#let’s go queers let’s go

[astrothedreamdemon]

So I started reading he is brutal the snipersscout speedingbullet fanfic because I finished Running blind and taking shots. (Waiting for the next chapter)

And like I’m not even at the first chapter proper I’m at the prologue and I’m kicking my feet giggling. The descriptions of thrones and setting is so well done guys go read it

edit; OH BTW GO FOLLOW @sweetcookie500 THEY WROTE THE FIC

[lazylittledragon]

can't believe we're all adults being forced into the club penguin level of censorship in 2024

[notaplaceofhonour]

Not At Odds

Ceasefire Now + Bring Them Home Now

Jewish & Palestinian safety & freedom are not at odds with each other; they are interconnected. These things can must coexist.

[p4nishers]

can we talk about how much queer and trans joy was this season? maggie and nina. they/them muriel, saraquel, beelzebub, even GOD. "you're a good lad" "im not actually, either". that one shopkeeper and his non binary spouse, played by a non binary actor. beelzebub and gabriel. shax, nina and maggie all thinking azi and crowley were together. also yes i'm gonna mention: crowley and aziraphale's kiss. it's just, i get that everyone's hurt and so am i but can we please focus on how beautiful this season was to us? we got so much and i'm so happy, despite the ending.

[aunmenosheteroenespanol]

2.12 Chimney Begins - 2.09 Hen Begins - 2.16 Bobby Begins Again - 7.04 Buck, Bothered and Bewildered

Tommy's family arc

[tampire]

#Retail Mood

[babybison]

I like you, Q. I like you too.

[drchucktingle]

first traditionally published novel CAMP DAMASCUS out today with @torbooks. thanks to all you buckaroos for proving that sometimes if you stand proud of your unique way you wont bend to the timeline, the timeline bends to you. we did this. LOVE IS REAL. out now buds bit.ly/CampDamascus

[to-be-a-dreamer]

The disproportionate hate towards Tommy Kinard and the refusal to accept that someone could have genuine, meaningful character development off-screen that is still valid and real is a symptom of cancel culture and the internet’s general refusal to allow a person to become more than their past failings but some of y'all aren't ready to hear that

[wanderlust-in-my-soul]

Happiness in their home

[smallestavocado]

Found a photo of the lesbian bus!

[voltaspistol]

“Fear is a strange soil. It grows obedience like corn, which grow in straight lines to make weeding easier. But sometimes it grows the potatoes of defiance, which flourish underground.”

— Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

For everyone who is afraid right now, it is absolutely justifiable. Shit's gonna get scary. But remember:

“Susan says, don't get afraid, get angry.”

― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[mitskiluvr]

akechi: joker i hate you and you’re disgusting and i’m going to hurt you and make you suffer

morgana, sensing Something: akechi ,,, it's alright if you're gay and stuff

[mobius-m-mobius]

First look at Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey in Luca Guadagnino's Queer (2024) for anon 💕

[astral-wings]

Friendly reminder that

You don't need to be dysphoric to be trans

You don't need to medically transition to be trans

Neopronouns are real and valid

Non binary people are real and valid

Alterhumans are real and valid

Furries are amazing people

If you claim to be Christian but shit on others for harmless things, then you're not a Christian because that goes completely against Jesus' teachings!

Transmeds, queerphobes, etc. are NOT welcome on my page. If you see one, block and ignore! They are not worth your time!! My page is a safe space!

[bakuhatsufallinlove]

"Queer-coding" is only useful for a narrow range of media and it'd be great if we could stop using it for literally everything

Here's my problem with it:

The term originated to discuss negative media depictions of cultural stereotypes for LGBTQ people in the United States. It is inherently tied to the conditions of media censorship at play in the USA during the 1900s, with the Hays Code restricting depictions of anything it deemed "immoral."

Now, for whatever reason, people are using it to refer to literally anything they see as "kind of gay."

