#pandering to the gay community

[florencekinnie-slash-hj]

And all of those are very valid opinions to have! Like I said in my post above, there's value in all types of media for each and every person. The reasons I may find a distaste for it may be the reasons why people adore the show.

When I spoke about my opinion as to why I find it unrealistic, that was not me dissing the show, or doing anything to negate it's value to younger queer audiences.

I also will not sit here and say that every show needs to be hypersexualized, which is not at all where I was going with my statements (although I will add, that the purification of queer teens to make them marketable to straight audiences as to make them more palatable, does lead to the demonization of other, just as valid, queer experiences) or like Euphoria.

I have many qualms with that show. My adolescence was already like that, and I take issue with the beautification romanticization of suffering (especially young women's suffering, and the historical roots as to why the damsel in distress trope still plagues us to this day, and negatively impacts how young women see their roles in the world, and how influencing them to see pain as beauty, and that they need to be saved or controlled by someone more powerful than they, contributes only to serve the patriarchy.) and the last thing that I want is for EVERY show to be like that.

I think that there is an audience for every show, and someone that can take away something from every piece of media. With that being said, Heartstopper is just not my cup of tea when it comes to seeking realism. I still enjoy the show, it is very palatable and an easy watch that still gives me the rush of conflict and resolution (while also keeping it within a safety net of not going off the deep end, like with Euphoria as you used as your example).

At the same time, I prefer media that is a bit more heavy handed on blurring the lines between 'good' and 'bad', showing the complexities of human emotions and the human experience, and things that will make me question my morals, such as Hannibal, Breaking Bad, Stranger Things, and The Last Of Us.

My response was not intended to insight feelings of invalidation, and I'm sorry if that was the impact that it had on you. I was merely trying to offer a difference in perspective, just as I am doing with my response :)

Straight people can look at the majority of all the TV shows and movies ever made and see only straight people in them and then have the audacity to say that Heartstopper is not realistic because the majority of the characters are queer ???? You're just homophobic bestie we had and HAVE to deal with straight people in every kind of media being the only ones there for years now you can get a taste of that feeling

[duothelingo]

Got an ask saying I’m a big company pandering to the queer community for my post about being trans.

Babygirl.

I’m a parody blog.

A gimmick.

I’m also a huge gay.

And trans.

?????

[anxresi]

Check out Chloe's 'new design'...

... According to a post on X by Thomas 'born liar' Asruc.

His idea of a joke, I guess... are all French people this funny?

Personally, I think it looks more like Zoe...

The same way Soquerline was the spitting image of Marinette.

Do these character designers have ANY imagination? AT ALL?

Seriously. I want to know. This is not a rhetorical question.

And allegedly, she has prosphetic legs! So of course, she's a track star. Normally, I'd applaud the oft-neglected representation...

But this is Miraculous Ladybug we're talking about here.

I guarantee it'll be badly-written, self-congratulatory pandering to those undemanding types for whom just SEEING a character with them is enough.

I have a simple statement to throw to these tragically easily-impressed individuals...

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GET SOME STANDARDS!!

Remember when they made Zoe and Miss Bustier gay out of nowhere? (for no reason than to make these unpopular character likeable to certain communities) .

Remember when they made an entire episode about 'racism'? (where no-one faced any consequences at the end, and no-one could even say the word).

Remember when they finished the last season with an unbelievably clunky message about recycling? (like they recycle the worst parts from other formulaic superhero shows, I guess).

It's all about the optics, nothing else... and you don't have to be a born cynic to see it that way.

They could care less about the underlying issues, they just want to tick as many 'fashionable cause' boxes as they can in lieu of making a good show.

Don't believe me? Here's a few predictions for you.

Feel free to come back after it's aired to tell me how correct I was.

*After this girl's introduction, we will NEVER see her again.

*Her ENTIRE persona will be based around her 'disability', and her personality and popularity will put Zoe's to shame to 'compensate' for it.

*She'll get akumatised, and it'll stem from a lack of confidence due to you-know-what. Afterwards, she'll learn to accept herself more, and...

Look, does anyone else feel somewhat insulted, looking at the patronising tripe the writers look like they're going to be serving us up with in the future?

S5 was bad enough, but the next one looks like they're REALLY doubling down on giving us superficial 'life lessons' instead of a half decent story.

Believe it or not (and you wouldn't by watching this shallow load of condescending trash) there IS a way to squeeze a satisfying plot and well-drawn characters around a healthy message that DOESN'T bash you over the head with it's self-worthiness repeatedly in every painful scene.

In case you hadn't noticed, Miraculous Ladybug isn't that show (CHLOE BAD, anyone?).

And, if you think I'm a heartless bigot for pointing out the highly obvious agenda of the shameless charlatans behind Miraculous Ladybug, then you're an idiot.

And you really need to reread my post again, more carefully this time.

Here, I'll even start you off from the right spot. 'Check Out Chloe's New...'

[my-rose-tinted-glasses]

My memory is terrible so I wanted to do a breakdown of my stuff every once in a while. Might be monthly, might be whenever I feel like it. And also. Spoilers and opinions below, read at your own risk.

QL - Currently Watching

🇯🇵I Hear the Sunspot [1/12] - I'm so grateful that I get a new jbl just as I'm mourning the end of the last one. I didn't read this manga but I've watched the film, and I really liked it even if it felt unfinished. Hopefully with 12 episodes it means we get the full story. This was a very good first episode, I feel like we established the main relationships dynamics and got a good insight into the main characters core. Taichi is my new child.

🇹🇭 Knock Knock, Boys! [6/12] - I continue to enjoy this group. Jane turned out to be a great addition instead of what I feared, but Peak really needs to step up so I can keep rooting for him and Thanwa, cause I'm also not a huge fan of the ex coming back as an obstacle for the couple. Latte and Almond are really great together and I'm curious how Almond will deal with his feelings for Latte, when he actually realizes he's having them.

