#poc tolkien

[zer0stratus]

"Leave the dead"

Legolas, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

[cyraes]

for a @lotr-sesa prompt, for @sallysavestheday , I decided to do a simple study on the seven clans of Elves. you can find the ao3 version here + some headcanons.

I had a lot of fun with these <3

[edennill]

A young Amarië, based on this

Idk, it somehow fits with me that the Vanyar do a lot of shepherding and such. The good old classical influence of the Arcadia motif maybe...? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don't ask me what's going on with the bottom of the dress, it was like this in the reference image. That said, bright colours and little-to-no jewelry is pretty much how I do imagine Vanyarin fashions.

Mixed media (colored pencils and alcohol markers); pencil-only version under cut

[cartoon-aragorn]

i love how the tumblr tolkien fandom is inclusive of different races

[fatcatlittlebox]

I think it’s worrisome that they still haven’t announced a 3rd season of TROP. This seems unusually delayed. And for this silence coming off the heels of their best reviewed season, it’s concerning.

[phtalogreenpoison]

prologue!

my notes: why does this read like a eurocentric anthropologist... *remembers the flawed nature of jrr tolkien* oh yeagh...

ok but sometimes it is interesting, i do think people need to engage critically with the way that he presents fantasy "races" even while enjoying the story.

on a silly note: HOBBITS SMOKE WEED??!? i forgot about this. yes it's technically pipe-weed. it's weed in my heart <3

[antiracist-tolkien]

Here's the thing about white criticism of The Rings Of Power.

There are white fans who relentlessly call out TROP for having tokenistic racial representation (which is true) but ignore fans of colour when we talk about the nuance and how long we've yearned to see people like us.

Don't get me wrong, TROP is a deeply poisoned well for me and I have no interest in ever watching it. My issue isn't people criticizing TROP. It's that they don't devote one iota of that same energy to confronting and reckoning with the racist backlash, or listening to fans of colour.

We bear the brunt of that backlash. Yes, some PoC are happy to see representation. (Amazingly, PoC are allowed to have different and multifaceted perspectives.) But posting about that happiness seems to attract racist idiots like flies to honey, complaining that it's unrealistic (🥴) and destroying Tolkien's vision.

I despise Amazon with every bone in my body. I hope the whole company burns to the ground. But there's blatant hypocrisy in white fans who spend more time complaining that TROP's representation is tokenistic than supporting fanmade diverse content and diverse content creators. Decentre yourselves for just a minute, and listen.

[hollowwhisperings]

that awkward moment where you re-read a crack post only to find that you accidentally edited out the "crack" part.

i'm sorry hugo weaving: it's not your fault they used the character you played to make drama for "character growth". > _ <

additionally must i apologise to:

Fans of the Live-Action Adaptions, old and new, whose introductions to the Legendarium through said works has undoubtedly gifted us all with new friends to nerd out with.

Fans of the above who met the books first & nonetheless enjoyed the motion picture: adaptions allow us all to better analyze our own, personal readings of "canon" through new perspectives. The Legendarium's uses Adaption (in the form of "Translation" to ENG) as its Framing Device: contesting canonicity is Encouraged within the text itself (which paints itself as "unreliable").

Hugo Weaving, for acting the role as it was written for him (no matter my Opinions on Said Writing): apparently Aragorn & Arwen needed a Direct Antagonist to "grow" from.

the employees of Weta Workshop, who did incredibly meticulous work for Tolkien's Legendarium (& continue to do so).

Sir Christopher Lee, who fully conveyed the Might & Majesty of the Wizard Saruman and wielded fully his Greater Experience (with Tolkien's works, stabbing people & just ~generally~) for the bettterment of LOTR's production. The good Sir rests now in Valinor but is ever One Of Us.

Sir Ian McKellan, for his fearsome & canny portrayal of Middle-Earth's Most Persistent Busybody. He has ever been "Mellon" to Fans & Fandom.

