#or a queer vs ....non-queer? whats the opposite of queer?

[slaanxsh]

something something slaaneshi daemons not only play with notions of dominance, but also of submission and this makes them gross and incomprehensible to daemons of khorne especially, who are all shards of Khorne, most domineering of the gods

[cookinguptales]

So I’ve been enjoying the Disney vs. DeSantis memes as much as anyone, but like. I do feel like a lot of people who had normal childhoods are missing some context to all this.

I was raised in the Bible Belt in a fairly fundie environment. My parents were reasonably cool about some things, compared to the rest of my family, but they certainly had their issues. But they did let me watch Disney movies, which turned out to be a point of major contention between them and my other relatives.

See, I think some people think this weird fight between Disney and fundies is new. It is very not new. I know that Disney’s attempts at inclusion in their media have been the source of a lot of mockery, but what a lot of people don’t understand is that as far as actual company policy goes, Disney has actually been an industry leader for queer rights. They’ve had policies assuring equal healthcare and partner benefits for queer employees since the early 90s.

I’m not sure how many people reading this right now remember the early 90s, but that was very much not industry standard. It was a big deal when Disney announced that non-married queer partners would be getting the same benefits as the married heterosexual ones.

Like — it went further than just saying that any unmarried partners would be eligible for spousal benefits. It straight-up said that non-same-sex partners would still need to be married to receive spousal benefits, but because same-sex partners couldn’t do that, proof that they lived together as an established couple would be enough.

In other words, it put long-term same-sex partners on a higher level than opposite-sex partners who just weren’t married yet. It put them on the exact same level as heterosexual married partners.

They weren’t the first company ever to do this, but they were super early. And they were certainly the first mainstream “family-friendly” company to do it.

Conservatives lost their damn minds.

Protests, boycotts, sermons, the whole nine yards. I can’t tell you how many books about the evils of Disney my grandmother tried to get my parents to read when I was a kid.

When we later moved to Florida, I realized just how many queer people work at Disney — because historically speaking, it’s been a company that has guaranteed them safety, non-discrimination, and equal rights. That’s when I became aware of their unofficial “Gay Days” and how Christians would show up from all over the country to protest them every year. Apparently my grandmother had been upset about these days for years, but my parents had just kind of ignored her.

Out of curiosity, I ended up reading one of the books my grandmother kept leaving at our house. And friends — it’s amazing how similar that (terrible, poorly written) rhetoric was to what people are saying these days. Disney hires gay pedophiles who want to abuse your children. Disney is trying to normalize Satanism in our beautiful, Christian America. 

Just tons of conspiracy theories in there that ranged from “a few bad things happened that weren’t actually Disney’s fault, but they did happen” to “Pocahontas is an evil movie, not because it distorts history and misrepresents indigenous life, but because it might teach children respect for nature. Which, as we all know, would cause them all to become Wiccans who believe in climate change.”

Like — please, take it from someone who knows. This weird fight between fundies and Disney is not new. This is not Disney’s first (gay) rodeo. These people have always believed that Disney is full of evil gays who are trying to groom and sexually abuse children.

The main difference now is that these beliefs are becoming mainstream. It’s not just conservative pastors who are talking about this. It’s not just church groups showing up to boycott Gay Day. Disney is starting to (reluctantly) say the quiet part out loud, and so are the Republicans. Disney is publicly supporting queer rights and announcing company-supported queer events and the Republican Party is publicly calling them pedophiles and enacting politically driven revenge.

This is important, because while this fight has always been important in the history of queer rights, it is now being magnified. The precedent that a fight like this could set is staggering. For better or for worse, we live in a corporation-driven country. I don’t like it any more than you do, and I’m not about to defend most of Disney’s business practices. But we do live in a nation where rights are largely tied to corporate approval, and the fact that we might be entering an age where even the most powerful corporations in the country are being banned from speaking out in favor of rights for marginalized people… that’s genuinely scary.

Like… I’ll just ask you this. Where do you think we’d be now, in 2023, if Disney had been prevented from promising its employees equal benefits in 1994? That was almost thirty years ago, and look how far things have come. When I looked up news articles for this post from that era, even then journalists, activists, and fundie church leaders were all talking about how a company of Disney’s prominence throwing their weight behind this movement could lead to the normalization of equal protections in this country.

The idea of it scared and thrilled people in equal parts even then. It still scares and thrills them now.

I keep seeing people say “I need them both to lose!” and I get it, I do. Disney has for sure done a lot of shit over the years. But I am begging you as a queer exvangelical to understand that no. You need Disney to win. You need Disney to wipe the fucking floor with these people.

Right now, this isn’t just a fight between a giant corporation and Ron DeSantis. This is a fight about the right of corporations to support marginalized groups. It’s a fight that ensures that companies like Disney still can offer benefits that a discriminatory government does not provide. It ensures that businesses much smaller than Disney can support activism.

Hell, it ensures that you can support activism.

The fight between weird Christian conspiracy theorists and Disney is not new, because the fight to prevent any tiny victory for marginalized groups is not new. The fight against the normalization of othered groups is not new.

That’s what they’re most afraid of. That each incremental victory will start to make marginalized groups feel safer, that each incremental victory will start to turn the tide of public opinion, that each incremental victory will eventually lead to sweeping law reform.

They’re afraid that they won’t be able to legally discriminate against us anymore.

So guys! Please. This fight, while hilarious, is also so fucking important. I am begging you to understand how old this fight is. These people always play the long game. They did it with Roe and they’re doing it with Disney.

We have! To keep! Pushing back!

[pollyanna-nana]

I think it’s so interesting that Kui decided to show us how differences in lifespan affect tallmen and elf relationships from both angles with Kabru and Thistle and also how that reflects real-life abusive situations. And then goes on to deconstruct that by showing how genuine understanding and respect CAN exist between the races with other characters!

Kabru being raised by an elf (who is shown to only have a superficial respect for short-lived races, the same one might have for a pet in a lot of ways) and treated like a child even though he’s in his 20s. After all, a 20 year old elf would be a kindergartener, and Milsiril seems to have a rather toxic combination of overprotectiveness and dehumanizing tendencies that leads to perpetually seeing the children she raises as children, even well into adulthood for their race.

