for men and I just don't know how we make any progress if radfem rhetoric has become so pervasive that people are refusing to see lived realities rather than some abstract hypothetical they've come up with.

Personally I think this is due to (white) people seeing and liking black theory that they personally agree with or that makes sense to be applied to their own lives, and then cut out all the parts that are inconvenient for them to have to reconcile. Much like how many, many, many black feminists who are cis women have said "hey, white feminists, stop it with the all men are rapists thing, it actively contributes to black men getting lynched for crimes they didn't commit because it gets weaponized unfairly against our brothers" and white feminists collectively forgot how to read and abandoned their listening skills while still praising other parts of black feminism that talk about domestic violence and sexual assault and oversexualization and reproductive rights and rightly taking black men to task for their continued complacency in this.

The phrase "intersectionality" originated in black feminist theory. I do not trust any white person to fully understand black feminism when they use it as a bludgeon to make the inconvenient bits be quiet. Much of what is on this blog is black feminism. It is inconvenient for white people to have to consider how their words and actions may harm people of color while still lifting themselves up.

As you have said, you cannot separate the "of color" from the "woman" parts of your identity. You are a woman of color. That changes how both sexism and racism works against you in a system that is both sexist and racist. I, in the same manner, cannot separate the "trans" from the "man"- if I were not a man, I would be a woman. I am AFAB, if I am a woman, I am not trans. There is no "you experience this because you are transgender, not because you are a man". In order to be a man, in my body, I have to be transgender*. Just like there is no "you experience this because you are black, not because you are a man". I am a black man. The black experience is inherently, often forcibly, gendered. I can tell you exactly how people treating me changed in a "before" and "after". I can tell you that yes, some of it absolutely stems from the "man" part, they treat me this way because I am a black man.

But people often misunderstand intersectionality to be, exclusively, axis of oppression. And so they say, well learn intersectionality, men aren't oppressed and thus it's not an axis of oppression to combine. But that ignores that some men are oppressed, marginalized men are oppressed and often with a very gendered slant. And it ignores that, like how you cannot separate the "woman" from the "of color", neither can you do that with men.

Men are not the default. They are slightly less than half the population, same as women.

*re: in order to be a man in my body I must be transgender; yes, I am intersex. However I have been out as transgender for 17 years, and discovered I am intersex 6 months ago. So for me, that is very much the case. For other intersex people who were assigned female at birth, that may not be the case. This is something that works on an individual level but cannot be broadbrushed as there are many different opinions among intersex people regarding our cisgender vs transgender status.

[violottie]

Things that alot of this 'community' says and defends as "so queer actually™" when its just straight up lesbophobia:

(lesbians feel free to add to this and share other bullshit youve heard from this beloved 'community')

being a lesbian is just about having a stronger preference for/attraction to women than other genders

lesbian just means queer attraction to women. its not and never was exclusive

you can be a bi/pan/mspec lesbian because lesbianism isnt exclusive

lesbians can have exceptions

trans men can identify as lesbians because they have 'history/experience of womanhood' or they have the 'right hardware down there'

trans men can identify as lesbians because the line between butches and trans men is 'blurred' or 'overlaps'

lesbians used to have sex with men all the time

sometimes a lesbian will want to have sex with a man and they can and should and it doesnt make them less lesbian. action doesnt mean attraction.

asexuals can have sex without having sexual attraction so lesbians can do the same

everyone's a little bisexual

a lesbian hating men is biphobic and misandrist

a lesbian being les4les is biphobic

lesbianism is so restrictive

lesbianism is fluid

men are going to be predatory to lesbians anyway so it doesnt matter

lesbians centering hating men as essential to their sexuality is misandrist and exclusionary

lesbians talking about liking pussy is terf rhetoric

lesbians are so predatory and aggressive

lesbians are like men

lesbians are terfs and radfems

lesbians are mean and rude

lesbians who use he/him pronouns and/or are gnc are actually trans men. especially if theyre butch/stud lesbians

butch and stud lesbians are just like men

butch means masculine and femme means feminine

butches are the man in the relationship and femmes are the woman in the relationship

butches and femmes are replicating & reinforcing patriarchy and heterosexual gender roles

the futch scale is a real thing guys fr

lesbianism is inherently bioessentialist

lesbians are genital fetishists for liking pussy

bonus

this cis, white, heterosexual blonde woman in a heterosexual romantic relationship with a cis, white heterosexual man is the most lesbian lesbian to ever lesbian and that time she wore khaki slacks was the single most butch thing ever to butch 😉

[trans-androgyne]

but what is WRONG about the statement “men and masculinity are privileged above women and femininity, so transmascs must be privileged above transfems”? that is sound logic, and it’s not disconnected from reality, because reality supports the idea that men and masculinity are privileged above women and femininity. even among trans people. that statement means “there is a particular scrutiny and struggle that women face that men do not”, not “men and masculine people aren’t ever oppressed and trans men don’t experience transphobia”. you seem to think that the issue is that not enough transfems/people are listening to what transmascs are saying about their own experiences, but when it comes to transfems talking about how their experiences with oppression are more severe, it’s perfectly ok for you to not listen to them?

