#don't attack folks over irrelevant topics

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

Hi, I have seen that you have had some conversations about Evan's sexuality, and what I am going to say is just a reflection, don't think it is against anyone. Honestly I have not been a social media person in my teens, I started to get familiar with them since my 20', but I could notice lately, maybe others did it before, that there is a worrying obsession towards the sexual orientation of celebrities and it is really creepy to see how some people take an obsessive stance towards this. I think we already have more than clear that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc has absolutely nothing wrong with it, but what is wrong or at least from my opinion is that some people think they can or have the right to assume about people's sexual orientation, the truth I haven't seen that much in Evan's fandom, but I will put as an example Taylor Swift whose music I started to listen since 2019 and I like it a lot, and is that in her fandom there is a group of fans they call "gaylors" and they believe and insist I would say, in the idea that Taylor is a lesbian or bisexual, which obviously would have nothing wrong, but she said in an interview and I'm paraphrasing that "I support a community I don't belong to" but still saying this, these people insist on her idea and put together a whole speculation and endless theories based on what, song lyrics, things she posted on social media years ago, things she said or didn't say or behaviors practically turn anything she does into a theory or sign, of course the rest of fans do too but this is specifically about her sexuality, even if they were right it's not something they should talk about, I think it's something intimate and only the people in question should talk about their orientation at the time they decide to do it or how they want to do it. When we follow a famous person, we do it because we like their way of being or thinking or their personality and values, their orientation is completely irrelevant because it doesn't matter if that person is gay, straight or bi, they will still be the same person, we can discuss about their work or whatever is within reach of our eyes or their relationships because obviously it is something public, but discuss, speculate or assume about something they haven't even talked about openly or publicly is going too far, or how some people obsessively cling to the idea that their idols are gay or lesbian just because they perceive them that way, as if it's really a relevant reason to follow someone and I've seen this behavior in other fandoms and saying something about it means you get attacked or accused of being homophobic. And no, someone's behavior or any way of being has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, some people need to stop perpetuating stereotypes. Sorry the text is long, but I felt I had to say it since this topic has come up.

no need to apologize! thank you for sharing your thoughts. over the past decade plus, i have seen how the concept of “shipping” same sex, apparently hetero real life people (celebrities) has spawned into creepy, conspiracy theory levels within fandoms. i’m not saying that there isn’t a chance that every once in a while people are right, but the way folks go about it and even go out of their ways to make sure the people they’re talking about know they believe and obsess over this stuff is insane. it’s intrusive and creepy, and it’s mostly het women who fetishize gay men. see: the one direction fandom with harry and louis. totally fine to think the idea of them together is hot or believe something was going on there, but you don’t need to tweet them 500 times that you know they’re secretly in love. the whole gaylor thing too, with her and karlie kloss. even though i strongly dislike taylor, trust me.. if she came out as a lesbian, as a gay person i would be thrilled. but that will never happen. and now you have the queer-identified teenagers of twitter assigning identities to real people who have NEVER claimed to be part of said community. so i totally understand, it is a clusterfuck.

[trainsinanime]

i saw your post on drachenlord from march last year and the consensus amongst us german ppl is that he "deserves" it bc hes genuinely antisemitic, racist, pedophilic and an unpleasant person,,, he claimed hiroshima was "a pretty nice thing" for example... people that first have the displeasure to know him DO feel sorry for him, however as you start to know more about him that empathy for him fades as you realize that he rlly does deserve it

Just for context, I am German myself, and you are not convincing.

For one, I have no idea whether you are telling the truth. First, you're on anon, so you could be anybody. And the fact that you care so much about the topic that you're digging up year-old posts from random folks on the internet makes me doubt your intentions.

I am aware that he said some very nasty things. Perhaps even the things you're claiming, who knows. Even if, does he actually believe these things, or was he goaded into saying them by the people who made hating him their entire life? I don't know, and I doubt you'll give me an honest answer, but that is rather relevant.

But also, on the other hand, it is completely irrelevant, because even then, I don't see how he deserves a constant hate mob outside his house, doxxing, all sorts of surprisingly elaborate plans to humiliate him, attacks on his family and neighbours and such. I'm all for strongly disagreeing with people, but anyone can see that this has gone beyond disagreement. It's just entertainment for the perpetrators. There's a reason why it's called "Drachengame", after all.

This becomes very obvious in comparison. This dude is just some guy on the internet. He doesn't have power or cultural influence. He isn't a politician or a thought leader or whatever. There are plenty of people in Germany who have truly terrible opinions and hold them with conviction. These people are actively working towards making the world worse for everyone. If you want to find themgo through the list of political parties, alphabetically, and they're right there at the top. I am not saying anyone should form constant hate mobs outside the houses of leading AfD politicians and make their lives a living hell, because I think saying that might be a crime; but if someone went ahead and did that, I certainly wouldn't cry. But the mob isn't going after them, it's going after some guy, because he's funny when he's angry, and that tells us something.