Cate Blanchette, who embodied "Galadriel" in all her beautiful glory: she ascertained the power of the character, subtle and fearsome and ancient. Her Graceful Swooshing of The Big Swishy Sleeves prompted my younger self into gaining an interest in the films at all (& thus Those Books I Forgot I Had). If I ever successfully sit through all three films, I'd gladly argue for her place as an Honary "Great" of Chinese Fantasy Dramas (LOTR isn't xianxia but it certainly resembles it in some parts, at least with its Immortals).

Viggo Mortensen, whose castmates found in him a "Strider" worth following, and who has everafter provided the Tolkien Fandom with its very own Cryptid.

Kiran Shah, for whom we can thank wonders untold in the cinematic Legendarium, in his roles as Frodo and Stunt Actor for all four hobbits. Rightfully was he named "Lord of the Scale Doubles" by his castmates: his laurels are well deserved!

Shah's Fellow Doubles in the LOTR films¹, who have long shared in his obscurity: I have added Footnotes that name The IRL Fellowship in its entirety, as best I could ascertain (corrections welcomed!).

Sophia Nomvete, who suffered first and worst in the Racist Backlash against TROP (her image amongst the very first released in Amazon's Promotions): she is beautiful in the role, even in her beardlessness.

the remaining POC cast of TROP, in its first season & those upcoming: they trailblaze against everything set against them² and I collate them in hope that "Tokenism" become a thing of fable... but mostly because TROP has enough of Us in its cast them to make "namedropping" the work of a paragraph (to which i say: took you long enough, Hollywood).

Alex Tarrant & Kali Kopae: they, amongst others cast as "Numenoreans" in TROP, are the first Polynesian actors to star in Tolkien works with their own faces³. They carry with them the Weight of Legacies, fictional and truthful: may the writing do they & their characters justice.

every & anyone who sets the Legendarium to Song, its "truest" incarnation by a Watsonian's metric. yes, even those responsible for the whole "they're taking the hobbits to Isengard!" meme.

Footnotes below the cut: there I touch on Prejudice & Politick, as found throughout Tolkien works: Racism is the primary focus (Anti-Semitism is tied-therein, made "implicit" because This Is Tolkien afterall) though I make reference also to Ableism.

¹The IRL Fellowship of the Ring: Doubles & All

Frodo Baggins was played not only by Elijah Wood but by Kiran Shah, who doubly served as "Size" & "Stunt" Double for Wood.

Sam was played by Sean Astin (principal), Bhoja ‘BK’ Kannada (size) & Kiran Shah (stunts).

Merry by Dominic Monaghan (principal), Martin Lenisson Gray (size) & Kiran Shah (stunts).

Pippin by Billy Boyd (principal), Praphaphorn ‘Fon’ Chansantor (size) & Kiran Shah (stunts).

(Yes, Kiran Shah was apparently the stuntsman for all of the hobbits: finding this out required my reading of More Recent Journalism, as Wikis only credit their principal actors & size doubles in the roles, with Shah's stuntwork credited only generically in-film & in wikis)

Gimli was primarily played by Brett Beattie but, despite Some Effort from his colleagues to confer co-crediting, only John Rhys-Davies was named in main billing ("movie politics", apparently). Beattie was initially cast for stunt & scaling work, but soon became a full-time "stand-in" for much of principal photography (Davies was Infamously Allergic to the Gimli Prosthetics, which restricted how long he could work).

An Aside: I remain personally ??? at why the production bothered to cast anyone, only to give them a full-face of prosthetics. The prosthetic wig & facial hair? Yes: modern beauty standards made it unlikely that a "fully haired" actor would be found for the role. The prosthetic nose, forehead & [whatever else] too? Those served no narrative purpose save, perhaps, an idea that "dwarves should look Old and [conventionally] Unattractive". This is my conclusion upon recalling the general "effect" of Gimli's changed characterization in the films & PJ's Pointed Rejection of casting "little people" in principal roles to begin with.