Incorrect. The reality is that isn’t true for everyone, which is what we’ve been trying to demonstrate over and over. “Men and masculinity are privileged” when it’s cis men. Masculinity and identification with manhood is not encouraged above femininity for women or people believed to be women. Femininity for me would be gender conformity. Masculinity makes me transgender. And we are kicked in the teeth for it constantly, by both cis people and our own queer/trans community. All the worst stereotypes of both men and women are applied to us, as is true for trans women. If that supposedly common sense logic copy + pasted from narrow cisfeminist understandings were to be taken literally, transmascs would be privileged over cis women too gender-wise because masculinity is privileged over femininity, and we just Happen to experience transphobia with zero gendered oppression.

I am listening. I have been listening and agreeing and supporting for years and years and years. But other people speaking up made me realize my problems mattered too even if they didn’t fit into the narrative. And now this is my response. Now I want to be heard. I am telling you that my masculinity—my queer, my trans masculinity—is not fucking privileged above shit. I was nearly kicked out over it; I have been made to feel like I am ugly, worthless, and an inherently worse person for it; I am excluded from spaces I need resources from for it; I feel invisible in my community for it. Queer/trans masculinity gets you fucking harassed and assaulted — ask butches! Ask transmascs who don’t pass! Or the stealth ones who suddenly fail to, a nightmare situation for many of us. Look at the numbers for me — trans men and transmasc non-binary people have the highest rates of sexual assault of any gender category. It can and does happen to many due to being transmasc (including someone I know personally) even sometimes taking the route of corrective rape with the intention of “detransitioning” them. I feel less safe since I’ve started transitioning, not more. Before, I wondered if I was being stared at since I was pretty and had long hair. I would get catcalled. It felt gross. Now I wonder if I’m being stared at because I’m visibly queer. I still get catcalled. I feel less gross and more afraid.

We also experience things transfems and cis women don’t! “There is a particular scrutiny and struggle that trans men and mascs face that other people (typically) do not” that’s precisely what I have been trying to convey. And that’s exactly what our tag is full of. The belief that our oppression is “less severe” is mistaken, you just haven’t heard our voices enough. It is the result of our historical and compounding invisibility. We are speaking up and begging you to listen.

[bookshelfdreams]

do it. gimme the Izzy straight-coded meta 👀

I feel like I need to preface this by saying that Actually, Izzy Is Straightcoded would be the inflammatory clickbait title I'd give this if it were written to draw traffic & ad revenue to my shitty website. So don't take that term too seriously.

There has been a lot of ink spilled about Izzy thinking he's in a story where one can only be subtextually queer. Some even by yours truly, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What would be the purpose of queercoding Izzy?

In general, villains* aren't queercoded to show that men being attracted to other men is bad. It's often the outcome; but it's not why the trope exists. It exists because cishet people tend to be (and are encouraged to be) profoundly uncomfortable with gender nonconformity, and so, making a character gnc becomes a quick and easy way to make him appear twisted and untrustworthy. If he** can't even obey the fundamental rules of his own gender (rules that are inherent and unchangeable!) what other rules does he disobey?

Or: If a man is insufficiently masculine, he can't be trusted to have morals. The villain isn't gnc because that's an evil trait to have; rather, the gender nonconformity is a symptom of his evilness. Being evil is what enables him to embrace his feminine side, and embracing his feminine side is what others him and marks him as a villain.

This only really works when he's contrasted with a hero (or heroine) who is Doing Gender Correctly. The villain is foul to highlight how good the hero is. The Hero will be honest and straightforward, brave, physically powerful; the Queercoded Villain treacherous, cowardly, and physically weak. The hero is a Proper Man, a Good Person. The villain an Improper Man, and therefore, a Bad Person.