And yet, we see with characters like Otta that this doesn’t have to be true of EVERY elf (nor should it logically be, especially those who spend actual time around short-lived races.) For all the jokes made at her expense I actually think it’s really interesting that she’s also canonically queer since recognizing the agency and maturity of short-lived races is in itself a type of queerness in elf society from what we’ve seen. Senshi too, as funny as his misconstruing Chilchuck as a child is I think it’s really important that he realizes his mistake and rethinks his assumptions on short-lived races following his example. It doesn’t HAVE to be the way it is, but it will take work on each side to improve things.

Then on Thistle’s end… woof. Complete opposite of Kabru, it was difficult for the tallmen of the golden kingdom to comprehend how someone in their, like, 60s could still behave like a teenager and chalked that up to a personal and moral failing rather than literal differences in biology (kind of an autistic mood but that’s a conversation for later.) It’s just as disturbing as Milsiril’s treatment of the children she adopts really, since they explicitly didn’t want an adult that could exert their own agency and control over their situation. And the thing is it’s not like that’s totally uncalled for, the previous points show how a non-insignificant number of members of long-lived races do genuinely see short-lived races as inferior, or are otherwise ignorant, like with below.

It ended up working out just how they wanted, because Thistle’s child-like innocence and singleminded desire to make the only family he had happy meant he was never going to do anything he didn’t think would help them… which then backfired, because of course it would. It’s overcontrolling and manipulative parenting, but with the added spice of lifespan differences and magic. Kabru ended up detesting the elves that raised him and wanting nothing to do with them, and Thistle basically had a massive breakdown trying too hard to please everyone. Infantilization vs adultification, as some have said, with predictable results.

[ichayalovesyou]

Why Do Old-School TV Duos Have SUCH MLM Vibes?!

I think there’s something very specific about the formula and writing style of non-serialized/semi-serialized shows from the 60s to 80s that featured two grown men going on wacky dangerous adventures that makes my gay little literary analysis brain go absolutely off the wall bonkers. I’m trying to figure out why!

I’m writing this on my Trek blog because I don’t think this pattern in people actually shipping these types of relationships the way they do if fandom as we know it wasn’t born via TOS in syndication. That being said! I also think it has to do with the way these shows are designed that makes myself and others OBSESSED with a specific character dynamic that feels (to me) damn near impossible to replicate in modern television. In a way that’s more than just fandom, it’s in the way TV like this was written at the time!

Further explanation under the cut!

🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

I think what it usually boils down to is this. There’s a charming protagonist whom without the series could not operate, frequently top billed or the title character! (See: Wild Wild West, Starsky & Hutch) BUT he doesn’t have anyone to play off of! So what do they do pretty much every single time? Give Mr. Idealized Vision of Time-Period Masculinity For Genre a second guy to rhyme with!

See but the other guy has to play opposite but parallel to our hypermasculine protagonist. So what frequently ends up happening is that in order to play off our “normal” guy, even though he’s also a white dude, is that he’s still somehow Other.

They’re always perfect for each other, and they always get into scenarios that would be written, shot and interpreted by conventional audiences as romantic IF either one of those characters were a woman! Especially at the time these shows were made in.

If the one is aggressive, the other is gentle. If the protagonist is violent, his counterpart is intellectual. If the one is stoic, the other is emotional. Which (while one size def doesn’t fit all) usually makes the second guy come off as much more queer-coded (and sometimes other minorities like neurodivergent/disabled etc) than the other because of the traits associated with masculinity vs gayness at the time! Our prime examples in these gifs are Spock, Hutch, Artemus, and also *BJ!

*(M*A*S*H is a bit of a unique case since the show flirts with queerness more openly in ways that people more into the series have explained better than me but I think it still fits the formula I’m discussing.)

Here’s the thing though right? We’ve got two best friends, and the show NEVER really feels right if one of them is missing unless the focus of the story is how A & B operate without each other while trying to find the other one. They stick with and rescue each other unfailingly in scenarios that might destroy a regular friendship.

Hell, there’s often stuff that would emotionally/physically destroy a regular person/character in modern media. But because it’s not serialized they always seem to pull through seemingly through the power of friendship alone or dealing with it off-screen! Emotional consequences? Yuck! (Unless it’s M*A*S*H or Starsky & Hutch, like I said, not monolithic)

Here’s the thing that some people might say throws a wrench into the interpretation I’m discussing. What about the absolutely non-stop parade of conventionally attractive women the main protagonist (and less frequently the supporting man) goes through?

I would reply: how many of those female characters actually emotionally impact our protagonists as characters long term?

The answer is of course, because it’s NOT serialized, almost none! Kirk can watch Edith Keeler get killed by a car accident and still be making eyes at Spock the next episode. Hawkeye can have a “life changing” romance with a Vietnamese humanitarian woman, then share a blanket with BJ next episode like she never existed!

The Doylist explanation of course is not just the fact it wasn’t serialized but also just, constant, blatant 20th century sexism. Which SUCKS!!! As well as not wanting a long term love interest to throw off the character dynamic of our duderagonists. It’s the 20th century tv equivalent of bros before hoes.

However the Watsonian explanation always seems to result in no love interest EVER being more important than what the two protagonists have no matter whether you think they’re queer or not. No attractive woman could make our reputed babe-hound protagonist abandon his buddy. There’s no earnest romance our more queer-coded supporting man doesn’t end (or get ended for him) often for the protagonist’s sake.

Now some of these women are incredibly well written and straight up GOOD matches for our guys. So why wouldn’t they get involved in something long term UNLESS!! They were in love with each other the WHOLE time?

What if protagonist (frequently the babe hound) doesnt know he’s queer, or knows but doesn’t know he’s in love with his bestie, or any number of similar fruity explanations? The supporting man also runs into this explanation but people tend to believe he’s already aware that he’s queer but either also doesn’t know he’s in love or is keeping it to himself because time-period homophobia and/or thinking (probably not unreasonably) that babe hound is straight?

Between the inherent closeness of being narrative foils. The regularly scheduled life or death drama creating sometimes insanely romantic (in the narrative if not a literal sense) drama between the two. The revolving door of weekly women they never seem to get attached to enough to leave one another. The non-serialized nature resulting in sparse personal information/history about the protagonists as a result.

I think between the very NATURE of the way tv shows were written at the time. Plus the way fandom was shaped by a dynamic that has rippled through how media works and is interpreted by fans for decades upon decades. It’s not hard to imagine getting really emotionally invested in the possibility of the protagonists being in love is a fantastic way to enjoy the media!