Note also that if we ignore all human dignity arguments (Grundgesetz §1, give it a read sometimes), and go strictly utilitarian, then it's also clear that it's not working. He hasn't stopped saying horrible things (prompted or not). The thing he probably does "deserve" is being ignored and forgotten, but instead, he has become famous all over the country.

That's not a mistake, that's by design. The harassment campaign isn't trying to get him to stop, it's trying to make him worse, because that's fun. All that stuff about "he's a terrible human being", even if true, isn't the point, it's just what the harassers use to justify their inhumane behaviour.

If you want a more eloquent discussion of the whole topic, here's a good summary that matches my own thoughts.

And if all of this sounds like I'm very hostile towards you, I'm sorry, it's just because the only thing I know about you is that you're a terrible human being. If you're not too far gone, then please, take a moment and think: Is all of this harassment working? Are its methods suitable for reducing hate and such on the internet? Is all this energy directed at the right person? And are these methods valid at all, or just fundamentally inhumane? I think the answer to all of these is clearly no.

[oatmealaddiction]

I know historical suffrage was obsessed with optics, it's in my opinion a big fault of the movement because it left behind a lot of women that didn't fit the image, because Susan B. Anthony was actually kind of horrible to a lot of the working class, immigrant, and Black women who were also fighting for the vote. That's kind of my overall point about why this rubs me the wrong way. Clothes aren't utilitarian political statements, they're also personal.

When I say "white feminism" I'm using it as a moniker for "exclusionary" or "lacking in other perspectives" because the thing about arguing "being butch was historically bad for feminism" is it lacks nuance into what butch identity is. Namely, it's not something that's exclusively about political statements like burning your bra, it's personal identity. It's not what you wear, it's part of who you are. That's why people like James Barry are important to mention if you're gonna say things about how counterintuitive it was to feminism to put on pants. From a queer perspective, winning the vote is not the reason you wear pants or put on men's clothes. To say all women dressed as men only professionally isn't accurate when you take into account afab people who existed along the lines of gender fluidity and the folks like Barry who essentially transitioned covertly or who lived outside of the bounds of polite society. Those folks would have been immediately ousted from any suffragette ranks along with the other marginalized women and treated as pariahs. While that's true, they still existed and chose expression of self over societal expectations.

While I'm cool talking about how that level of gender expression just wasn't possible for a lot of women, particularly how it doesn't make sense for characters like Jo, what bothers me more is the "wearing pants was bad for feminism, if you wanted to be taken seriously wear a corset," tone throughout, because while true, it positions that as the *point* of masculine dress. It ignores dysphoria and personal comfort and utility and expression of self.

It just strikes me as tone death to only approach this from the perspective of first wave feminism, vs. queer identity when we're talking about masculine dress on women and in Gentleman Jack's case, a historical gnc lesbian. It's taken as only a political move to appear forward thinking as opposed to things like dysphoria or gender identity and I think that's a big gap. If you were going to present Jo as a character on the trans spectrum (which is not a huge stretch) whether or not polite society approves becomes secondary, because what's more important is how Jo would manage dysphoria and self image without becoming socially isolated.

TBC I don't even hate this video, I don't agree with OP's point, I like this vlogger, I just think the way she attacked this topic feels alienating to me, who is a queer woman and is interested in the topic of historical queerness. To me whether or not bloomers were huge with Susan B. Anthony is irrelevant when you take into account young Amelia and her sister delighted to be wearing pants only to have them torn away by hateful people. It's completely possible to work stories like that into stories like Little Women without forfeiting historical accuracy.

While I hate the corset trope, I think it's fair to ask how many women there were historically who were made to feel dysphoric by their dress and how did they deal with that in a much more restrictive society? How do you differentiate that from hacks trying to make a female character look empowered? And I'm glad she lists Gentleman Jack as a positive example, I just wish she didn't take optics as the be all end all in why women dressed the way they did.

the fact two of these are masculine women... die actually

[rathbian]

edit: uh apparently i didn’t add a readmore whoops mb

I didn’t think I needed to say this but ad hominem attacks don’t lend well to discourse. Even worse are baseless accusations while ignoring disclaimers and evidence. Worse still is blatantly discrediting testimony from the people who y’all supposedly defend, whether now or from ages ago. Ain’t my wheelhouse so I can’t refute much but I suppose if we’re going to stoop so low as personal attacks, anything’s fair game, huh.

In completely, totally unrelated matters, let’s actually discuss a little bit about Kaito Momota and why supporting him completely uncritically or, at least, speculating that he could be a mlm or trans guy is harmful. Under the cut will be an explanation of why wholly uncritical support for his characterization is an issue and why supporting him in that way detracts from one’s credibility when discussing matters of bigotry and representation in fictional media.