Of course ofmd fundamentally rejects this. The shorthand wouldn't work, because ofmd simply doesn't think effeminacy is creepy. It's uninterested in moralizing self-expression; it just lets people be how they are. There's a wide range of expressions of masculinity on this show, and none of it is inherently bad. People are allowed to be hypermasculine, flamboyant, and anything inbetween, can express their gender in whatever manner they want, and it's all fine - as long as they are authentic about it. Be however you are, but be yourself, and this is what Izzy fails at. The repression marks him as a villain. The strict adherence to what he thinks a Real Man Pirate ought to be like. He's very preoccupied with enforcing a traditional (and toxic) masculinity on himself and others. It's no coincidence the characters he antagonizes the most - Stede and Lucius - are also the most effeminate ones. And I know, I know anglophones have a much more casual relationship to twat and cunt, those don't nearly feel as uncomfortable for y'all as they do for me, so I don't want to assign too much significance here, but he is the only character who constantly uses this kind of language, and also the one who uses the most gender&sexuality based slurs (as far as I remember).

All of this while being clearly, obviously queer himself! I do not feel like I need to explain this; his flustered reaction when Lucius asks him if he's ever been sketched speaks for itself. The fact that he meets Stede and immediately slices his shirt off of him, speaks for itself. And so on.

Izzy isn't straightcoded in the sense that the story wants us to believe he's exclusively attracted to women. Much like a queercoded villain doesn't need to be shown to be attracted to men (and can even be shown to be attracted exclusively to women!) to still be queercoded. He's straightcoded in the sense that he's a stand-in for restrictive and toxic gender roles that society enforces on people. He buys into the idea that there's a way of Doing Gender Wrong, and this is presented as a tragic character flaw. Something he has to overcome to be able to do the thing that actually marks a hero in this show: express himself authentically.

Part of why I found his death so moving is because it enables him to set right the toxicity he spread. His rehabilitation arc was about himself; about finally allowing himself to be, accepting love, accepting community. His death was about taking responsibility. About fully recognizing the hurt he caused. Looking death in the face enables him to finally abandon the last shreds of that toxicity, to apologize and be granted forgiveness. In the end, he was not beyond saving, and the harm he has done will be healed.

*Izzy is introduced as an antagonist to both Stede and the central romance of this romcom. I'm not gonna debate this; if you disagree, fine, but you clearly have such a fundamentally wrong different view of the show that it's pointless for us to try and convince each other.

**of course Queercoded Female Villains exist s well, but they are a whole different can of worms and less relevant to this discussion

[myfairkatiecat]

I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit, the problem is not "accidentally agreeing with someone when they also disagree with you on other points". I agree that worrying about that is silly. However both my hypothetical post and the actual post, in my opinion, have the problem of presenting a false dichotomy which is indicative of bias. "We need more single mothers in media" is a point which is completely unrelated to the much stupider point of "there are TOO MANY women with jobs in media", and the fact of the matter is that being bothered by seeing women in media who have jobs is, not inherently sexist, but certainly something you would expect more from a misogynist than a non misogynist.

Similarly the original post pairs a point that many agree with - "more fandoms/media should portray close brotherly friendships" - with an unrelated (and in my opinion, very entitled) complaint about fandoms being too gay, as if it's not possible for both gay relationships and brotherly ones to both be respected and given validity without choosing one as the correct or more valid interpretation. Or as if, as the person who responded to that post was alleging, the post was trying to imply that interpreting characters as gay is inherently worse than interpreting them as brotherly. Given that that's a very bold claim, I think supporting that claim with "btw this same person has said this on the topic of gay people irl" is quite normal?

The reason context matters is not because valid points become gross and wrong when said by the wrong person, but because valid sentiments can be used to mask other, less valid sentiments. If you agree with both points, that's one thing, but if you think complaining that fandom is just too gay is indicative of homophobia, "the person who said that has also publicly stated that they don't support the LGBT community" is relevant information in that discussion. And I frankly think that "actually, my friend thinking that fandom is too gay is completely unrelated to that same friend thinking being gay irl is sinful" is a very strange claim that I struggle to believe, in the same way I would not believe it if someone said "the fact that I get mad when I see women on TV with jobs is completely unrelated to me thinking women shouldn't have jobs because then I could sleep with them more easily".

Ok so this is the post in question by @gracefulchristiangirl:

why aren't guys allowed to have strong brotherly friendships anymore without being queer headcannoned anymore. like- not all strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire??? some people have life-long friendships with other guys who are literally their brothers???