In conclusion, it’s really fun and easy to go “these bitches gay! Good for them good for them!”

[broadwaydivastournament]

Movie Musical Divas Tournament: Round 1

Bea Arthur (1922-2009): Mame (1974) as Vera Charles

"The saving grace of that Mame film adaptation. Serving cunt in a deep gravelly voice. She served in the Marine Corps in WWII, had a celebrated stage career, and is one of our forefront gay icons. In one night, she raised $40,000 for homeless queer youth with one of her one-woman shows. Everything she has done for us-tumblr's core demographic-means she deserves our vote. What more do you need?" - anonymous

Shirley MacLaine (1934- ): Sweet Charity (1969) - Charity Hope Valentine | Can-Can (1960) - Simone Pistache | Artists and Models (1955) - Bessie Sparrowbrush | What a Way to Go! (1964) - Louisa May Foster

"do you like JOY and WHIMSY? then consider voting for shirley maclaine! a devoted student of ballet in her youth who got her start in broadway musicals as a teenager, it's honestly criminal that someone who dances as well as her hasn't been in more than a handful of movie musicals. she's also extremely skilled at physical comedy and often incorporates this into her dance numbers to great effect. the scene in artists & models where she terrorizes jerry lewis with her love declaration for four straight minutes by shout-singing innamorata at him and capering around like a lithe lovestruck elf while he repeatedly falls down a flight of stairs is honestly a work of art and the high point of the whole movie.

and who could forget her in fosse's sweet charity, taking over the role originated by gwen verdon on the stage, bringing her trademark tragicomic élan to the naive but unstoppable charity. her other biggest musical lead role is in can-can opposite frank sinatra, where she gets to show off her athleticism and comedic abilities, sing classic cole porter tunes, and have a great showpiece in a lengthy surreal ballet number. and rounding things off is what a way to go!, which is mostly a zany dark comedy but briefly becomes a musical in the gene kelly section.

truly a shame for musicals fans (me) that she came to prominence in an era when they were becoming fewer and farther between (although her non-musical acting career is nothing to sneeze at and is in fact iconic) but charity hope valentine you will always be famous." - anonymous

This is Round 1 of the Movie Musical Divas tournament. Additional polls in this round may be found by searching #mmround1, or by clicking the link below. Add your propaganda and support by reblogging this post.

ADDITIONAL PROPAGANDA AND MEDIA UNDER CUT: ALL POLLS HERE

Bea Arthur:

Photos and video submitted by: anonymous

Shirley MacLaine:

Photos and video submitted by: anonymous

[beyond-mogai-pride-flags]

Juvelic Monogamy

Monogamy/monoamory: aspiring to be or being in a relationship with another individual, typically associated with being partnered and fidelitous singularly to that individual.

Monogamous Vincian (QLM/MLQ)/Achillean (MLM) Flag

Vincian/achilean: a man-loving miaspec person or mascic queer folk; umbrella term for gayLm (gay for men/min), mingender/male pluralians (mspec), MDM/MSM (men who date/sex men) on the anattractional spectrum (aspec), gae/gai nlm (toric gæ/QAI nblm) along other adjacent communities; inclusive of torians and other toradonic folks who wish to be included.

Monogamous Sapphic Pride Flag

Sapphic: queer loving women (QLW)/woman loving queeries (WLQ); umbrella term for lesbians, fingender/fiaspec pluralians, WSW/WDW (women who sex/date women) who are are aspec (nullarians/aloeians/athenians/absolnians/nullic nullians), trixians (gai trixic/gae nlw/QAI nblf)/SGA/SSA primlunic folk, and other adjacent groups and members of the community that wish to be included.

Duaric Monogamy Pride Flag

Duaric: woman-loving men or man-loving women; umbrella term for pluralians experiencing different/other-gender attraction and monospec hetero people. Inclusive of varioriented, aspec, and aptobinaryn't folx.

Enbian Monogamy Flag

Enbian: nonbinary-loving nonbinary (NLN/NBLNB) person. Inclusive of cenelians, celarsians, and amplusic/ultric cypric people.

Diamoric/Mestric Monogamy Pride Flag

Mestric: an umbrella term that includes any relationship, attraction, orientation, or partnership that includes non-binary individual(s), and all those that cannot be categorised according to a same-gender vs. opposite gender dichotomy. Diamoric, also known as adonian, adonic, or cypric, is a term used by some non-binary individuals to describe their orientation, which does not fit into the similar/opposite gender attraction dichotomy due to being a uniquely non-binary experience. The term does not specify what gender(s) one is attracted to, it only specifies that one is non-binary and experiences attraction in a non-binary specific way.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/752012756722614272/some-people-seem-to-have-something-against?source=share

I think a lot of people justify to themselves because there are gay people who have histories of dating the opposite gender before coming out, and there can be a weird reductive attitude fandom can take that anyone who has had relationship with people of multiple genders who doesn't meet a minimum level of "trauma" cannot be anything other than bi. Something that I can't stand as a gay person who fits that bill (had relationships with men before coming out as a lesbian, wasn't traumatized by them but just realized I wasn't into them in the way I was with women). But like, again, as that type of gay person, I think that's a ridic response by those other people in their fandom to what anon is talking about because:

there's a big difference between doing that with CANONICALLY bisexual characters - and let's not pretend that writers having characters casually talk about exes of the opposite gender from their current love interest the way people usually talk about their exes (NOT indicating some change of identity with it) isn't in fact signalling that - and doing it with a straight/unmarked-but-clearly-we-want-you-to-assume-they're-straight-by-default character. The latter I think are fair game for queer fandom to read however, and that's where I get irritated when well-reasoned meta for gay headcanons from people who clearly aren't uncomfortable with bi headcanons for other characters they like (and are often bi themselves) gets conflated with biphobia. But with the former.... idk, the idea of taking away representation from another marginalized group just really does not sit right with me, and I'm going to be more inclined to read that in a negative way and wonder WHY they're inclined to make that argument

Let's not pretend there isn't a whole lot of biphobia in the gay and lesbian communities and that a lot of justifications that people come up with are not in fact designed as a smokescreen for that. Like if they keep making this same excuse for EVERY character I'm really going to at some point suspect it's biphobia. I've seen people I gave the benefit of the doubt to the first time but it was the same arguments for EVERY character where that was ANY possible reading and like after a certain point you've just gotta wonder!