🇹🇭Love Sea [4/12] - Before anything else, I love the ocean and I love when shows get out of the city. Also I like Mut. Now. I'm not a Mame hater. I'm a 'trauma is the only way to write deep characters' hater. I'm also a 'trauma gives you an excuse to be an asshole' hater. But most of all, I'm very much a 'love will fix you' hater. So just don't give me 3 out of 3 and it's fine. Also this last episode, all the talk about money and contracts made me feel some kind of way, although it doesn't seem to bother Mut so... And as much I like having Aya on my screen, Mook is really testing that line between cute and incredibly annoying. I'm not sure how long I'm staying with this one.

🇹🇭My Love Mix-Up! [4/12] - So... this is not good. The technical aspects of this are actually bad. Considering the number of sponsors is actually kinda incredible that it's so badly put together. The sound, the lighting, the editing, overall just... not good. Now, the rest. Look I don't want to ruin anybody's fun, so I'll keep watching this one quietly, unless something outrageous happens. But for the record, and this is all I'm gonna say, they are ruining the best parts of these characters and this story, and even if I ignore that (which I can't because it's an adaptation), it's pandering and it's a lazy attempt at recapturing the magic of msp, with a worse script and recycled material. Also I cannot believe they didn't put Atom in a trashing bag.

🇹🇭 My Stand-In [1/12] - For a number of reasons I'm waiting to binge this one. I do love watching the gifs on my dash though, pretty is pretty.

🇯🇵Ossan no Pants ga Nandatte Ii Janai ka! [9/11] - It's so good. I love them all. This last episode I was close to tears in several parts but the street proposal ended me. It's definitely one of those shows that I'm grateful that I get to watch even if I can't always find the words to talk about it. These characters have my whole heart. [everyone should be watching this and the wonderful @isaksbestpillow has made that possible with her subs. Here is the post with the latest episode. ]

🇹🇭SunsetxVibes [3/12] - It's ridiculous, it's fun, it's cute. Sun is such a simp. Man basically proposed before they were even dating. And yeah the way it started was not amazing, with the lying, but these two actually communicate about their expectations and what they're feeling which is better than a lot of shows right now. And I adore the sides.

🇹🇭The Rebound [2/12] - Everyone is gay and naked. And they play a sport of some kind.

🇹🇭The Trainee [1/12] - OffGun are back! I really liked the set up for this. It's only the first episode but I really like how they are walking the line between the comedy and the seriousness of the workplace. I love a good friend group so I'm looking forward to seeing how the relationships between all the interns grow. Poon is once again playing the silly brainless child of the pack but I don't care, I adore that kid for some reason. And next week we already got Gun crying so what's not to like?

🇹🇭 Wandee Goodday [10/12] - I already talked about my feelings regarding the last episode. I'm here for Oyei/Cher and Plakao. I love Inn and Great, they deliver with the chemistry but the DeeYak storyline is just a mess for me right now. I am also not looking forward to the inevitable redemption of the terrible parental figure.

🇹🇭 We Are [13/16] - The friendships are still great and mainly why I'm watching. I have a really good time watching those scenes. Only 3 episodes left and ChainPun continue to be the tinniest of crumbs. I don't expect much from this couple at this point and I'm a bit disappointed. FangTan are so cute and such good communicators. They are my favourites. QToey are cute. Now, Phum and Peem. Look PondPhuwin are really good at looking at each other like they're the only person in the universe. However. There's only so many times I can enjoy them staring at each other in slow mo. Once per episode oughta be enough I think. Hopefully now that they're actual boyfriends it gets a little less annoying.

QL - Finished

🇯🇵25 Ji, Akasaka de - What an incredible journey. I have to say it has been a while since a show surprised me this much, for the positive. For most of it I wasn't sure where it was gonna go or how it would end or who would be doing the running. The way they played with the show within a show was so well done. I loved the change in pov, which I always love in jbls, but it not only gave us the opportunity to see how Hayama's crush started but also we were allowed to see behind the mask that Hayama had been keeping up. Speaking of. I love him, one of my favourite characters of the year. And Komagine Kiita did an incredible job. I can't wait to watch him again when Tengu returns. If I had to say, the one thing I wish I had was more of Shirasaki's backstory. I wanted to understand better why his self-esteem got that bad. But that ending was great and honestly, I earned it.

🇵🇭Marahuyo Project - Well that was excellent. This show is beautiful. I want to hug them all and walk next to them. I really don't have the words for it right now so just go watch it. Because these characters are incredible and the visuals are stunning. All episodes here.

🇹🇭 Only Boo! - This is getting tiresome. Here it goes. Why? It was so great. They were the cutest shit and I had a smile on my face the entire episode. Even with the singing. It was wholesome and the mains delightful. And then... Heartbreak, time skip, no consequences, unearned happy ending. I mean Moo is a great character still, and Kang is the best boy, but I'm tired.

Rose Watches OJBL

Mood Indigo (2019) - I liked this one slightly better than the first. I think the visuals are stronger and there are some incredible shots throughout. The sex scenes are some of the best shot that I've ever seen. I love Kijima so even though I'm not always on board with prequels, it was great that we got more insight into him. Obviously we know this relationship was doomed from the start, and Kido has a lot to do with how we find Kijima in the beginning of The Novelist, but I can't help but feel for Kido. He is a mess that is struggling between the expectations that are on him (put there by others but also himself) and the affection and desire he feels for Kijima. And even without watching The Novelist there is always an air that this will not end well. For lack of a better phrase, it just wasn't meant to be. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of this series.

Dangerous Drugs of Sex (2020) - One of my first thoughts when I was watching this was 'we are using the word unhinged too freely'. Cause Ryoji has little competition on that score. This is not an easy watch. I really liked the way it was shot even if at times that meant my view was too narrow so I couldn't look anywhere else but the 'uglier' parts. In completely different ways they were both stuck in an uncomfortable (yeah that's not really the best word but I can't think of another) place and I could feel that throughout. I'm not sure about the ending but they look happy, so what do I know?