Legolas was played by Orlando Bloom (principal), Paul Randall (size) & Morgan Evans (stunts). Though Evans was only credited as Legolas in Fellowship, given that the entire trilogy was shot together, it can be Assumed that Evans retained the role as theirs is the only name that came up.

Aragorn was played by Viggo Mortensen (principal), Paul Randall (size) & Kirk Maxwell (stunts).

Gandalf was played by Sir Ian McKellen (principal), Paul Randall (size) & Basil Chapham (stunts). Chapham was credited as a "riding double" (or otherwise under "stunts"). A photo exists of all three Gandalfs in costume together: it's adorable.

Boromir was played by Sean Bean (principal), Paul Randall (size) & Lance Louez (stunts).

Paul Randall did indeed play as Legolas, Aragorn, Gandalf AND Boromir. Though I could only found him specifically credited as Legolas, interviews & cast photos do indeed name him as a "Stand-In" for all four roles. At 7"1, Randall could be used to scale "Big Folk" into scenes with the principal hobbit actors.

²Hollywood Racism in Fantasy Film Casting: Watch This Space?

We all Cringed at the blatant yellow & brownface of the Live-Action "Avatar the Last Airbender" film. The author of the Wizard of Earthsea series has long battled for its primary protagonist, Ged, to look like himself on book covers: he came to adaptions "pre-whitewashed" (to the great frustration of his creator, writer Ursula K. Leguin).

While there is no Public Ado About TROP from its BIPOC cast, save their grace in the face of Racist Backlash, Amazon's making the series at all was inspired by the success of HBO's Game of Thrones. The nature of Streamed Media is something currently protested: actors & writers own nothing they make, can say nothing of their work nor on its reception, and this has yet to Change for the begger.

Those Aware of how GoT handled its canonically POC characters (the Dornish, the peoples of Essos & the Summer Islands) are likely Aware of its Incredulous Killing-Off of the only black woman in its primary cast (Missandei, adapted to screen as an adult woman). Missandei's actor, Nathalie Emmanuelle, has been Very Diplomatic in interviews on her experiences while filming & later watching the show.

Additional instances of how racism has affected more recent Big Budget Fantasy Productions, "internally" (through casting & writing choices) and "externally" (racist backlash against adaptions & actors) can be found in the Star Wars sequel trilogy (Disney) and the televisation of Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" (Freemantle). Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico, SW) & John Boyega (Finn, SW) have spoken on their respective experiences with both (both went on to work on other Disney projects but Disney is its own Balrog) , while Orlando Jones has spoken of the racial discrimination within the production of American Gods.

The ongoing Writer's Strike is Informative on the limits of speech imposed on those working on Streamed Media such as TROP, writers & actors both. While TROP's 2nd season had already "wrapped" prior to the Strike, its production team & cast are still very much affected it: their speech is policed, by contractual obligations & self-preservation. Many of TROP's cast is "fresh": they do not have the clout to break convention, especially those acting as "trailblazing minorities" & whose continued employment is more vulnerable for it.

³The (Accidental) Diversity of the LOTR film trilogy & its (Deliberate) Othering of its BIPOC

PJ's films are sometimes joked as being (very long) tourism ads for New Zealand: the islands had been "cast" as Middle-Earth, something retained in pop culture ever since.

To fill out the wide landscapes of Middle-Earth required more cast than Hollywood could affordably export: thusly was casting opened to the local populace. This is how PJ's LOTR films' were made Accidentally Diverse.

Much of the Cavalry in the LOTR films (all those extras on horseback) were IRL Eowyns: the majority of the locals with the horsemanship the production required turned our to be female. Given that entirety of Eowyn's Plotline requires gender-exclusion in Rohan's armies? All those female riders in the background were "disguised" with beards.

Lesser known (certainly less publicised) is the quickness of the LOTR production in deciding which local New Zealanders would be cast & in what roles: a myth of whiteness in "New Zealand as Middle-Earth" was actively chosen at every opportunity.