I also just think it's worth asking what a specific label or another gets you in these cases. There are some different experiences that gay vs. bi people have but it's not worlds apart in the way that some people talk about it, and I'm not sure why in the vast majority of shipping and romantic fanfics you necessarily need to establish that someone is JUST gay and has NO interest in the opposite gender, as opposed to just interested in this particular person (and the rest of their attraction just isn't mentioned because it's not relevant). I feel like so much of this shit in fandom these days from people who do the sort of thing this anon was talking about other people doing are from these young lesbians who are very online and buy into terf-adjacent shit about lesbian culture and experience being this super special separate thing from bi woman culture and like, girls, it's not true. If you go into any real life "lesbian" space you'll meet a ton of bi women too and that's how it should be! Because it's just a "women attracted to women" space and we have that in common. The idea that they're two separate non-overlapping communities is so online and is rooted in biphobia (and often other shitty bigotries like transphobia)

--

[gaylactic-fire]

Hi hello, I've got a question, what that heck happened this week?? I haven't been active in awhile and I just logged back in here to follow an artist from tiktok, and I happened to see the conservative discord server screenshots on my "your tags" section. Is possible to get the sparks note version of what happened? (Sorry if the ask sounds weird, not very good at putting my thoughts into words)

Sorry I only answered this a few days later! You might already know what's happening by now, but in case you didn't I'll give you a TLDR:

- Tumblr user alasse-earfalas makes a post on LU's main tag advertising a conservative christian LU / LoZ server. She claims to want a safe space for those with similar views. What really catches people's attention is a part of the post that speaks about "Pride ideology" and how such "predatory" views aren't allowed in the server. In the same section she talks about wanting a space where characters are not "queered into oblivion." The vibes are utterly rancid.

- LU fandom immediately begins spiteposting. Everyone and their mother starts making LU queer headcanons or posts showing their support for the queer community. The memes flood in. "Queered into oblivion." is immediately reclaimed and added to people's lexicons. People are speedrunning how fast they can get banned off the server. There's almost a unanimous effort to make fun of bigots.

- Further controversy ensues under the surface. As it turns out, several religious people in the fandom had been interacting with Alasse and other people in the conservative server. It was impossible to know whether or not they shared similar views, but you can't blame people's caution. When questioned whether their blogs were safe for queer people, some gave very vague answers that pretty much dialed down to "I love everyone" or "I don't wanna talk about it." Neutrality in such instances is not reassuring for queer people, especially when the other side is claiming we are predatory. Afaik some people have redacted their statements or gone on to further clarify things. But some people still take a firmly neutral stance on the matter. (Don't ask who I haven't been following closely enough to know).

- A few days later Alasse comes back with a follow-up statement addressing the server. She pulls a mix between "gay people I respect VS gay people I don't respect." and "I'm not homophobic I have a gay friend." By stating that the server is not homophobic, but simply does not support the pride movement. Which is allegedly pushing to show porn to kids in school. When asked for a source on such a shocking claim someone on the server cites Fucking Matt Walsh rather than a non-biased and or scientific article. The transphobia also pops out when she claims the pride movement is trying to push surgeries on children (It's not. Children do not get gender realignment surgeries. You can find this out from five minutes on google). Addressing "queered into oblivion." Alasse goes on a rant about "queerwashing" characters, stating the Links are canonically straight and making them queer invalidates their identity. Alasse conveniently forgets that Nintendo has never canonically given Link a partner. She also forgets that bisexuality, asexuality and other sexualities that may include romantic attraction to the opposite sex do, in fact, exist. The rest of the post is whining about people joining the server to troll and basically just her reaping what she sowed for advertising on Tumblr Dot Com.

Aside for further outrage and memes, that's pretty much where we're up to so far. Things are dying down and hopefully the bigots will keep to their own corner and or fuck off from the fandom entirely.

[eva-does-its-best]

Updated 07/01/25

"Transmasc or transfem?" Currently both.

"Transneutral?" I personaly feel like neutrality means the opposite of androgynous (neither vs both on a binary system) so I'm not neutral, because I want ambiguous presentation, not be devoid of gender presentation.

"Are you non-binary?" By definition yeah, or queer, or any other term like that, as long as people don't use it as an excuse to dump me on a third gender and ignore whole parts of my gender.

"Tme or Tma?" Get that transphobic and intersexist shit out of my face immediately. Call me any of that and I will block you.

"Afab or amab?" I mention it sometimes when it is relevant to the conversation, otherwise it does not matter and you don't need to know. Whatever judgement you were reserving for my answer you can choke on it.

"male or female?" I know what I was assigned, and that means nothing to the reality of my body, so I don't know, I don't care, it's irrelevant, and you are not my doctor.

"Penis or vagina?" Wow, a totally different question that to you means the exact same thing as the last 2 or 3!! Well, ignoring the fact that you are acting like those are the only options, you don't need to know, why would you need to know about which meaningless body part I have? We're not having sex right now. Oh right, judgement. In friendly and joking contexts I have no problem mentioning it, but since you're asking it in a serious manner I will either not tell you or blatantly lie to you ok? :3 ok.

"How do your genders work? Are they fluid?" Kinda, all of them are always present and real, it just changes which one is "fronting". Pouring water on an empty glass does not make the glass itself disappear, having one gender fronting does not erase the rest.

"You say you are x kind of trans but that cannot be, because of your agab!" I don't follow that definition of trans you are using, my agab doesn't mean shit to my genders.

"Do you use transmasc and transfem interchangeably with tboy and tgirl?" Nah I'm just figuring things out so I use them interchangeably for myself temporarily, you shouldn't do that to anyone else it would be very disrespectful.

"Why do you use boy and girl for yourself instead of man and woman? Is it an age thing?" No, I simply dislike the connotations of man and woman and am uncomfortable using them, it is also in a way a form of rebelion against societal expectations of adulting that are so deeply gender essentialist and ableist.

"I feel bad calling you an it" I don't care, your comfort is not an excuse to misgender me, stop acting like a transphobe or I'll believe you're a transphobe. My friends can she/her me if they want because they are my friends; a random person who refuses to use my primary pronouns has not earned the right to use my other pronouns.