Other - Watched

There's a lot airing so I didn't watch much outside ql. I finished Under the Skin and rewatched a couple of things. My watchlist got longer and I have a bunch of shows that I'll hopefully tackle during my summer holiday in July. Speaking of...

There is a lot coming next month, so here is a post with all the shows that have been announced for July that I updated to include Meet You at the Blossom that was recently announced. New jbl starts tomorrow!!!!

As usual my ask box is open for questions or requests. Have a wonderful week💜

[sirenium]

lesbians, gays, and any other LGBT person who tries to separate themselves from the 'queer community' will forever elicit a sneer from me. we're all queer in the eyes of the people y'all tend to pander to, sorry! no amount of 'I'm normal, unlike those queers!! I'm just a lesbian uwu!' will protect you from anti-gay rhetoric. you will forever be lumped with the 'crazy blue haired neopronoun queers' you despise so much.

it's so hilariously pathetic that they can't see that.

[autismvampyre]

i feel so fucking bad for my fellow young queers nowadays. so many are being radicalized by the right because we are so disconnected from our past and history and it fucking sucks man

i remember being 14 and just being so lost and uncomfortable in my own skin and getting wrapped up in fucking exclusionary discourse on fucking instagram of all places. i remember not liking myself and being vulnerable and feeling left out, and all these other online queers took me in and said "its fine, you're normal, but we have to fight the not-normal queers to be accepted" and i believed them because who else would i trust?

the idea that there's a wrong kind of gay or trans or queer is so antithetical to what this community is supposed to be about. we're strange, we're outcast. it's so sad to see infighting knowing that its just successful propaganda meant to divide us.

truth is, bigots don't care if you're the "right kind of queer" or not. they still hate you for existing and pandering does nothing but hurt the only community that actually cares. we have to leave behind the mindset that we can only be accepted if we change, because the people who only accept us when we're the "good kind of queer" never fucking respected us in the first place

we're here, we're queer, and we don't have to be "the right kind" to be allowed to exist

[tirfpikachu]

as a wheelchair woman who isn't validated by all the terms or sayings in the english language, trans ppl need to start giving eachother the advice to build resilience as a community instead of inciting bitterness against The Cissies and actually accept being the exception to the rule. you need to realize that language, especially language important for activism reasons, doesn't need to completely change to include you in every single area. sometimes someone will say something about walking or stairs or driving or lots of things that i physically cannot do, and at first it pissed me off when i still was feeling jaded about being disabled, but i really did find so much peace after i actually accepted it. i don't think many trans people have actually fully accepted being trans, being different. if it was a close friend i was having a one-on-one talk with, the difference not being acknowledged might feel a bit weird at times, but i would never expect a total stranger to alter their language just to include me. that would feel super awkward and clunky and just feel like trying to pander to me out of excessive politeness. i nowadays understand that sayings and og definitions of terms may not include me... and that's okay!! even as a gay person, in feminist spaces, women will talk about men in dating and it's obviously implied that they're talking about straight & bi men without them needing to specify the straight part every single fucking time. it would be so tedious and unnecessary. i totally accept them using it that way in certain contexts. it took me a while to get there, but i now see it neutrally.

the thing is trans ppl themselves even use sex/agab-based language for the overwhelming majority of people and only ever care when the person is considered too gnc to look/act like a "normie" male/female person. they also will talk shit about men without saying cishet before it everytime, it's just implied, and you can tell from context clues. why isn't that the case with women/womanhood? why can't woman be both a biological sex and also a gender role that some may transition into or wish to? why can't feminists use the first definition, the og version of the term, when talking about generic female issues? why can't trans ppl add nuance if needed, but also sit back and understand that marginalized groups need to discuss things at length and having to insert a billion caveats every single time when using a term that applies to the GRAND MAJORITY of people living as men/women slows down our activism and just frustrates everyone for no good reason? you have to understand that you're an outlier. you have to understand that you're outside the norm. blm activists don't mention people with skin disorders every single time they discuss race dynamics. gay activists don't need to mention trans ppl who live as the opposite sex/agab every single time they talk abt gay issues. female folks don't need to mention male/amab ppl in every single female/afab-specific discussion unless it's relevant. just as trans ppl can focus on their own issues too without needing to watch their tongue excessively to cater to non-trans feelings. sometimes you need to know that you're the exception, and as such ppl won't need to mention that not all people can drive when talking about road accidents, or that not everyone can get the vaccine done in their arms if they're amputees, or that some gay people are ace so they don't need to worry about being caught having gay sex and facing homophobia for it. sometimes you gotta learn that you're not always gonna be the center of the conversation, especially in conversations involving differently marginalized people. bio women & transmasc ppl don't need to mention transfems on issues of abortions or genital mutilation or sex-specific laws. bio men & transfems don't need to center transmascs to validate their identities when talking about the aids crisis, which primarily affected male homosexual people. feminists should be allowed to use women in the biological sex definition, and trans activists should be allowed to use women to mean anyone living as a woman in society.

