#im on the phone with ayo and emma d'arcy rn

[ride-thedragon]

Really well said.

While there is a lack of lgbtq+ representation in historical romance spaces, replacing women, especially woc who are very similarly underrepresented in these spaces, isn't the solution.

Shonda and her team have continued to experiment with aspects of queerness in Bridgerton (Brimsly and Reynolds, even though it isn't a happy ending, showing lavender marriages, now and later on if we get to Gregory's book) and different ways their alternate history impacts their world.

Queer and gender based narratives, both fictional and real, have places throughout history, and there are actual fictional books dedicated to it. Shows like, The Great, Gentleman Jack, and Dickinson play with gender and sexuality. However, this intersection rarely seems to exist with queer narratives and poc ones.

People had to tell you all about the colour purple and the queer relationship in it. New shows like Mary and George focus on a bi man who is the favourite of his king. These narratives do exist. Look for them.

The bridgerton universe has already decided its relationship to queerness and I don't think any one of the Bridgerton siblings will explore it. At best, if we get Bi Michael or Pan Lucy, they still end up with partners of the opposite sex which won't discredit their sexuality but not end with a wlw or mlm relationship.

Right now, we are seeing the development of queer historical narratives told genuinely. Alexander the Great, The Favourite, The buccaneers, I won't go on, but it's such an interesting time when you pay attention, so I urge you too.

We can't depend on one show and one woman who wants to focus on diversity to cover every aspect of diversity, but she is trying. Just don't get weird when it comes to the women she has throughout her career focused on. Shonda Rhimes will write a black woman if there is a black woman to write and do it beautifully. At the end of a of this, the gayest Bridgerton couple still are Lucy and Greg. The world does not end at Bridgerton for fictional historical romance.

Like clockwork, the moment that Sophie is almost surely going to be played by a Black woman there is a sudden uptick in the Sophie should be a man or trans because that would be “true representation” discourse.

Representation for all communities is important(although that’s not what this rally is about), but Sophie Beckett is the last character in Bridgerton who should be gender-bent or made trans since her story is directly tied to her being a working-class biological woman.

It's because she's a woman that her only means of employment is as a maid. It's because she's a woman that she was almost raped by a pack of men. It’s because she’s a biological woman and fears birthing children who will be illegitimate and who may have to go through life as she did that she refuses to be Benedict’s mistress.

You can’t just plop a (white cause that’s what the real issue is) man or a (white) trans woman into her place without changing her story which is unique in the Bridgerton universe and dare I say the most empowering. So while yes it would be nice to see a gay love story on the show or a trans person, Benophie isn’t the couple to turn to for this representation.

And said representation definitely shouldn’t come at the expense of representation for Black women who are rarely shown as love interests or get to be leading ladies in media. Representation for Black women may not be your representation, but it's still representation for an under-represented marginalized group.

Seriously if your idea of representation hinges on the fact that Black women should step aside and wait “our turn”(aka we shouldn't be represented because y'all always come up with some excuse for why it isn't “our turn”) you need to reassess some things because that isn't going to happen any longer.

This also goes out to the people who keep saying that there are “too many” Black people on show therefore Sophie shouldn't be Black when the only Black woman* that has been featured has been Lady Danbury who is a side character who most certainly does not have a happily ever after(HEA).

*I love Queen Charlotte and both India and Goldie’s portrayal of her and I loved the spin-off, but both women are mixed.

Let’s not forget the people who said Sophie being Black would be too “problematic” since she’s slave(she’s not a slave) while cheering on every other group of women playing Sophie.

That was what some said a year ago when people suggested Sophie could played by a Black woman, but now that it’s coming you’ve moved on from that excuse to needing to see two white men on your screens.

So once again this isn't about representation it's just another instance of fandom misogynoir aka trying to keep Black women off your screens useless we are there to serve you or be tortured.

Cause somehow seeing Patsy getting wiped and raped 23 million times is “powerful” representation, but seeing a Black woman being loved and cared for and getting a HEA with a man who adores her is “problematic.”

Again I do understand the ones who genuinely want to see themselves represented on screen, but to make this much of a fuss about a Black woman in the role of Sophie Beckett, it’s inexcusable.

Reference point to this rant.