"You'll get rid of x body part/traits, right?" Very kindly fuck you, your expectations, and your assumptions about me and every other trans person. I'll do what I want with my body, none of your business, if you treat any of my body traits (even the ones I personally dislike) as inherently negative shit that I surely wanna get rid of then you are not mature enough about gender and body diversity to have any kind of opinion in the matter.

[leighlew3]

Are you open to giving your opinion on The Girls On The Bus?

IMHO take away the swearing and the occasional s*x scene, you can tell people of the CW were involved. And so many other things that I don’t want to spoil in case not everyone has see it but I wonder how you (a professional) sees it.

Okie dokie. So.

I've had this Anon/Answer as a draft for a while. Was torn on whether to discuss it. But now that it's cancelled, I don't feel like this would be discouraging anybody from tuning in and thus harming the show or those involved in any way.

Keep in mind, I'm entitled to my opinions -- yes even without having watched it (yet?) because it's all tied into why I ultimately didn't watch it in the first place.

Early on, I remember being... wary about the creative direction of the show overall and saying to somebody what I bet each character would wind up being about/representing, what the show would likely focus on and the various dynamics between the characters, and how the representation would be treated. I'd hoped to be wrong in terms of the predictability factor, alas...

From what I read of reviews and saw in fan-posted clips, it turned out that I was (unfortunately) pretty spot on. For me personally -- that makes a show difficult to tune into if something else doesn't outweigh it. If I already know exactly what to expect and it involves less than flattering predictions regarding superficial feminism + overdone tropes and cliches + an overall concept that feels like a beat down with IRL non-stop coverage of political insanity the last 8 damn years? Thaaat's a hard one for me.

As far as cast though? Benoist is an exceptional, underrated, incredible talent. And some of the clips of her performance seemed Emmy-worthy (though sadly that didn't happen for her this time). Gugino is also fantastic, and an icon. Meanwhile Elmore is profusely enjoyable and talented and Behnam is such a break out and refreshing energy. And all together, they seemed to have amazing chemistry on screen and formed bonds IRL that are lovely.

Sadly though, the show's feminism seemed to be the equivalent of a "girl boss" tote bag. Superficial at best. Characters and the show constantly ragging on men and the double standards of men vs women, yet ultimately still centering men and the influence of men in and even over their lives when it gets down to brass tacks. My whole thing is: everything doesn't have to be a feminist statement. But don't yell about how your show is all about "girl power" and then -- do the opposite, in many ways. SGCW used to do that all the time. And since many of the same people were involved here creatively... well...

The show even hung a huge focus of its initial marketing on "omg we have a shirtless 50 year old white man that white millennial women were in love with in the early 2000s hehehe" -- which was so utterly bizarre and cringe. And having their invited influencer group for the screening be a group of privileged, mostly straight, cis, white Millennials and Gen Z women from TikTok was a red flag.

Yes, straight cis white Millennial and Gen Z women deserve to see themselves too, 100%. But, c'mon. And yes, not everything is always for everybody. And that’s fine! But then they should’ve better considered the casting and what audience they were automatically bringing in from day one. Between Benoist, Gugino and Tala — that’s built in queer wlw fandoms right off the bat that would (and tried to) show up and champion the series if they had true reason to. Instead the show had limited, and as always ancillary, queer rep that apparently goes nowhere and ends rather badly, from what other fans have indicated. Drop me a line if that's incorrect though.

Look, yes, many queer fans were making jokes and expressing valid frustrations about the lead character giving QUEER AS HELL vibes all over the place yet being presented as seemingly straight, but what else is new from some of the creatives involved here.

It was further disappointing to see TPTB do a group interview where they said how they a.) tried to figure out who should get pregnant while on the campaign trail and need the abortion pills and ultimately decided on Sadie and b.) joked that they then debated "Well, Sadie HAS to sleep with SOMEBODY." to get there. Which just means the core "love story" they attempt to create for Sadie around not liking the guy at first other than as a hookup and then suddenly expressing deep feelings for him and bearing her soul a few episodes later wasn't exactly organic nor earned in conception nor execution.

It sounds like they just had a checklist of "issues" to address and then wrote around that, shaping characters to fit the story, instead of the other way around. So what might've worked better for the characters was pushed aside to complete the 'statements' they wanted to make. SGCW used to do that also. They were always trying so hard to make the characters fit the plot rather than the plot work alongside or even due to the characters -- which is why it so often fell flat, felt empty and had characters being poorly written, contradictory, etc.

On this front btw, someone had complained to me that for one big ep, Sadie was going through it, and whereas one would think she would normally go to her mentor and friend Grace (or one of the other girls on the damn bus, hello), the ep kept 'em apart so she could open up to a guy she previously rejected and it further their relationship. Once again, it's always a tiresome tactic when you have to keep women apart to prop up a man or a male/female dynamic because you know a character would have been more likely to go have that breakdown and emotional moment elsewhere, but you've gotta forcibly shove in the "development" of a hetero relationship at the expense of so much else.

Next, having a Black woman represent a political party that has built itself upon racism, homophobia and sexism and then using her and those arcs to play up the "both sides have good people" angle right now is tough to stomach for the kind of fans who were tuning in for Benoist, Gugino and others. It's not "enlightened" to say "Let's be pals with a bigot who wants women's rights stripped away because -- humanity!" I mean, we're all human and can't just quick and easy cut people out of our lives who have different beliefs, even if those beliefs are absolutely painfully awful -- but I don't think anyone is really exploring these issue deeply and appropriately enough yet.

I mean, "Aw, Kimberlyn drove Sadie to her abortion, thus showing that even if she personally didn't agree with it, she still cares and they can still be friends." is a sweet sentiment, in theory. Until you dig a little deeper and remember that Kimberlyn is not only voting for but actively helping promote and put power in the hands of people who stripped Sadie of her rights to have that abortion in that state in the first place! Stuff like this is so irritatingly disingenuous... or else just tone deaf and clueless. Pick whichever.