I understand damn near everyone knows this by now, I know it’s old and tired but we need to discuss the original Japanese scene from the Daily Life segment chapter 2. Because I hold no credibility on my own for saying he’s transphobic/homophobic from his comment to Shinguuji, I will defer to a handful of other sources. Various trustworthy dictionaries(please use Google for this) refer to okama(オカマ) as a derogatory term for trans women and effeminate and gay men when used against someone. You can find the line he says here at about the 01:08:01-01:08:09 marks. Further context of this scene is described here and here, both sources by trans people and fluent Japanese speakers who have done their research into this topic.

Because of these sources, I have reason to believe that he said a transphobic and homophobic line, on top of all of his other moments of accusing men of not being manly enough for his standards which is a sentiment borne of misogyny and homophobia. This alone, would be enough but I’m certain that there exist some camps of people who will defend him with varying excuses so I’ll take a moment to refute a few hypothetical defenses for him. Should you find another point of refutation I’d be happy to argue against it, so please let me know.

“If the intent of this line was to be homophobic/transphobic, the translators would have kept it in.“ - I will give on the point that Kaito is not intended to be a bigoted character, at least, in Kodaka’s eyes. Intent, however, does not equal impact. In writing him as an archetypal shounen hero with the associated machismo and bullheadedness and having the narrative laud him over and again for having these views, he comes off as a character whose chauvinistic ideologies are praised or, at least, excusable. Even in NISA’s English version, one can at tell that even his misogyny and homophobia remained, albeit, tamely or localized in the bonus mode. I may not be a conspiracy theorist but it’s not far-fetched to claim translator bias colored the way he was localized as well, considering NISA’s lack of hesitation in translating slurs and the like for Miu, to make him seem more affable due to his archetype. Despite that, because a number of his actions and words are so deeply rooted in this view, it could not be removed entirely from him. Knowing this, we can come to the conclusion specific line was essentially lost in translation, as he was watered down but still capable of exhibiting the toxic behavior associated with his character type on top of clear bias. 

”The NISA English version is the only one that most of the fandom has been exposed to so it’s okay to only base Kaito’s characterization off of that.” - An understandable point insofar as not everyone has access to the original version of the game. This is, then, up to the fandom to do just a little bit of research when people are trying to bring up this version of the game to educate others of the original intent of the game, seeing as translation errors abound through attempts at localization. Though NISA’s version is the generally accepted translation, it will not change that it is a derivative work and that the source material's faults cannot remain without scrutiny. To do so is to allow misinformation and misinterpretation to run rampant. I do not find fault in those who do not yet know but those who either are unwilling to accept his flaws ingrained in his behavior or unwilling to listen or learn when someone tries to show context are willfully ignorant of his bigotry.

“It was left uncriticized by the narrative so it’s Kodaka’s fault/the fault of Japanese culture so we can remove that from his character traits.“ - Aside from the rather dubious assumption that Japan as a society is so backwards that Japanese people cannot be trusted to know what is bigoted or not, nothing will change that he had said what he said and did what he did within the canon of NDRV3. We cannot extricate Kaito from those by blaming the author for his traits without acknowledging that all the other traits written into his character are also simply the fault of the author as one should not be selective in acknowledging canon. Things which were written by an awful person remain awful and to ignore that is to shy away from the true nature of the material at hand, to enjoy uncritically is the same as condoning such things. As a personal plea, I ask of you to think critically: why go through these lengths to excuse a character’s bad traits that would be looked upon as offensive? Why ignore homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny in favor of making this character look better or for the sake of a headcanon?

Why is it so important to know that Kaito is indeed bigoted and just why is it bad to headcanon him as attracted to men or is trans? I will acknowledge the possibility of internalized homophobia and transphobia. However, recognize that his actions stem from that bias and that the narrative will not speak against him on these matters as it only calls out his foolhardiness and reckless abandon. If you can recognize these, you should also think a little bit about why making headcanons about a character having internalized bigotry that is not recognized as awful would run parallel to the incredibly harmful stereotype of assuming that bigots are really just in the closet. Internalized bigotry, especially when left without criticism, does not make for the greatest headcanon material.

I will not police those who are fans of his, as it is not a crime to enjoy characters who would be considered awful. I will neither make assumptions about nor judge those who like him without context as I’m not one for attacking others on a personal scale and I’m sure that people will give their reasons unwarranted anyway. However, trying to preach about bigotry affecting real people through representation while not only excusing bigotry from a character but also disregarding those who this bigotry would affect is hypocritical, I’d say. Objectively, it’s still harmful to headcanon a bigot as a part of the group that they’re bigoted against because in contributes to the idea that the real oppressors are members of their own community. It’s a belief that warps real people’s perceptions of other real people and making a headcanon out of it has similar effects to negative stereotyping in coding. To use a colloquial phrase, is this who y’all stan?