the overwhelming majority of people aren't trans, and cis/bio women are an oppressed class in huge numbers. so sometimes trans ppl have to learn that men & women as terms are primarily used referring to one definition, while they, as trans people, fit another definition of the words. and that's not the world being cruel to spite you. people of course can be cruel to trans folks; if they purposefully misgender somebody or outlaws adult transition completely and mock trans bodies etc that can really harm someone's mental health. but you cannot seriously expect words like man & woman, words that initially have always referred to body types and were made to facilitate communication between two radically different people with different needs and baggage, to be used with endless trans-related caveats every single time. even trans people themselves often don't do it! same with using they/them for people without them asking you otherwise being called a bigot. that's getting into silliness territory for me. as much as being trans sucks, trans people need to build resilience to being different than the norm. and not just through inside jokes and memes and snarky discourse. they could learn a lot from the physically disabled community, honestly. i know how much it sucks to realize how someone is talking doesn't reflect your own personal experience. but sometimes you have experiences that differ from the norm, and that's okay! you can chuckle a bit and shake your head and move on with your life. it doesn't need to be seen as an attack or make you feel totally abandoned by the leftist community. you won't always be included in every social justice conversation. someone's definition of something might not include you everytime. and it's tiring. it's annoying at times. but it can also be okay. the more trans people try to change the fabric of society to an extreme amount and give extreme demands, the more the world will see them as emotional, impulsive toddlers who are out of their minds. they're actually worsening the image of their movement instead of helping anyone. they're leading to more transphobic prejudice, not less. why not just understand that words can have different meanings? that as long as someone doesn't have bad intent and otherwise is a good ally, them using words meant to make conversations easier and more succinct can be literally no big deal? you can be like "oh okay, this is about cis/bio women" and move on if it's super obviously the case. if you have an interesting insight as a trans woman or a transmasc person you can chime in, but otherwise just read between the lines and not interrupt important feminist discussions.

sometimes you actually do need to desensitize yourself to these things and practice radical acceptance of exactly who and what you are. you don't need to try to tear up leftist spaces and reshape them to awkwardly fit every single micro experience marginalized people can face all at once. you can have different discussions for different things and use words in different ways. having control issues about that is actually making things worse for you in the long run! and making you look pretty dumb to your allies who really are in your corner, but have issues of their own. i don't need people to mention not everyone can walk, drive or work every 5 seconds to include me. especially not on a random post. it would feel weird!! it's okay to not fit every average conversation. you don't need to harass people, especially feminists, into changing their language in every single conversation and make debates last 5000x longer. sometimes you just wanna talk shit about men without having to specify that it only applies to xyz type of men. sometimes you want to complain about being a woman and refer to body issues that typically come with being a woman. sometimes you talk about man/woman dynamics and it'll mostly apply to non-trans folks. it's okay! trans ppl can definitely add comments for nuance if it's of interest, or make their own posts on their own very complex experiences. but you cannot keep slowing down the feminist movement and try to force other activists to do things that are just unreasonable, things that many trans folks don't even do themselves!!

[techiekittie]

Kemi Badenoch, the equality minister and part of the Conservative Party, has said many transphobic things like blocking laws to ban conversion therapy, purposefully misgendering trans women in a leaked recording, and supporting the LGB alliance (which excludes trans people from queerness).

Meanwhile, David Tennant, a popular Scottish actor starring in Doctor Who and Good Omens, is a great ally to the queer community. While not being queer himself, he is very supportive of LGBTQ people, often wearing a nonbinary pride pin to support one of his (unknown) children, consistently speaking out about gay and trans rights, and posting about equality online.

His words have had an extremely positive impact on many queer people (especially his fans), and he won the Celebrity Ally LGBTQIA+ award for his support.

During his speech, he expressed more support for the queer community, saying:

“…acknowledging that everyone has the right to be who they want to be and live their life how they want to live it as long as they're not hurting anyone else should merit any kind of special award or special mention, because it's common sense, isn't it?”

He also criticised Kemi Badenoch (the transphobic woman I mentioned above) in his speech, saying:

“We shouldn't live in a world where that is worth remarking on. However, until we wake up, and Kemi Badenoch doesn't exist any more – I don't wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up.”

This has sparked controversy amongst the Conservative Party, who has recently been attempting to form policies to limit “transgender ideology”. Rishi Sunak, the MP leading the party (and running for PM in the general election, though expected to lose by a landslide) has openly opposed trans people, making many transphobic comments on live television during the election debates.

He opposed David Tennant’s speech by saying on Twitter:

He uses the word “women”- plural, though Kemi Badenoch is only one woman, and the only one David Tennant criticised in his speech. Some have speculated that he is trying to garner support from feminists, pandering insincerely to them.

Kemi Badenoch has also responded on this on Twitter, saying:

Ironically, she campaigns heavily against policies banning conversion therapy- which often uses traumatic experiences to associate queerness with trauma, making the person avoid their own sexuality and identity, leading to PTSD for most. This endangers many women, including trans women and lesbians, yet she opposes policies designed to keep them safe from these traumatic situations.

[olderthannetfic]

The main problem that I have with Youtubers who attempt to approach media analysis and fandom through theory and academia is that the vast majority aren't academics. Just being in undergrad isn't actually enough, contrary to the thoughts of many. Reading a Wikipedia article and reiterating what one may find in some Google, even Google Scholar, searches. Ideally, these would be topics approached by people involved in academia as a profession, people with doctoral degrees, who can discuss complex topics in a way that is easily understood by the masses. "What is the negotiation between gender and sex in BL?" "How does CMBYN articulate/complicate hierarchal roles within the gay novel?" "Could SnK express an alternative reading of the formerly isolated Japan?" These are complicated questions they attempt to answer in their video essays when they seldom ever understand the theories they employ.

Yes, I understand this can sound elitist, but as a Black afab person who is currently in a doctoral program for literature, there aren't "easy" answers to any of the questions they attempt to pose, and many Youtubers who primarily make long-form video essays lack the life experience and expertise to sufficiently discuss anything. They're usually too set in their thoughts to answer or explore the broader implications of their claims. Defending a dissertation forces you to do this. Forming a committee of experts in various fields and convincing them to aid you in the development of your dissertation forces you to do this. Being in academic and cordial communication with your peers from all over the world in your field forces you to do this. It's not easy to constantly intake new information from various eras and nations (depending on your topic), meld this information into a coherent essay, and continually make edits as you learn new information, thus changing your outlook on things. Also: it's really petty of me, but it's also incredibly annoying to grade poorly researched undergrad essays who, after some prompting in office hours, say they got these ideas on books, movies, and shows from breadtubers like Somerton, SZ, FD Signifier, or hbomberguy. Cue: me going to watch their videos and realizing they have no idea what they're talking about 88% of the time in terms of theory and application of said theory. Even the ones who frame themselves on being educators in real life, like Signifier, lack any nuance, depth, or media literacy to make a compelling argument if you know even the slightest bit of information. On the bright side, I now know why I've encountered several students with ideologies that are basically conservatism with a veneer of progressivism, or "conservatism in a queer hat."