I will say, in closing, that it seemed a big portion of the apparently limited audience that was tuning in -- were queer fans who followed Benoist from Supergirl, and Tala from LoT, and who love Gugino, etc. And this is where it is so damn important know your audience based on who you're casting and what fans they're bringing to the table. Most discussion of the show on Twitter for instance, had been around queer Sadie edits and even a crackship with someone from another show + fans thirsting after Sadie's queer vibes and outfits, etc -- and those fans generated more interest around the show / buzz than anybody, yet there had been no direct acknowledgment nor gratitude by anyone involved with the show for tuning in and creating fan content and edits and art and gifs and hyping a show that otherwise has very little interest. And all that told those fans is: this show isn't for you, and we don't care if you're our only audience, we were aiming for something else. And hey -- aim for whomever you want! Tell your stories! But then don't be surprised when no one cares in this climate. I mean, LGBTQ fans and creators have to deal with this constantly when trying to "appeal to mass audiences", so, welcome to our world.

Additionally, TPTB were not even hyping the canon rep they did have, in Lola, ffs! Instead, everyone just focused the occasional praise from mostly straight white journalists giving it the obscure positive review, or family and friends pushing the show out of personal support.

It was so exhausting to see, because it involved a lot of the same creatives who previously also ignored LGBTQ fans carrying other previous shows with organic marketing in the past. Ignoring what limited audience you have will never be a recipe for long-term success. And with many of the people involved coming from The CW, and many at the top actually part of the LGBTQ community themselves -- you'd think they'd get that by now. Alas.

Anyway, I think most people involved in this show meant well, and worked hard on this one. And I hear they did do a couple great things -- like with Lola's family dynamic and background exploration, some of the humorous moments, etc. And kudos on getting a show made and on air -- because now more than even that is a damn near miracle. But because it's so hard to make happen now, that's really why I tend to be a little more discerning as well as having heightened expectations that representation be as fully developed and organic and self-aware as possible, and that talent not be wasted on cliches and superficiality. Audiences and actors deserve better, IMO.

In closing, I'm sure in the future I'll break my own standards on a project, whether by accident or by order from above, and people will feel I've flopped or been hypocritical given my current and past takes, and that's fine. I'll try to hear people out, adapt and grow and/or fight harder, where needed. But to see the same people get the same opportunities to make the same kind of things that get the same disappointed reactions/flop -- and never learn? Is tiresome.

Especially when the cast, fans, etc deserve better.

The end.

[thecoolerliauditore]

I've only skimmed a lot of the posts so sorry if this point has been made but I wonder how peoples' perception of Masculinity vs Femininity as a spectrum affects their perception of characters and designs. Do some people view Masculinity and Feminity as complete opposites, with androgyny as the middle ground? Can you be masculine and feminine simultaneously, while not really being androgynous? Does the 'threshold' of androgyny change depending on how the cc/character is depicted in 'canon'? to be clear I don't necessarily think any of these viewpoints are 100% correct or whatever but I think it's interesting how people will have different perspectives, because most people's view of gender are skewed different and what might read as a fem design could read masculine to another or just entirely androgynous. sorry for the ramble this stuff fascinates me deeply

No yeah it is fascinating!! It's a. very complicated topic since of course the concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" are very frivolous and amorphous, hence why I kept feeling the need to clarify how it gets. Weird with anime-inspired styles what with the culture shock and whatnot.

This song was really popular in fandoms awhile back and I think it's like. a great example of how one culture's completely neutral (or even masculine!) traits can be seen as feminine (or in this case, "gay") when viewed by another. It's also just really funny and I'm kinda sad no on has done a life series animatic to it yet.

masculinity and femininity as a scale with androgynous in the middle is also something I'm glad you bring up, because the concepts of masculinity and femininity are so arbitrary and as such there are so many ways to deviate from the norm -- some more socially acceptable than others! Thinking about, for example, the young MAGA hat'd women you see on sites like twitter with the most racist takes of all time and who are very proud of their ability to keep up with the boys in terms of 'murican masculinity (chugging beers, changing tires, so on and so forth) but at the same time cake their faces with makeup, support that Hashtag tradwife lifestyle and Would Not Ever Consider wearing clothes from the mens section because that is the Bad type of gender non-conformity for commies and lesbians or whatever.

Compare that to like. sorry incoming irl lore. the way I've had people in both more liberal and less woke areas get nervous when they try to address me, with the only big difference being that more younger, liberal people will typically either ask for my pronouns or they/them me by default.

I'm lucky enough that most people here are polite but as someone who has presented both masc/fem the way people treat me is so distinctly different based on my perceived gender as well as my level of androgyny it was kind of shocking to me. Eitherway there's a distinct attitude it's like. Rude to not be able to tell whether someone's a man or woman I've noticed and nowadays I have a lot of fun stressing people out. Sadism in me or whatever.

ANYWAY this was about minecraft youtubers. Analysing how people gender their designs, unconsciously or not, is fascinating because of how interpretative these designs are. There's also probably something you could say about how gaming youtuber is a very male-dominated space and how female gaming youtubers tend to overperform femininity, but in very different ways dependent on their intended audience (compare say. Lizzie and Pokimane for example.)

I think it's also worth noting that like. masculinity and femininity in behaviour is very different from physical presentation. which is how you get images like this

in addition to, again, these concepts already being abstract.

and of course, all said with me biting my tongue on the queer side of things still, because that's a whole other sub-sector of stereotypes and in-group signalling and history that runs convergent with mainstream views on gender.

I think it might be an interesting exercise to put your own designs up against others and consider what points they differ and what that might mean for how the other artist interprets the character vs how you do it. And then if you can look up what the artist actually has to say about the character and see just how right/wrong you were and how your own biases come into play. Two different people can have very similar views on a character, for example, but communicate that through opposite design tropes because they have different associations with said tropes. Not just for gender things btw and I've found peoples more nuanced opinions are harder to read than you'd think! I don't think anyone would look at my Bdubs design and guess that I thought he was fairly feminine in personality, for example.

I love doing that and challenging my own pre-conceptions of what i think peoples takes are judging by their designs (as well as what I think certain traits indicate in personality!). It's amazing for example how many pearl designs I've seen as too feminine and rolled my eyes at turn out to be drawn by artists who very much consider her to be tomboyish.

[pinbones]

If there's one thing I wanna nitpick about the asexuality and sex thing, it's this:

While I get that conversations online about acespecs do get derailed, I have an issue with the idea that "aces can like sex" is a harmful or annoying additon to posts stating the opposite, or that the entire idea itself is "just conforming" (having sex as an asexual is appparently conforming to society?!).

