#crowley’s female-presenting outfit at the crucifixion

[bloodygayness]

I love you, the first 28 minutes and 38 seconds of Good Omens season one, episode three

[ineffable-rohese]

Thinking a bit about how I gender Crowley and Aziraphale in my writing, and why. Now, what I write is rarely trying to be canon compliant, or trying to exactly replicate canon characterization. I'm also writing what I like (or at least what the brain weasels want me to write), and I am an Aziraphale at heart, so I write a lot through his POV. And because a lot of what I write is smutty, that involves some degree of objectification, especially of Crowley.

So, that said... I definitely see canon Aziraphale as technically agender but also gay in a very mlm way, and Crowley as gender fluid in a broadly queer way. I think these interpretations are backed up by canon evidence.

Aziraphale: Learned to gavotte at a discreet gentlemen's club (AKA, a private gay club). Dresses somewhat flamboyantly, but in roughly period appropriate men's wear. It's often somewhat to a lot outdated, but even that Bastille outfit with the lace was fashionable men's wear in the mid 1700s. He is somewhat effeminate, but in a male way. This angel is gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide and THE southern pansy.

Crowley: Has presented female at a couple points in history. Nanny Ashtoreth was definitely a Role for a Job, but there was no unease in it. There's possibly a job-related reason for him to be in women's attire at the crucifixion, but we're not given one in canon; the Flood look is the same minus a headscarf, but everyone is in robes so I think that one's open for interpretation. In modern eras, some to most of the actual clothing pieces he wears are marketed to women (especially pre-Armageddin't). The pants, the glasses, the scarf, the S1 vest... Honestly, the whole 2008 outfit is such a queer female look and it overlaps with the Nanny timeframe. The 1827 Edinbugh look, from what I can tell, is basically men's wear, but the cut of that overcoat is, if not a women's coat pattern, verging really, really close to one. 1862 and 1941 are definitely masculine looks, like so much so in 1941 that it feels like an I Am Masc Today statement. 2023 also feels more masc in overall cut of the clothing (though the glasses and scarf haven't changed). Not canon, but I resonate with someone's suggestion that Crowley presents more masculine when he wants to be connected with Aziraphale, because Aziraphale is so obviously gay. All that together says fluidity to me. So that's what I see in canon, and I tend to default to those when I'm writing. When I'm staying closer to canon, I'm more likely to write them both as he/him, because that's what we see. For Pretense, they also both have penises, under the assumption that societally they may need them to blend in (we're in Rome in a time where some form of public nudity would be more common). I have written Ineffable Wives - in fact, that was what got me writing, was wanting to write them as female - and they both had vulvas in that one. For my post-canon/non-canon AUs, Aziraphale has so far been male-presenting and he/him and Crowley is variously presenting with a variety of pronouns. Either of them can have any variety of body configurations, just depending on my mood and what feels like it will best serve the story. At least one of them often has a vulva just because I feel like there isn't enough cunt love out there and I think it's hot.

I've thought about doing more female-presenting Aziraphale. If I'm writing what I find hot, it would make sense for me to write her. I'm not normally attracted to men/masc people with Aziraphale's body type but I am very attracted to women/femme people with that body type. Why? Who knows, but it is what it is. But the Aziraphale that lives in my head seems to resist being feminine in a female way, so he gets to be feminine in a male way, and the Crowley that lives in my head helps me write him as hot, even if I wouldn't normally see it. Crowley, on the other hand, seems totally fine with whatever I want to do with him/her/them, up to and including Demon and Snake forms. I'd like to write more of Fem Aziraphale (again, because I write what I find hot, and she's so hot), but I think she'd be an entirely different character to Gay Aziraphale, and she hasn't been as loud about having her stories told. Perhaps I need to try writing Butch Aziraphale instead and see where that takes me...

So anyway, that's way too many words on something no one asked me to talk about, but what is the internet for than spouting your opinions to people who didn't want or need them?

[blake-wyatt]

OH MY FUCKING GOD CROWLEY WA S THE MONA LISA

[lyricwritesprose]

I am glad Neil Gaiman confirmed that Crowley was presenting as female during the crucifixion scene

Because I have seen people argue that his Nanny outfit was transphobic, and I happen to think that’s a bad take.  It would have been transphobic if the joke had been, “Ha ha, a man in a dress,” but instead the joke was, “Ha ha, demonic Mary Poppins.”  But, you know, even though I think it’s a bad take, I can kind of understand where it’s coming from.  We’ve been so socialized to think the joke is going to be, “Ha ha, a man in a dress,” that it’s difficult to put a man in a dress without the joke sort of popping up, if that makes any sense, whether the creator meant it or not.