This concludes my long-winded way of saying "Don't turn to Youtubers for media analysis. You're better off just reading articles by people who have to actually know what they're talking about. The majority of Youtubers (especially the breadtubers) don't have the bandwidth to discuss anything more complex than an episode of Blue's Clues."

--

I mostly agree, but I'd point to a slightly different problem. I'm hesitant to say that the PhD itself is the deciding factor, but I do think a lot of video essayists are insufficiently prepared.

I'm a big fan of Folding Ideas who does have some formal schooling in film, but I don't think it's that education per se that makes him great. He sets himself apart from other video essayists by actually doing his research and having an in-depth approach to his subjects. He doesn't resort to clickbait, and—here's the key—he often takes months or even a year to work on something.

Honestly, I think that's a big part of it: the hoops most youtubers who want to make a living at it have to jump through involve a lot of clickbait and pandering and a fast production schedule. They don't involve reputable peer review except by the court of shriek-y public opinion on twitter.

They'd like to present themselves as documentary filmmaking (which is essentially what Folding Ideas' longer videos are), but they don't actually live up to any of the usual standards of that either.

I think it can be elitist to say that someone needs to have certain letters after their name, yes, but what really strikes me about your average youtube media analysis type and the fanbase is that they want shortcuts.

Exploring the whole history of the gay novel so that you have enough background to talk about CMBYN means reading quite a few novels. Even if you decide to throw out all past scholarly opinion on the topic (which you shouldn't), if you're going to have a meaningful personal theory, you need to have read a lot of novels first. How can you hope to be the person providing the neat overview of the whole genre if you haven't familiarized yourself widely with said genre, and not just through a summary by someone else? That amount of reading doesn't happen overnight.

The trite, surface-level media analysis online is often from people who want to be hailed as great intellectuals but who aren't willing to put in the years it takes to do all the background reading and to develop their skills in argumentation, writing, etc.

Grad school is a convenient and probably faster way to go about all that, but I think you could do it outside of a formal framework... But you would need to actually do it.

I think it's driven by a bunch of people who were The Smart One in grade school and never learned how to work hard on long-term projects instead of pushing through in a sprint. They're used to relying on being the smartest to cut corners and do things before they get bored, only they probably aren't the smartest anymore anyway, and they mistake being smart at one thing for being smart at all things.

There's a real lack of respect for the entire concept of expertise.

[elhopper1sm]

Unpopular opinion but I'm tired of people conflating queer media that doesn't appeal to them specifically with bad representation or queer media for straight people. Also queer media for straight people can be valuable. Because honestly yeah some mom who just found out her kid is queer who doesn't know many queer people or mentors to teach her how to navigate it would probably look to media. So queer media for straight cis people has a place. And secondly just because queer media doesn't appeal to you specifically doesn't mean it's for queer people. Like take Love, Simon for example. Everyone accused Becky Albertalli of writing a queer book to pander to a straight audience. Even though I a queer person loved it and I was out as queer by the time I had read it. The book is actually really good as a book and it actually has some for a YA novel written by a white author rather nuanced racial commentary. The movie Love, Simon had multiple queer people working behind the scenes and the movie literally helped inspire one of the leads Keiynan Lonsdale to come out . Yet people still accuse it of being for straight people. Why? Because it was fluffy and light hearted and followed the story of a white kid in the suburbs with a stereotypical American family. Because it didn't appeal to them. Even though many of the queer people I know personally said the "You get to exhale now" scene meant so much to them. Even though prior to even coming out as bi which she was pressured to do over the backlash of Love , Simon. She worked with gender non-conforming kids as a social worker and made sure to be mindful of the community. Even though she openly encouraged black actors to play her characters even if they were originally written as white in the books (she was quite happy that Nick who was originally white in the books was casted as black in the films). Even though she collaborated with multiple queer people behind the scenes. she still got accused of writing a queer book for a straight audience. I'm only using this as an example. Now some people are doing the same with Heart stopper simply because it's popular and queer even though the author is openly aroace. I don't care for Heartstopper that much personal but I find other Osemanverse works more compelling(like say Solitaire). But I've never put down people who do for not being queer enough. Or for enjoying gay content for straight people.

TL:DR - Just because a piece of queer media doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's queer content for a straight cis audience and even then queer content for a straight cis audience has a place and does matter.

[gatheringbones]

[“Feminists’ discomfort with proximity to sex workers reached a fever pitch during the so-called ‘sex wars’ of the 1980s and 1990s. In this era, radical feminists locked horns with ‘pro-sex’ feminists over the issues of pornography and prostitution. The radical-feminist perspective on sex work holds that it reproduces (and is itself a product of) patriarchal violence against women. This analysis could extend to all heterosexual sexual behaviours, as well as public sex and kink (commonly known as BDSM, for ‘bondage, domination, submission/sadism, masochism’).

The focus in this era was on censoring porn and ‘raising awareness’ rather than addressing prostitution through criminal law directly, but a nonetheless vehement anti-prostitution stance became commonplace in the feminist movement. Writer Janice Raymond stated that ‘prostitution is rape that’s paid for’, while Kathleen Barry said buying and selling sex was ‘destructive of human life’.