I understand why it's an annoying addition to some people, I really do, especially when it's not meant to open up the conversation but instead to shut it down. But just like every form of oppression and harmful expectations/stereotypes, it's best to take broad statements and make them practical ("anyone could want or not want sex" -> "don't expect any person to fit a mould for sex") than it is to say "aces don't like sex! don't derail!"

Don't you think, for example, an allosexual person who struggles with sexualised perception (such as a bisexual and/or aromantic person) would benefit from a separation of "attraction" and "sex"? Don't you think everyone would?

And what about aces who DO like sex, huh? It's alienating to be considered non-default, and pushing a 'default' and telling people not to derail it is not helping. There are a bajillion posts on the asexual tag about not liking or being interested in having sex, it's the #1 ace myth across the board, and parading this (not just simplistic but) incorrect view as "the asexual sex conversation" is misinformative.

Let's try sex-related language for sex-related conversations, yeah? Sex-positive vs has sex, wants sex vs feels attraction, feels no attraction vs virginity... at no point should "asexual" or "allosexual" appear with the DEFINITION of any of these terms. They might be a serviceable shorthand to you, but not to everyone.

Both asexuality and allosexuality are part of the conversation -- like I said, I get it, I really do -- but this stereotype and its ramifications are everywhere in asexual communities and outside of them. "Asexual dating" meaning dating without sex instead of the broader topic of dating without attraction, "asexual kink" meaning nonsexual kink instead of exploring kink without attraction...

And what sucks is this catch-22 thing of either starting conversations like these and being dismissed, or joining into existing conversations and being shut down, because it's considered part of a 'different conversation' (why?) but that conversation isn't the right one. Asexual sex isn't allosexual sex, but it gets pushed into there. Allosexual disinterest in sex isn't asexual, which makes it unfortunate that not liking sex is considered to be an ace thing. This sucks, right?

Honestly we should just say what we mean and consider ramifications for others as much as we can, which will hopefully make our conversations more productive and less harmful/alienating.

Which is honestly the goal for all online queer topics when you think about it *shrug*

[bloodgulchblog]

not to get generically fandom on the halo-specific blog, but i feel like there's something to be said about the value of exploring outside the dominant narrative re: shipping vs non-shipping.

in general, when dealing with source material, most of the time the big famous high budget corporate-produced stories people are building on are either actively hostile toward queer interpretation, or just never going to acknowledge the potential written into them. so, writing gay fanfiction of popular movies, games, tv shows, etc that pretend gay people don't exist is exploring outside that source's dominant (probably heterosexual) narrative. it's also why i think "what if popular canonical straight ship are explored as just really good friends" also has that same kind of oppositional value.

but once you step away from that source material into a popular fan context where a non-canonical ship is widely discussed and written, you enter a new context where it is nailed down in different ways to a different playbook of tropes: the ones that are popular/common in queer fanfiction.

at that point, you have a new space in which you can broaden a conversation about two characters by examining friendship in a way that acknowledges what your source is likely to deny (because the source probably does not embrace the potential for emotional intimacy between the characters the same way the queer fandom space does) while also opposing the ideas that can become suffocatingly dominant within the (much smaller, much less powerful, but still extant) world of the fandom dominated by the popular non-canon ship.

iunno.

previous post got me thinking.

[peppertaemint]

I've always felt that the jikookers vs. taemin feud kinda mirrored the taekookers vs. jimin situation, but at a much smaller scale, of course. I agree with you that they feel threatened by taemin's indisputable stature as an artist, as it disrupts the narrative that bts is always the first and always the best at everything, and also because jimin looks up to him and is influenced by him (as if it wasn't obvious enough before, now we got the confirmation from the man himself, thank you very much). This reminds me of taekookers getting mad at jimin for standing out so much as a performer. I mean, he obviously does, that's why they're always all up in his business instead of focusing on their favs' "records". Also, they hate the fact that they're close because they read taemin as queer, which makes them think that they actually might have kissed, once, at a party (just once). Kookie's friends look straight enough to them, so they can stay. A bit homophobic if you ask me. I'm sure that if we saw taemin around jimin publicly more often, he would've been already promoted to the same The Other Woman™ role jimin occupies for tkks. And besides all that, I could write an essay on why jimin's friendships have always been under scrutiny because many people can't take the fact that he has more going on in his life besides being the members' cheerleader and jungkook's devoted wife, but that's a different topic.

Thank you for this Ask, Anon. You raised a lot of salient points here. The one I'm gonna pick up on is Taemin's perceived queerness, with emphasis on perceived.

There is an odd thing that happens with non-fans. They mostly think he's gay, that it's obvious, and they don't really like their favourite having a connection to him. While, within the fandom community, shawols cannot decide if they think he's gay. If you were to ask around, you'd get quite a few different opinions.

I find it interesting because the "outside" community has very specific and strong opinions of him. I connected with a Korean-American lady in her 50s a while ago and talked about all things Kpop. She wasn't a shawol. One of the first things she said, unprompted, was, oh Taemin, he's gay but can never come out, what a shame/challenge for him (I was chatting from a 2Min account, just for context). I was a little floored at how readily she shared this fully-formed opinion.

It seems the world outside shawols have already made up their minds about him, in one way or another. I think about when he was young and had that beautiful long hair, but his frame was still so slight that the gender confusion for an onlooker was understandable. It must have been hard to have the world decide that you were sitting somewhere on the trans spectrum. And to know everyone thinks they know you're gay.

There is a zero percent chance of him not feeling these things, and he's certainly done both reactionary hetero-leaning performances and queer performances. Pretty Boy is and Internet War are the first that come to mind. And it's worth remembering that sometime in the early 2010s, there was a Korean news report about homosexuality in kpop idols, and he and Jonghyun were named in it (as a couple, I think 💀).

I don't love the song Pretty Boy, but the choreography with its military steps and these lyrics have a lot to say.

Hey you, tough guy / Relax your hardened shoulders / Hey feel the way I move

I’m like a speeding train / You’ll be surprised / Look at that poor girl, I hope you notice / She says “you’re a guy so…” like a habit / Why is being sensitive and prepared the opposite of being a man?