Reading comprehension check: “NOT ALL strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire.” This post is a response to the frequent sexualization of male friendship, which feeds a culture of toxic masculinity. If showing affection is consistently interpreted as inherently gay (like posting a gif of Sam and Frodo with the caption “there is NO heterosexual explanation for this” which does happen quite frequently) then straight men are going to be discouraged from being affectionate with their friends because, understandably, they don’t want people unanimously agreeing that they must therefore be a sexuality that they aren’t.

This post is about people erasing the possibility of friendship between two men when they see a certain type of behavior, usually expressions of care or love. This isn’t a response to “I think it would be cool if Merlin and Arthur were gay so I’m going to write a fic where they’re gay,” it’s a response to “look at the way Merlin is looking at Arthur in this scene with so much love in his eyes. Look at the way he holds him tenderly ad he dies. They’re literally so gay, like wdym they aren’t lovers??” One such statement owns that it is something made up by the person with the headcanon, while the other statement makes affection between two men seem inherently romantic! I used the merlin fandom as an example because I have seen that second statement made, almost word for word, and it’s sentiments like those that make me glad for posts like the one we are discussing.

The post is not about gay people. The post is about viewing close male friendships as inherently romantic or sexual in fandom spaces, which is unfortunately very common.

This post is also not about fandom spaces being “too gay,” as you said in your ask. *wags finger like an aunt* mm-mm-mm, that’s not what OP said! She didn’t say fandom spaces were too gay!

[atthebell]

i think my biggest pet peeve about how people perceive spiderbit is when instead of seeing a couple where they're both incredibly strong and confident and in love with each other people people insist that because they show how much they love each other in different ways one of them is less in love than the other (usually roier) or that cellbit is like wimpish and pathetic for being very expressive about being in love with his husband (????). like it always has to be about inherent power dynamics and one of them being the cocky masculine one and the other the smitten feminine (or at least emasculated) one instead of the fact that spiderbit's whole thing is endless devotion and trading off each other's strengths and weaknesses. and also like i do not know how to get this into people's heads but being into your partner is not weak or feminine it's fucking normal or at least should be and it's fucking wild (and by wild i mean homophobic and misogynistic) to take a canonically same-gender queer couple and insist that actually one of them has to be the wife and one has to be the husband, that actually one is always stronger (the "man" of the relationship) and one is always weaker (the "woman" of the relationship). it's utter bullshit it's so regressive and yet it's so common in fandom that it's basically inescapable, and i hate hate HATE that it's how some people look at spiderbit. it's the same mindset as rigid top/bottom dom/sub assigning fandom BULLSHIT and i'm so tired of seeing it in supposedly progressive queer fandom spaces. you are recreating the same bullshit gender essentialism and homophobia that is spouted at you by society. do better.

[moltensmusings]

I'd seen people talk before about how yang became much less feminine once she was an amputee/was gearing up to get with Blake and honestly I don't think that really sunk in until arrowfell.

There is a notable difference between how yang is depicted vs how the other girls are. They have visible lips, soft coloring around their eyes, and notably yang isn't drawn as busty as she is in canon. Being busty isn't inherently sexual. It's a normal thing for some people to just have a larger chest but the choice to make yang more flat than the others feels intentional.

Yang was one of the more girly in the group at the start

She's drawn as soft and flirty in a way that leads to it being a bit of a surprise when she's the brawler of the group. She wears skirts and is comfortable in heels. Out of the 4 it's Ruby who is the tomboy. Ruby who is averse to fancy dresses and heels, who dresses practical constantly.

But when yang loses her arm, we see a shift.

Now I don't think the shift in her visual in volume 4 is bad necessarily. Her losing a portion of her body and not being capable of finding her identity following that makes sense. Her dressing less like her usual self is fine in theory. But that's not what the intention of the shift was and it's clear once we get to volume 7.

Now I Want to note: I'm a massive volume 7 yang design fan. But I can also acknowledge how bias' might have shaped it. It's also important to note we don't actually have a super feminine character with a prosthetic in the show.

Queer and physically disabled people both have an issue in media of them almost being seen as seperate from feminity. As if you need a certain level of physical perfection to perform it. Before Yang, the only female character with physical evidence of a battle injury was Weiss who has a tiny facial scar that to me isn't at all reflective of the actual fight she was in. It's a delicate injury.

I think this shift was also tied to the fandom perception that yang being a brawler means she has to be more masculine by nature when her original design was a subversion of it. Her shift was done so most of the fandom didn't even notice it was there.

Note: I don't think the writers did it maliciously I think it was unconscious bias that caused it. I'm not trying to hate on them, but I do think it's worth a mention