The defence of porn and prostitution that followed in response was based on ideas of sexual liberation through nonconformist sexual expression, such as BDSM and the ‘queering’ of lesbian and gay identities. Many ‘pro-sex’ or ‘sex-radical’ feminists posited that not only could watching porn be gratifying and educational, it could upend patriarchal control over women’s sexual expression. Moreover, that the sex industry was sticking two fingers up at the institution of marriage, highlighting the hypocrisy of conservative, monogamous heteronormativity. While some people who fought for sexual liberation were sex workers – such as LGBTQ and AIDS activist Amber Hollibaugh – many sex radicals advanced their arguments from a non–sex worker perspective. Defending porn often meant defending watching it, rather than performing in it.

Radical feminists famously described sex radicals as ‘Uncle Toms’* pandering to the primacy of male sexuality, while they in turn were derided as ‘prudes’ invested in preserving sexual puritanism. Rather than focussing on the ‘work’ of sex work, both pro-sex feminists and anti-prostitution feminists concerned themselves with sex as symbol. Both groups questioned what the existence of the sex industry implied for their own positions as women; both groups prioritised those questions over what material improvements could be made in the lives of the sex workers in their communities. Stuck in the domain of sex and whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for women (and adamant that it could only be one or the other) it was all too easy for feminists to think of The Prostitute only in terms of what she represented to them. They claimed ownership of sex worker experiences in order to make sense of their own.

Anti-prostitution activist Dorchen Leidholdt spoke to this feminist impulse; ‘this de-individualized, de-humanized being has the function of representing generic woman … She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.’ It was in this context that former prostitute Andrea Dworkin’s work became highly influential in the movement, and set a new tone for criticism of sex work. The Prostitute, she said

lives the literal reality of being the dirty woman. There is no metaphor. She is the woman covered in dirt, which is to say that every man who has ever been on top of her has left a piece of himself behind … She is perceived as, treated as – and I want you to remember this, this is real – vaginal slime.

Her confrontational writing style – and her experiences in the sex trade – helped to legitimise and normalise similar usage of graphic and misogynist language in ‘feminist’ discussions of sex workers and their bodies. Barry, a contemporary of Dworkin, likened prostitutes to blow-up dolls, ‘complete with orifices for penetration and ejaculation’, while Leidholdt wrote that ��stranger after stranger use[s] her body as a seminal spittoon … What other job is so deeply gendered that one’s breasts, vagina and rectum constitute the working equipment?’ Academics Cecilie Høigård and Liv Finstad wrote of women who sell sex that ‘at the core they experience themselves as only cheap whores’.

Sex working feminists have long found themselves harshly excluded, and not only by de-humanising language in academia, but by explicit lack of invitation into spaces. Kate Millett recalls a feminist conference on prostitution, held in 1971. Disgruntled working women arrived to demand a seat at the table: An inadvertent masterpiece of tactless precipitance, the title of the day’s program was inscribed on leaflets for our benefit: ‘Towards the Elimination of Prostitution’. The panel of experts included everyone but prostitutes … all hell broke loose – between the prostitute and the movement. Because, against all likelihood, prostitutes did in fact attend the conference … They had a great deal to say about the presumption of straight women who fancied they could debate, decide or even discuss what was their situation and not ours.

Unlike the hostile environment of radical feminism, sex radicals were welcoming and supportive to sex workers. This influence helped shape the movement’s growth. In 1974, COYOTE hosted the first National Hookers’ Convention. The bright orange flyer nodded to the way prostitutes had been shunned from the women’s movement: emblazoned with a hand touching a vulva, it proclaimed, ‘Our Convention Is Different: We Want Everyone to Come’”]

molly smith, juno mac, from revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights, 2018

[spiderfreedom]

I read a book a while back about the erotic appeal of 'women with penises' (don't close the page yet I promise it's useful). the book was called Ambisexuality. it's basically two things, a history of the sexual fantasy of a 'woman with a penis' and a study of transgender women sex workers in australia. content warning for sex work and children forced into sex work.

in the history portion, one of the things it talks about is how it seems that prepubescent boys who enter the sex industry in some cultures are basically taught to perform femininity. dressed like women, taught to dance like women, perfume themselves like women, basically appear cosmetically like a woman. since prepubescent boys don't look too different from girls, many adult heterosexual johns found this attractive. the presence of the penis was considered a positive, because male customers knew how a penis worked and could understand it. from the book:

References to the training of older boys and young men, in the twin arts of seductive dancing and sex work, can be found in many historical religious texts, not just of Afghanistan but as an aspect of cultures in many cities in South Asia and the Middle East until modern times. [...] The historical record also provides clues that the link between feminised males and sex work even existed in some hunter-gatherer societies. In North America, the journalist and critic, Peter Ackroyd suggests that some native Indian societies accommodated feminised male sex work. The Pueblo Indians for example, maintained a mujerado, a 'trained male prostitute' in each village, who identified as a 'man-woman, not as a male [source mine]. Similarly, records suggest that the berdache were males who took on the roles of wife, communal concubine, prostitute and participant in certain sexual rites of native Indian tribes. The berdache wore women's clothing, did women's work and in sexual relations with their male partners, behaved like women as far as possible. Many Roman brothels offered boys of different races, skin colours and professional abilities. Boys from the Middle East, for example, were prized for their dancing abilities and exotic appearance, while boys from Northern Europe were valued for their bawdiness and sensuality. Some brothel owners refined the process of procuring, raising and training very young boys to an art form. Boys considered to possess the appropriate attributes were purchased as young as two or three years of age and were raised and trained by their owners. Their sole purpose in life was to entertain men and pander to the sexual tastes of wealthy clients. Many of these boys were feminised during their training. They were beautifully groomed and perfumed, had unwanted body hair removed and wore their hair long and curly. Some were trained to perform for their clients - as dancers, mimes, singers and storytellers. All were trained in fellatio, sodomy and analingus.