Cause I do it I do it for you / I won’t pretend to be innocent like a puppet / Everyone talks so easily

I may always seem pretty, I may always seem good / I may seem nice, I may seem soft / But that’s all a part of your imagination that’s over my head / (Pretty Boy)

[lgbtolkien]

Thoughts on Queer Hobbits

When considering the deeper parts of hobbit culture, it's important to think about their existence at large. Hobbits had already been around for many generations before being discovered by other peoples of Middle Earth, and are most likely some sort of offshoot of Men, but have forgotten any genealogical ties to them. However, to base ideas of hobbit culture off of Men, or even base the culture of Men off of ours, is complete disservice to the world of Middle Earth. Tolkien did base many things in his books off of living people and cultures in our world, but the simple fact that they are all fictional, and truly are nothing like us, should discourage one from making too many parallels and assumptions. 

Hobbits, as a large, were based on people from the English countryside, and are known as happy, peaceful people, who don’t trust anything that is not ‘normal’ to them. This is where it is easy to get the idea that Hobbits would not approve of queer relationships, or any sort of family that was out of the ordinary. First though, we should question why they would deem something like that not ‘normal’ in the first place. 

Hobbits are known to have monogamous lifestyles, where a lad and a lass get married and have children, and many times having very, very many of them. Certainly, a Hobbit couple of the same sex who could not produce children would be quite odd to many. With that, an individual who dresses unusually compared to others of their sex, or believes themselves to be of a different identity, could also be considered odd to them. Hobbits are not a people of written history, the Red Book of Westmarch being one of the very few written accounts in the whole Shire. Therefore, it's unlikely they would have any sort of past notions or even scientific ideas of gender vs sex. 

Even with all this, what Hobbits value above all else is happiness, and because of that it’s easy to believe that many wouldn’t really care all that much, because truly, how was what happened in another person’s life hurting anyone else if it did nothing but make them happy? In addition to this, even if people were to care very much about it, nothing much would come of it. Hobbits are notably non-violent, and are much more likely to gossip and rumor than to bother other people simply living. Hobbits, in general, would best be described as a tolerant people. They have no outward opposition, and those who do would not act on it directly, as to not cause more trouble than it’s worth. 

It’s also important to recognize that in our world, most opposition to LGBTQ lifestyles is based on, or at least aided by, ideas of religion. While religious ideas do certainly exist in Middle Earth, as we are familiar with and read about its gods, goddesses, and other creatures of power, Hobbits don’t necessarily follow any sort of organized religion. Even then, there is no mention of any such disapproval anywhere in available works. 

Overall, I’d really like to say that Hobbits don't give two hoots about queerness, and are probably more focused on whatever some Hornblower lad has been planting in his garden because it looks atrocious and certainly will not win him any prizes at the fair.

From your queer Hobbit-y friend,

[frances-kafka]

A big thing I run into with discourse around “The End of Eternity” is that modern readers miss a big point of the narrative and just are not going to stick out enough of the story to see how Asimov resolves it. We’re in the era of “any portrayal of a structure equals condoning it.” People don’t grasp that a particular structure is Objectively Bad unless that is pointed out early on. There is a real anxiety about not knowing who you are supposed to root for.

I feel like this ambiguity was a bigger preference for readers of lots of 90s work; you can’t really portray moral grayness now. I do not feel TEOE is a “gray” work - the author’s moral stance eventually becomes clear regarding the primary bureaucratic structure of the setting. However - the main character doesn’t really begin to question that structure until halfway through the book or later. And if you don’t stick out Andrew Harlan’s development (this is actually a very richly worldbuilt setting for its length and you will experience quite a bit of immersion into the Eternals before Harlan begins to question what he’s been taught all of his life) then it’s easy to make assumptions about the work.

I think this is hard for people who grew up with YA and haven’t engaged harder work, especially in sci fi, to engage with.

also the book has a lot to say about gender segregation in society and toxic masculinity but you have to stick the book out for that. Asimov didn’t just give you that on the first page. And if you’re the type of reader who has been primed to not empathize with *men’s* experience of that thing or with complicated, kinda fucked up male characters then you may not find Harlan relatable.

TEOE is easily one of Asimov’s most adaptable works, and Hollywood has been leaving money on the table for a long time, and Ridley Scott was going to adapt it but it got stuck in development hell at one point. At this point it probably won’t be made, as that was (well?) over a decade ago. An adaptation would probably leave out the parts that are the most problematic to modern viewers/readers. It would probably remove all the weird gender politics from the Eternals and make some of the Eternals women. (Understandably so; some of the assumptions about why women most often can’t be Eternals, are based in a cultural context of women’s lives in 1955, vs men’s; there was a far greater likelihood of a 1950s man leaving no descendants, than of a woman.)

unfortunately, if it did that, to me - it would sanitize away what’s actually one of the most interesting aspects of the book. I’m fascinated by what it has to say about gender, because to me, there is a way this book hits different if you can contextualize Harlan and the Eternals in terms of a strict gender-segregated society that strictly limits one’s understanding of and contact with the opposite sex so that every possible interaction between the sexes is tremendously fraught and full of tension.

There is a whole analysis of this book that’s possible if you have read authors like, say, Chaim Potok, and or are in general familiar with the gender mores of ultra-orthodox Jewish culture, or some other kind of equally regimented and gender-segregated culture.

Harlan doesn’t react to being attracted to a woman in a manner of a contemporary man who has grown up in *our* world. He hasn’t been taught to manage his emotions in any other way besides the most strict suppression, and is overwhelmed by them the first time he feels them. He was taken away from his family young and has only ever known this all-male world that has raised him.

There’s also a queer reading that’s possible, if you read it in a certain light, though Asimov would likely not have intended this. Andrew Harlan is basically a non-asexual hetero man in a world where that’s Bad, and basically the plot is that he’s going to be straight and do crimes.

the book doesn’t at any point get rapey, though Harlan’s emotional landscape would be alien to modern readers. Some things he seems to experience and express seem to be from the point of view of a man who has never been allowed to actually gain any kind of emotional maturity about relationships, and it’s actually a best case scenario in that regard.

a common complaint about the book is that Noys Lambent (love interest) is basically a human McGuffin with no real character development of her own but this actually comes off better considering Harlan as a somewhat unreliable narrator who doesn’t see the world beyond his own introspection. (This is easily one of Asimov’s very most introspective and personal works, compared to the tone in his other writing.) And basically the common complaint is that she’s Just A Pretty Face.

well… once again, people critiquing the book didn’t stick it out.

I really suspect modern readers require the “tells” a lot earlier in a book and a moral dilemma or surprise twist characterization can be missed when the thing takes too long to build.