#she is cringe fail and transgender what more does a character need

[twilight-spargle]

hello! startrix art would be very cool :3

i haven’t gotten far enough in the show to see them interact </3 so i’m going off of fan content and vibes sorry if it’s inaccurate lmao

[leiflikesdisney-blog]

Transgendered Villains Response

A response to Amanda Putnam’s “Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films,” put under the cut for length. Because while taking notes on the article, I realized I had a lot more that I wanted to say in response to this article, so why not get a post out of it?

So, I’ll be honest, when I saw this article title on the syllabus, I immediately felt my anxiety rise. The first thing that stood out to me is the use of the word “transgendered.” I’ll grant that this piece was written years ago (2013), but that is not the proper word. It’s simply transgender, for a variety of reasons.  Firstly, transgender is already an adjective, so it does not need the -ed at the end. The only time you have an -ed is when you are converting a pre-existing noun or verb to an adjective (ex. fatigued, disgusted, right-handed).  Secondly, you do not use “transgendered” in the same way that you don’t use “gayed.” I am a transgender guy, not a transgendered guy. I am a gay man, not a gayed man. The only time I have heard “transgendered” is by cisgender people, and often in a negative context. It is most often used in a negative context, because, if you’ve ever talked to a trans person and actually listened to them, you would know it isn’t transgendered. But, I was very closeted in 2013, so I don’t know what language was used at the time, I just felt it would be nice to have a short response to the use of this word, in preparation for class.  The Huffington Post also wrote a very nice article over this issue here.

Also, while we’re on the use of vocabulary, Putnam discusses the assigning of “transgendered attributes” and “gender-bending” traits. This can get to be a mouthful sometimes, and I feel like cisgender, heterosexual academics who try to discuss these issues tend to get ahead of themselves and fail to actually research how the LGBT community has personally discussed these issues. The LGBT community has already coined a term for this. It is most commonly referred to as “queer coding,” though those that don’t desire using the slur queer prefer “LGBT coding” or “gay coding.” The Daily Dot describes queer coding as “the use of stereotypically negative queer traits to demonize characters.” You can read their article about Disney’s attitude towards queer coded characters here. Or, if you’re really tired of reading, here’s a nice video on queer coding. Also, TVTropes has a fairly comprehensive list of queer coded characters here. Though, I am disappointed that this list leaves off Sideshow Bob, Cecil, and Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, but they aren’t Disney, so I’ll digress from that...

Anyway, the importance of terms like “queer/LGBT coding” is because, otherwise, you end up with the phrase “transgendered villains,” which is problematic, to say the least. You cannot describe a cisgender character as “transgendered” when what you really mean is that they are coded as queer. It is grossly inappropriate to call a character “transgendered,” when, for as far as the audience knows, the character is cisgender. Also, many personality traits or mannerisms associated with being gay and being trans have overlap, which is why umbrella terms like queer/lgbt coding are necessary. It’s difficult to have a character be gay coded without also being trans coded, and vice versa. Also, this is just me being nit-picky, but Putnam’s definition of being transgender is way too wordy. Being transgender just means you don’t identify with the gender you were assigned at birth. (Transsexual is outdated and commonly used in a negative connotation, used transgender instead. I know cis people will swear up and down on their grave that using transsexual is more correct, but here is an actual trans person telling you that no, it isn’t. Please use transgender instead.)

So, now that the vocab lesson is done, let’s get on to the real meat of the article.

I wholeheartedly agree with Putnam. Disney has firmly planted its roots in the demonization of queer people through their villains’ appearances, actions, and mannerisms. Scar has always stood out to me, through his perfectly messy mane, his dark, drooping eyelids that mimic Disney’s typically feminine seductive style of eyelids, and his campiness that is especially evident in this scene and this scene. Also notably, many queer coded antagonists (typically gay men) are well-educated academics that look down on those of lower intelligence, which is...90% of Scar’s personality, and it’s especially high lighted in scenes with the hyenas, especially when you compare his deep, almost theatrical English accent to Shenzi and Anzai’s urban accents, which are commonly associated with a lack of education.

Also, this queer coding plays into our discussion from earlier this semester about why people are drawn to queer coded characters. As a child struggling with gender identity, seeing characters that broke Disney’s strict gender roles was a breath of fresh air, even if they were villains. In fact, I didn’t even make the connection until recently that queer coding was specifically the reason I tended to identify more with villains than heroes. For some reason, feminine men with tendencies associated with homosexuality, along with campy personalities spoke to my young closeted gay self.