it's disturbing to think about how femininity is conflated with being attractive to men, so much that you can take a prepubescent boy, dress him up like a woman, and apparently plenty of people go "yeah, this is the perfect sex object, like a woman but better."

it also had a section on how trans women and gender non conforming men who dressed femininely across the world were basically often forced into prostitution. since they could not find employment due to their gender nonconformity, the only place they could get money was as prostitutes. being feminine dressed also meant they could make more money than gay male prostitutes who dressed in masculine style. from the book:

According to some cultural historians, the reason why the xanith presented as women was to enable them to make a living from sex work. As will be seen later, the suggestion that this lifestyle is driven by 'economic necessity' probably belies a considerable degree of individual choice in the matter. For many, the rewards of sex work led to a comfortable lifestyle, which was infinitely preferable to other occupations which paid less, demanded longer working hours and offered fewer other intrinsic benefits such as personal gifts.

there's a myth that there exists a certain type of person who enjoys being prostituted, because of some social category they belong to. it has variably applied to women of the lower classes, black people, gay men, and in this topic, trans women. it exists to excuse the dehumanization of these groups who are excluded from normal labor markets, experience higher rates of poverty, and enter sex work to make money.

i've noticed some radfems have suggested that trans women prostitutes 'enjoy' being prostitutes, on the basis of quotes from bailey's book 'the man who would be queen' and taking twitter quotes from unverifiable 'trans sex workers' at face value. but i would be very hesitant to believe that. just in the same way you would not believe a woman who told you she 'loves sex work' without doing further research on her background to see if this statement is honest or produced by trauma, you should also consider the same for transgender women and gender non conforming men. especially since they are often forced out of legitimate labor industry for gender nonconformity.

the idea that trans women inherently love prostitution reinforces the idea that there are feminine people who it is okay to degrade and treat as sex objects, because they love it. the femininity is taken to be a lure to men and proof that they love being 'used'. there may be some portion who are 'erotic professionals' who love it, just like there are women who say they same, but there's a high rate of traumatic background from trans women who become prostitutes. and that's before whatever traumatization happens during prostitution.

in short, there's a dirty history of treating gender non conforming male people as the sort of perfect sex object, the ideal combination of feminine presentation and "comprehensible" male anatomy. radfems should not help this myth by repeating it mindlessly. all this does is spread the idea that a. being dressed feminine means you exist to lure men, b. there exists a 'perfect sex object' who wants nothing more than endless sex with strangers for money, whose trauma, poverty, mental illness play no role in their life, and c. therefore there is no need to include these people in efforts to exit the prostitution industry, because they "love" it after all. no human is a perfect sex object. accepting that it can happen to one group of people means you naturalize it and allow the possibility it can happen to you.

[virtuouswhitehatorganization]

Heroes And Villains Who Totally Would Have A Big LGBT Fanbase (Even If They Are Not LGBT Themselves)

Heroes

Goldheart

Given he has a big fanbase I wouldn't be surprised and many speculate about his sexuality to the point it ranges from thinking he's gay to pansexual. Also the tons of shipping people have had between him and Flug despite being archnemeses. And again I totally see him getting into LGBT activism for both clout and because he secretly is a member.

2. Miss Heed

Given how popular she is through social media, I like to think she would be open about her status of about what canon sexuality she has (which I think is bisexual). She probably uses her status to get clout when it's pride month and proclaims how active she is in being a good LGBT activist. Also she loves to pander to anyone who can give her love and attention from any source.

3. Omega Nuclear

He's just straight ally incarnate he just would be the best supportive person he can be from my oc sidekick of his, Green Rod to his fellow former partner, Miss Heed, before he brainwashed him. He totally has a LGBT fanbase who again probably are bara fans and he doesn't mind them unless they are pairing him with Coyote.

4. Airlock

Probably isn't in tuned with her fanbase, but I do think some would find her an icon due to her butch look. She probably would be apathetic and ignore it and would probably do something mean to them like she did with that PEACE agent forcing them to give them their belongings to her.

5. Sunblast

Like Omega Nuclear, he's total bara bait for many people. I like to think before his capture by Penumbra he really loved to pander for the LGBT fanbase for clout and didn't really think much about being an ally except it can boost his image.

Villains

Flug

Why the bagged top scientist of Black Hat because seriously he was Goldheart's arch nemesis and again you know people were shipping them? Also people wonder what is under that bag and like to think there is a cute face. Also we all totally think he's into guys in addition to girls. He probably gets flustered he gets this kind of attention.

2. Miss Valdoom

Given she's called the "Evil Queen" I think she would love attention from any source. I like to think she would love to be admired by her beauty by both men and women. Also this line here they mention how it's laughable she would fall for Heed, so it indicates that Miss Valdoom is attracted to women. And again Illuminarrow was going all starry eyed at her so totally has a LGBT fanbase.

3. Coyote

I see this guy as straight, but I totally see him having a fanbase of LGBT people who are into the bara scene and he fits the image. Also again you can't go wrong with a guy who does leather. I do think he would find it an ego boost he's got some sort of notoriety with a specific crowd it gives more villain cred. However, like his archnemesis, Omega, he probably doesn't like being paired with him. I also think he would be a straight ally and encourage the "Be Gay, Do Crime" rebellious thing.

4. Demencia

Even though she's obsessed with Black Hat, I don't think that would stop her from having admirers in the villainous community. I totally see her as bi with a target on Black Hat (who she totally would love regardless if he was presenting himself male or female). She's probably indifferent since they aren't Black Hat, but probably calls them perverts who get off her kicking ass and taking names.

5. Metauro

Straight ally with a huge LGBT fanbase which comes with the same reason as his fellow villain Coyote which is he's bara bait. I like to think he's very interactive with his fanbase and also makes jokes about himself and why they would find him attractive. He also tries to use his fanbase to spread awareness about cruelty to bulls and how to prevent it.