The term begins with the premise that making the audience see the character as queer is the creator's explicit intention. The creator knows the stereotype, you know the stereotype, so they are using the stereotype to convey to you something they can't say outright.

However, you can see how this goes awry, right?

The second we cross language, cultural, or even generational lines, this gets messy.

What traits are deemed queer? What behaviors or characteristics are seen as gay? The reality is this is a huge spectrum, and every culture has a different relationship with queerness in its history. For that matter, every nation has its own unique issues with censorship. A viewer from the USA may interpret a Japanese character as exhibiting stereotypically gay characteristics, but does that mean the Japanese creator intended it to be taken that way?

But then, if we try to account for what stereotypes Japanese media might use for queer characters to ascertain what the Japanese creator might have intended, we arrive at the same dead-end: the implication that queerness is only really portrayed via (usually negative) stereotypes.

This suggests that if media does not contain enough "clues" to imply a character is queer to the broadest possible audience, a queer reading of their story is out of the question. "Queer-coding" is treated as a metric of validity, a way to "prove" queer interpretations are allowable, yet it is based in stereotypes, censorship, and presumption of authorial intent.

The way queer-coding is continually brought into discussions about art essentially creates an ultimatum: media needs to be "explicit" by using direct (usually English language) terminology, or characters need to engage in things like kissing, declaring one's love, sexual activity, etc., yet even those are dismissed at times.

This creates a dynamic where art which is intentionally subtle or multifaceted may be seen as exhibiting cowardice rather than artistic complexity. It implies that if something is not "confirmed queer," queer themes cannot be read into it, queer subtext cannot be interpreted from it, and queer people are not allowed to identify with it.

This limits art. This builds walls that diminish human connection; it creates a situation where queer people are discouraged from seeing themselves in media not explicitly designated for them. Because, obviously, queer people are a completely different species from "normal people," right? Their feelings and experiences are so alien and distinct, there's no overlap anyone else could sympathize with.

You don't need permission to see queerness in art. You don't have anything to prove. Queer interpretations are just as valid as any other, and anyone who tells you different is selling something.

As I spoke about in this post, authorial intent is not more important than audience perception, and trying to infer the creator's intentions is a fool's errand. Especially in a situation where censorship is supposedly at play, any public statement from a creator could be reasonably disregarded as dishonest, which leaves us alone with ourselves and the work.

Which, by the way, is the only real way anyone experiences art. It's not you and the creator, it's you and the work. When people try to infer authorial intent, they are not discerning real, objective truth. They are sorting available information through a filter of what they consider believable before arriving at a subjective conclusion, which they then project onto a mental image of the creator.

In literary analysis, we select a "lens" through which to view art. This means that we decide to accept certain ideas as given fact and explore what the works says once we look at it that way. For example, we could accept as fact the idea that a number of the core cast are queer in some way. It posits the question: once we dismiss heterosexuality and cisgender identity as the only options, what do we see?

This is an intellectual concept, but the reality is that everybody naturally applies their own lens to art when they view it. This lens is not nearly so rigid or clearly defined, but it is a lens nonetheless, defined by their experiences, values, and individual personality.

I would love for people to stop using the phrase "queer-coding" quite so freely. It centers a need for validation and hinges that on "what the creator intended."

If you want some ideas for different language about this, consider these:

A theme might be queer by exploring broad topics queer people often struggle with, such as secrecy, shame, or self-acceptance.

The subtext of something might be queer in that one could read a double-meaning or deeper implication to the narrative device or scenario.

A work might contain allegory, symbolism, imagery or parallels that could be interpreted with queerness.

I don't think it's interesting to try to "win" by convincing you I personally know what the creator intended. That leaves the art static, unchanging, and lifeless. I would much rather tell you how I personally see the art and why, because that dynamic allows all of us examine the work more deeply.

In the end, it is not an author's edict in some external statement that gives art meaning. It is the audience. Our feelings are what give art meaning, and connecting with other people about what it all means to us is what keeps art alive.