As Disney’s movies have shown, actual scenes that can be read as homosexual are played for laughs. The first that comes to mind is, following their fight with the villagers, when Lumiere kisses Cogsworth, which results in a disgusted face from Cogsworth as he smacks Lumiere away, and it is played off as laughs. Because, remember kids! The only time guys show affection to other boys is at moments of hysteria when they aren’t thinking clearly! Riiight...Also notably in Beauty and the Beast is the hyper-masculine villain Gaston, which would be a nice subversion of the effeminate male villain stereotype...if it weren’t for Lefou. Now, don’t get me wrong! I absolutely adore Lefou! He’s a great comic relief, and a foil for Gaston. In fact, it’s his relationship with Gaston that raises questions. 

Lefou is the very dimwitted comrade of Gaston’s who spends a majority of his dialogue being touchy-feely towards Gaston and flooding him with compliments. He spends as much time swooning over Gaston as the blonde village girls do. For whatever reason, Gaston decides to spend every waking moment with Lefou, rather than with the women, as one would expect him to.

The dialogue between the two, combined with the fact that Lefou is constantly with Gaston, and the physical contact between the two feels like Disney’s odd, caricatured version of a gay relationship. For some reason, whenever character’s sidekicks are animals, it’s harder to read their relationship as romantic.

Finally, Jafar is the most obviously queer coded man of the bunch, with his feminine-attire, including his eyeshadow and eyeliner–attributes that Disney would never dare give to a good heterosexual man. In fact, the only time we see a man wearing feminine attire in Disney films, they are a villain, or, even more commonly, it’s played off for laughs.

Because it’s funny when a guy wears a dress, right? It’s funny to show other characters stare in confusion and/or disgust, right? It’s definitely not harmful to show young trans girls that their identity is a joke, right? Uh, sorry guys, media affects people, particularly media consumed by young children. Disney’s portrayal of gender and gender expression causes children to consume and partake in transphobic/transmisogynistic ideas. The overdone gag of “man dons a dress for a cheap joke” is, simply that, overdone and inherently transmisogynistic. 

Also, regarding the part of the essay about Drizella and Anastasia, I completely agree. Normally, Drizella and Anastasia’s features wouldn’t stand out, but they are regularly laughed at for their masculine ugliness. Also apparently Disney associates beauty with being essentially featureless, because I find the stepsisters’ designs infinitely more interesting and compelling than Cinderella’s doe eyes and button nose. But hey, that’s just me.

Either way, Disney has a strong rooted history in queer coding villains, leading to homophobic and transphobic portrayals and jokes. Even in modern films, it is easy to see Disney give preferential treatment to the hyper-masculinized men over the effeminate men, and the hyper-feminine women to the masculine women. 

In Frozen, Hans is thin, well-dressed, and well-mannered...up until the part where he tries to kill two women. Meanwhile, Kristoff, the good guy, has a more masculine build, climbs mountains, and he has significantly shorter and paler eyelashes than Hans, as well as a more masculine face shape.

In Tangled, Rapunzel has golden blonde hair, a tiny button nose, and is effortlessly youthful and beautiful. In stark contrast, Mother Gothel, the villain, has a square, masculine face and a strong nose, and she has to manipulate and use Rapunzel in order to achieve her youth and beauty.

Heck, in Wreck-It Ralph, the main protagonist is King Candy who speaks with the stereotypically homosexual lisp, lives in a pink castle, and bounces around everywhere in a pixie-esque manner.

So, yeah...Disney has no problems using gender roles and proper gender presentation in their characters as a means to show good vs. evil. Disney’s regular queer coding is what makes me cringe when people bring up the possibility of a gay, bi, or trans princess. Disney regularly makes LGBT people out to be villains, and I don’t trust them to portray an LGBT character correctly or in a positive light. So, as much as I would love to have an animated film feature a strong LGBT character, especially from a company as big as Disney, I don’t know if I trust any animation companies to produce that film yet...Although, I have heard that Warner Brothers’ new Lego Batman movie features a relationship between the Joker and Batman that is heavily coded to be romantic in nature, and that the portray it rather adorably. I personally haven’t seen it yet, but I look forward to that.

P.S. Yes, I know Paranorman has a gay character. He’s wonderful, and I love him.