[arunima]

can someone sit modi down and tell him gay people are good for economy stats or like a sub-community of hindus he hasn't heard of before that he needs to pander to i need gay marriage legal NEAOW. not for me i don't believe in marriage and women don't want to fuck me. but imagine the new types of family drama we'll get. bua AND bua? it would be so over and we would be so back and the world will forever be beautiful

[woeismyhoe]

I'm gonna preface this by saying I have no problem with representation. I love queer stories, especially when they're organic and natural. I'm bi, and I've had fulfilling relationships with women as well as men. Honestly, I would love a spin-off on Brimsley and Reynolds. It didn't feel.....forced. the characters were new and their story grew organically. Michaela? No. I'm trying to articulate how I feel without sounding like I hate the queer community because I genuinely don't. I appreciated Benedict's story line even if it was a little jarring. He's exploring, experimenting and that's fine. It still doesn't take away from his story. But the introduction of Michaela felt like a guy punch. It felt wrong. I've never particularly like gender swapping in stories based on an original IP, because it changes a lot of dynamics. It changes a lot of story lines. And yes, it's fiction, but I'm sorry I cannot get over it, especially when it's such a blatant case of pandering. It makes me feel as if I'm wrong to question this change and I've somehow internalised homophobia. If so, then why wouldn't I hate other queer characters or be similarly uncomfortable?

Okay I think I can make my argument clear with an example. If anyone has seen the movie Love Lies Bleeding, I think they'll get it. The sexual orientation of the characters didn't matter. It felt right. And it was not important to the story. It was just an established dynamic and we could enjoy the plot easily. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the story is largely unchanged. If Michael becomes Michaela, here's the issues I see. Who inherits Kilmartin. We've already established an estate will go to the next male heir if the current owner dies. A major part of Michael's story was his guilt over his inheritance and his imposter syndrome. His story arc taking his place in parliament. It's all gone. I mean, I know the show isn't interested in the plots other than the main character pairing but this felt so wrong. If they wanted a lesbian lead, the just make another show with original characters why force this? I'm not looking forward to Francescas season at all. I'm sure a lot of people will like it and that's their prerogative but for me, personally, the only thing keeping the story moving forward is Benedict. Maybe Eloise. But I feel like the story of the show has lost its charm and has dug itself into a hole like Disney or marvel

I’m going to try to be respectful as possible. As a lesbian, it’s deeply concerning and infuriating to me how so many people including ppl from the community have internalized misogyny and homophobia to queer women. Just because you support and don’t have an issue with queer male stories doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic to queer female stories. Just because you’re bi doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Why do you think majority of mlm stories are consumed by women? Why are the stories written and targeted towards women instead of the couple’s own community?

There’s an issue going on right now where many fans are okay and THRILLED with Benedict being bi and sleeping with a man, yet complaining about Francesca and Michaela— both have revealed that they have a potential to turn into queer stories. But no one’s batting an eye to Sophie being erased for Benedict’s potential gay partner. People are more okay with a lesbian Eloise than Francesca, and maybe because Eloise fits the stereotype more than Francesca. Why????

Maybe you need to reflect on why you’re feeling this way since you’re clearly favoring queer male stories over queer female stories. Why is a straight male character’s arc more important than a sapphic character who can go through the same arc and even MORE? Why are you okay with Benedict but not with Francesca? Why does Brimsley and Reynolds feel natural but Francesca and Michael is forced and pandering? Why is making sapphic representation pandering unless it’s based on stereotypes, but not gay representation?

This is Bridgerton. They made POCs part of the elites, it’s not historically accurate, the medicine and technology isn’t historically accurate. I see no reason why they won’t change the law at some point for it to be possible for a woman to inherit titles and estates. Even if they don’t go into that direction, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more story to explore for a sapphic character.

There’s so many variants of Michael in other stories and media, he’s not special. But Michaela?? How many stories are there even in the mainstream media where we get a happy WLW couple that doesn’t end in tragedy? Literally 0. There’s no happy ending anywhere in popular media because Bury Your Gays is the default fate of every queer female story that gets even slightly popular. You say make a new show with sapphic characters yet 90% of the time they get cancelled after the first season and this is something we’ve been dealing with for decades and trying to call out.

So again, why is a straight couple’s story more important to you than a WLW couple who can offer a more unique, nuanced portrayal of yearning, desire, betrayal to one’s self, crisis of faith, even loss of identity and room to show politics in the Bridgerton world like how they did with Queen Charlotte— and make a bigger impact on how the public perceives queer women?

You’re uncomfortable with a queer female character changing what you know and are familiar with in the books— that she can’t possibly compare to what a male character can offer. It’s ironic how awfully similar that sounds to homophobes who can’t accept the existence of queer women in society because god forbid a woman can do what a man can for a woman, or even do better.

Don’t watch it if you don’t want to. The rest of us will feel valued and seen and enjoy it together when the season comes out while you distance yourself further from the sapphic community.

TLDR; Queerness makes the story richer than any straightness will.

[citadelofmythoughts]

Those buying the "Bumblebee is pandering" line of thinking are a lot of thinly-disguised bigots but others are those who are queer and have grown up on a media landscape that has jerked them around. Be it through LEGIT queerbaiting or gay characters as inoffensive side characters (seen but not heard as the Victorian phrase would go).

Thus it has instilled within us a sort of vigilance to queer depictions in fiction that have often come from a place corporate vetting far more than what a creator will decide upon. Even with smaller companies like Rooster Teeth or the more creatively free CRWBY, that weariness persists.

But this is yet another example of the Right co-opting the language of Left spaces against them. This seed of doubt turns us against each other and plays upon the uncertainty of sincerity. Not helped when RT's mismanaged management trickled down to RWBY's production (not nearly as often post-Gray's sacking).

We've been burned as a community over and over but we owe it to ourselves to NOT always take people at their word regarding queer rep. Some of those people are not working in our best interests and it benefits them to turn us against each other.