Tolkien's Imperialist Guilt kicked in, eventually, for his depicting the Enthralled Armies of Sauron as... IRL peoples traditionally colonized (in many cases enslaved) by European Powers. He'd accidentally-on-purpose written "reverse racisn" into Middle-Earth. He'd also depicted & decribed orcs with much of the dehumanizing rhetoric used against peoples of African. This prompted both White & Catholic Guilt in his personal writings (...that never made it into printings of the Legendarium).

Decades later, when filming a big budget live-action adaption to Tolkien's Legendarium, the Production (Peter Jackson definitely included) decided that all their visually BIPOC extras should be cast exclusively as... Orcs and Foreign Invaders of Middle-Earth. Y'know: the very same Enthralled Armies of Sauron that had so troubled the Professor (very belatedly) for the Blatant Racism of it all.

Amongst those Visually BIPOC persons cast as Foreign Invaders? Just about everyone who was Maōri: Maōri, the very people native to "Middle-Earth", and a country that was very much colonized by European Powers (there were also some Attempted Conquest, though "there were no New Zealand Wars" was still the "historical canon" taught during LOTR's filming: mayhaps that explains how the Irony went unrealised).

I will note that it's been twenty-ish years & several more films yet we're still waiting on PJ to have his Belated "Crisis Of Conscience" RE: Racism. TROP, at least, cast its Maōri actors as Proper Numenorean Conquerors so... progress?

[mai-sau]

been thinking about it and im taking a short break from this fandom until people learn the very hard, complex, and difficult lesson of “racist attacks on someone’s identity always bad full stop” and actually make safe spaces for people of color beyond racebending a few fictional characters. lmao.

[absynthe--minded]

it’s not that the racism in Tolkien doesn’t exist and it’s not that fascists and right wing nutjobs and white supremacists don’t have a reason they like this (Star Wars is an explicitly antifascist descendant of LotR, for example, but the source itself is a bag of mixed messages)

but like

Aragorn is probably brown guys.

wonder how the racists would feel if I told them that Aragorn is probably canonically brown so actually MtG Aragorn is more accurate than Viggo

[laikabu]

a couple of the characters that oppose the main party are poc so inevitably you get white fans posting violent tweets about them but preface it with “man��� or “twink”. maybe this is to be expected of a series inspired by tolkien works

[zer0stratus]

Legolas Greenleaf

[southconfessionpark]

STOP MAKING STAN A POC STOP MAKING STAN A POC HE IS WHITE HE IS WHITE HE IS WHITE GIVE ATTENTION TO THE ACTUAL POC CHARACTERS LIKE TOLKIEN DAVID AND THE KOREAN YAOI GIRLS

[edennill]

Fingon with gladioli (symbolism: strength, courage, fearlessness, determination)

As promised, a mepoc Fingon to complement the previous drawing.

Please don't @ me for the manifold things I must have gotten wrong with the flowers; I am well aware I am no botanist.

Any sane person would have done this in pencil instead of grey pencil crayon but never mind, I'm proud of the end result. And I've realised I hate drawing flowers xd.

[anghraine]

thatinsufferableb-st-rd said:

@anghraine so i have read the books multiple times and am an avid fan of the movies. I enjoy both for what they are. I think the main difference is that Peter Jackson was very open about what they chose to cut and why from anything I've ever seen. They even have Sam give a nod to the book readers by saying "by rights we shouldn't even be here". No I'm not happy about what they did with Faramir and Glorfindel got jipped, and I would have lover to have seen Elronds sons but at the end of the day there were acknowledgments of what and why. Rings of Power to me has always come off as hiding from any criticism by using the shield of "well if you don't like it it's because you don't like POCs in it". To which I genuinely could not give a fuck less, like there are so many branches of elves that went different ways so that could make sense within what Tolkein established. But don't hide behind that when your writing is just "Sauron is evil. We know. And we know she knows. But we have to make it seem like she's the only one who Has A Clue so we must all try to shoo her off to make a plotline"

@lesbiansforboromir has already correctly and politely pointed out that you are doing the very thing we were criticizing in that post—intruding on ROP fan discussion to unfavorably contrast the show to the Peter Jackson films, while also applying a degree of scrutiny to ROP that the Jackson films are rarely subject to in a remotely comparable way and could not bear. Frankly, @lesbiansforboromir is nicer and more restrained than I am about this, but you chose to tag me as well, so I'll also respond.