But, if Crowley was presenting as female at the crucifixion scene, that's a different angle.  Because nobody is drawing any attention to his presentation, and the only jokes going on have nothing to do with how he’s presenting himself.  (In fact, that scene is appropriately grim, overall.  The biggest joke is a very dark one about how of course preaching a message of love and peace will get you horrifically murdered by the government.)  Crowley’s presentation is just . . . there.

And if you ask me, that changes the context of the Mary Poppins bit a little bit, too.  Presenting as female is not something that Crowley did one time, for a disguise.  Presenting as female is just something he does every now and then.

I wish we’d seen a little more of it.  Another historical segment, closer to our own time, when “female presentation” looks a bit more like we’re used to seeing and the issue isn’t confused by everyone wearing robes.  But even so, I’m glad to have it there and even more glad to have it confirmed.

I bet that post-canon Crowley sometimes dresses up in a black dress to go to the opera with Aziraphale.  Probably with high heels that could kill a man and very snake-themed jewelry.

[alex-marie1324]

Crowley’s Presentation & Morals

So here’s that other post I mentioned wanting to write. Crowley and his fluid gender and morality.

To be clear: it is obvious that Crowley looks male. He’s played by a male actor and is referred to as ‘he’ in the show. This sets up a sort of ‘default’. His default presentation is male/masculine.

We know of two times in particular where Crowley was intentionally presenting entirely as female/feminine, showing a deflection from his ‘default’. So let’s talk about those times:

1.) The Crucifixion Scene

Oh man, does this scene really resonate with me. For one; Crowley’s presentation as female here is completely irrelevant to the scene. It’s just something he’s doing. And that’s the kind of nonbinary (specifically genderfluid) representation we need. He’s just being fluid and it’s not made a big deal. This is also the scene where he announces his name change. How very Trans of him...

But I specifically want to draw this back to his morals. In the Crucifixion scene, Crowley is arguably the voice of good and reason. He’s clearly against this evil act. Which is defying his demonic nature. As a demon, the one who’s destined to deliver the Antichrist, he should be in favor of what is happening to Jesus. But instead, he’s hurt. He’s upset.

He’s defying his ‘default’ gender presentation and defying his ‘default’ demonic nature.

2.) Nanny Ashtoreth

God, she can step on me... bUT- This is the first recognizable time Crowley presents as female. Most people (myself included) didn’t even notice that Crowley’s robes were that of a woman’s in the Crucifixion scene, but here we see what we, in modern eyes, identify as a woman. Again, though, this presentation is barely brought attention to really. It’s acknowledged in that Warlock refers to Crowley as ‘she’, but outside of that, it’s not made a big deal or a joke. And that’s much more obvious after realizing he’s presenting as female in the Crucifixion scene. This sort of gender bending/blending is something he just does. I imagine there’s more times he presented almost entirely as female we just don’t see on screen.

And here we see another clear defiance to his demonic nature. Yes, he’s trying to influence Warlock to be bad, but the entire time he’s doing it while working with Aziraphale, knowing he’s only balancing out what Aziraphale is doing. A clear rebellion from Hell and it’s goals.

3.) Modern Day Outfit/Other instances

So to touch on his modern outfit as well. It was recognized by someone with sharp eyes that his skinny jeans are clearly women’s jeans, as they lack the pocket space of men’s jeans. And his glasses, as some people hunted down, are also women’s glasses. Bits and pieces of his outfit are women’s and other bits and pieces are men’s. As well, as elaborated in this post, he often sports fashion that is a mix of period-typical male clothing/hair and female clothing/hair.

This is when he is on ‘our side.’ He’s not fully rebelling against his demonic side, but he’s not fully supporting the ‘good’ side. He’s playing for his (and Aziraphale’s) own side.

TL;DR: Crowley’s gender presentation aligns with his current morals.

BONUS: Aziraphale doesn’t change his presentation much. He stays pretty firmly in his ‘default’ of male, and thus his ‘default’ of angelic and sweet.

The only time we really see him change is when he is in Madame Tracy’s body. And what else do we see him do when he is presenting differently from his ‘default’? Fucking shoot at a child. Clearly defying his angelic side and choosing a different set of morals.