We (lesbiansforboromir and I) were talking about being excited about costuming in S2 of ROP and disliking the fandom meltdowns over ROP's costuming looking (somewhat) different from the films' aesthetic. Since it had already come up in their discussion, I added that I'm not convinced by the anti-ROP contingent framing their seething hatred of the costuming and design as just caring so much about fidelity to Tolkien's vision. I pointed out that Tolkien fandom broadly cares far more about their preferred, film-influenced aesthetics than Tolkien's actual descriptions and gave some specific examples of this.

There's been a lot of talk, for instance, about how the universally long, flowing hair for Elves preferred by the fandom and used in the films is actually totally canon according to Tolkien even if it's rarely mentioned in LOTR proper. This is inaccurate. Galadriel's brother Aegnor is typically depicted in the fandom/film-preferred style rather than per Tolkien's description of his hair as "strong and stiff, rising upon his head like flames" (indeed, in general neither Aegnor nor anyone else is ever depicted this way, and this description rarely shows up in the lists of "no it's about ethics in adaptation" Tolkien hair quotes).

Tolkien repeatedly describes Elvish, peredhel, and Dúnadan women as wearing their hair bound up in braided coiffures with jeweled hair pieces/nets rather than loose and flowing à la the films and the fandom. Nobody cares, any more than they care about Tolkien's description of Arwen's clothing as soft, grey, and noticeably devoid of ornamentation apart from a belt and netted cap (i.e. the opposite of her highly elaborate film costuming and typically loose, unbound, uncovered hair in the films and most illustrations).

Meanwhile, my fave Faramir's hair is nowhere near long enough in the films or most art to mingle with Éowyn's as Tolkien describes. It's usually also depicted as blond, reddish, or brown rather than black as in the book; in Tolkien's LOTR, all described Gondorians have dark or black hair, with the only difference in coloring being that some Gondorians are dark-skinned and some are pale. Again, almost nobody in the fandom cares about this when they're going on about costume design and casting to reflect Tolkien's vision, and male Gondorians are overwhelmingly depicted with short or shoulder-length hair in the films and in Tolkien illustrations.

Popular depictions of Gondor, including the Gondor of the films, very rarely reflect Tolkien's description of Gondor's aesthetic as similar to ancient Egypt, the Byzantine Empire, and the Roman Empire. Film Gondor has, at most, extremely vague allusions to Byzantine architecture amidst the general and deliberate westernization of Gondor's design—as just one example among many, Tolkien's explicitly Egyptian-based design for the royal crown of Gondor is converted to a generically western European-style crown in the films and overwhelmingly in the fandom.

I then pointed out that it's been very noticeable that ROP haters tend to have a powerful double standard wrt fidelity when it comes to the Jackson films. For over 20 years, most film fans have been constitutionally incapable of tolerating even slight criticism of the films without jumping in to defend their greatness and condescendingly explain the most basic elements of adaptation. (Yes, we know film is not the same medium as text, we know changes are part of adaptation to another medium, we all know that, we all know that a word-for-word adaptation would suck and never be made, this is not new information and does not make the PJ films' every choice a good one.) Yet most film LOTR fans who vocally despise ROP display none of the charity towards ROP that they demand for the films (demand even from someone like Christopher Tolkien, a dead man the entire fandom is deeply indebted to, whose dislike of the films still leads to regular attacks on his character from Jackson film stans).

This hypercritical yet hyperdefensive tendency in the fandom is neatly illustrated by the fact that you responded to a conversation about the double standards in evaluations of ROP's costuming vs the films' to go on about how ROP is objectively bad for reasons entirely unrelated to costuming, how you're totally not racist (something nobody was talking about), and to quote you directly, "Like the show was just Bad." Truly, an incisive critique. Meanwhile, your concessions with regard to the Jackson films are mainly about extremely minor and defensible omissions like removing Glorfindel and the sons of Elrond rather than the serious and fundamental problems that lesbiansforboromir and I have with them, or even the ways they do pretty much the exact same things you're lambasting ROP for.

I mean, if we're going to talk about action hero Elves in ROP vs the Jackson films, what about the action hero-ification of Legolas in the films? He was described by Tolkien himself as the Fellowship member who accomplished the least, so super badass battle-skateboarding Legolas hardly represents fidelity to Tolkien's vision. Why should that get a pass while film-stanning ROP haters seethe about ROP!Galadriel being too special, even though Tolkien described her as one of the most special Elves to ever live and specifically as remarkably athletic and insightful?

Meanwhile, film Gimli is reduced to comic relief, the only dwarves taken seriously are conventionally hot ones in The Hobbit films, and Frodo's expressions of strength and fortitude are consistently removed to glorify other characters. Film Gondorians were deliberately designed to seem like useless tin soldiers (which they are in the films, as well as whiter and blonder than Tolkien wrote them) rather than the physically imposing and highly effective fighting force of the book. ROP imagining Elvish rituals upon approaching Valinor that aren't based in Tolkien canon but don't directly conflict with it is absolutely trivial compared to the films' handling of Denethor and Faramir.

The point is not that you, personally, are not allowed to like the films or dislike ROP despite all this. Many people do love the films, including most of my followers. They do have their strengths, though they are extremely racist and few film fans will acknowledge this without soft-pedaling it in some way (esp, since you brought it up, given the context of the truly unhinged degree of racism that has accompanied much of the broader discourse around ROP).

The point is that film fans who hate ROP are constantly showing up in our conversations to be "well actually ROP is just objectively bad, unlike the films, because the show has failings that are also in the films but it's totally different there because of the contents of Peter Jackson's soul" or whatever. The point is the absolutely glaring and obnoxiously hypocritical double standard of defensiveness about the films and obsessive nitpicking of ROP that leads to ROP haters continually going on rants to ROP fans that are unwelcome, uninvited, and usually (as in this case) irrelevant to what was even being discussed.

[whereserpentswalk]

It’s fascinating that you think trans people’s names come to them like wands in Harry Potter, you can’t just culturally appropriate bc you’re trans

Ok, this is about comments I made like a year ago on a comedy bit. While I stand by my feelings that the bit was bad and transphobic, my reasons why are a lot diffrent.

When I first wrote the comments my arguments were very thermian. I treated the story the comic was telling as if it was real and objective. Which feels right for most people, because stand up comedy is often presented like conversation, where we do treat stories like that as real things. But that's not how comedy works, comedians don't tell stories the way we do in conversation, they're creatives, the stories they tell are basically fictional, the art form might look like real conversations but it's not.

Comedians want to make you laugh, and sometimes want to send a message or make you think about things in a new way, but they have no reason to want to portray events accurately. They might be basing some things off of real experiences, but that's true for everyone, Tolkien might have chosen to explore his experience in world war one in lord of things, that doesn't mean we have to argue about orcs as if they're real entities when we're talking about if those books were racist.

So let's actually look at the skit, and analyze its outlook on trans people keeping in mind its a story that a cis man is telling, and not actual events: So the summery of the skit is that a white trans man comes out to his to his family, and he picked a name you'd expect a black person to have. He has older black relatives (who are implied to fully accept him, which would make him possibly the only trans person on earth with a fully accepting family) who refuse to use this name, and instead call him "the boy". The sketch ends with the comedian saying he should pick a name like Kevin, because even if he's trans he's not interesting (keep your thoughts on that last one).

Now, ignoring how this would play out in real life, what does this as a peice of fiction say about trans people:

First off: it's creating a plausible but unlikely situation where the woke thing to do is to not respect a trans person's identity. A lot of political humor exists to call ideas into question with hypotheticals, and the idea being questioned here is the idea that trans people's identities deserve respect.

Second off: it's creating a situation where a trans person is entitled and arogent for wanting his identity respected. In the fiction this trans person is that. But it's promoting the idea that they are in real life. Transphobes will show you a lot of spooky examples of trans identities that are unreasonable to respect, but that's not useally ever what it's like in real life. (An otherkin robotgirl isn't going to demand you communicate with her through beeps and boops, she probably just wants you not to laugh at her.)

Third off: it's pitting minorities agaisnt eachother. Conservatives love this, but it's super common when people try to convince progressives to a specific group from their advocacy. It shows us a world where trans rights and poc rights are at odds with eachother, in the real world they aren't, in the real world they're part of one larger struggle and diminishing one is diminishing the other. A lot of people do this with different identities, lgb types do it with gayness, terfs do it with womanhood, class reductionists do it with class, trscum do it between trans people. But it doesn't help one oppressed group when you shit on a diffrent oppressed group in their name. It's white conservatives who love it the most when trans people and poc at pit agaisnt eachother, and it's trans poc who suffer the most.

Fourth off: it's feeds into a very old myth amoung queerphobic progressives, which is the idea that queer people are privileged people looking to pose as the marginalized to get special rights. This is a myth we really have to get over, because its been internalized by a lot of people, and we get these hunts for fake minorities. This is why the "you're not interesting" line sticks out to me. Most trans people don't give themselves appropriative names, but trans people as a group constantly get accused of trying to steal other people's struggles. This is a myth that preys on the fact that white skined white colar queer people are more visible, and its one that is based on treating that disparity in visibility as a fact. We have to cut this out, nobody fakes minority status to get privileges because minorities aren't privileged. It's not true for queer people, even the queer people other queer people hate like bi people and ace people. It's not true about mentally ill and ND people, or converts to non Christian religions, or East Asian people, or anyone who gets accused of this. Stop it dearly.

Fifth off: this entire sketch is based in the idea that families can accept their trans kids, but only conditionally, only if they prove themselves to be doing it for the right reasons, and they please their family's whims. This is a transphobic idea, it's a transphobic idea most neolibs hold. Comedy bits are a lot like story books (no shade at either) where a problem is presented at the beginning, and a solution at the end, that the audience is expected to take for their own problems. And the solution here is a form of transphobia, the idea that trans people aren't owned acceptance, they need to earn it. I've seen a lot of trans people tormented by their families over that idea. And when a person of color goes and stage and wraps that idea in racial justice, it's young trans poc who get hurt by it the most.

Sixth off: not a huge point, but I feel like a cis black man, of all cis people, should be the most likely to understand that calling a trans man a boy is dehumanizing and insulting. I guess this goes to show he's not interested in thinking about how trans people's struggles are like his, he stands alongside a lot of marginalized trans people there.

Finally I kind of don't know how to end this. This is long. Really long. I don't know whose going to read this, because its a lot. Hopefully you got a bit of media literacy from reading all of this. Early on in my tumblr career, when I had just moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I had read an essay by @wifelinkmtg about a concept called the ditch. The idea was we often argue about media wrong, talking about things in hyper literal cannon obsessed terms, and that was the ditch, the ditch we dig for ourselves when we ignore things like themes and audience experiences. Hopefully this series of words dug less of a ditch than my words did a year ago. Sorry I don't have the actual sketch on hand. Mabye I'm wrong, but if someone wants to prove me wrong I'd rather they do it outside of a ditch. Mabye the ask wasn't even about that post. Mabye I'm tired. Maybe you should be tired too.

Sorry for the long post. Media literacy matters. Black trans lives matter. Goodbye, enjoy your night well.