#Supporting the TQ+ without supporting the LGB

[coochiequeens]

This is a perfect example of the TQ+ rewriting history. When Chasity came out to her mom as a lesbian Cher in her own words "freaked-out" and essentially kicked her out even though she was only 18 at the time.

Celebrating trans and non-binary lives is important year-round and celebrities such as Robert De Niro, Cher and Naomi Watts set the bar high for others to follow through their vocal support of their transgender children.

Unconditional love is crucial for everyone, but especially for children who are coming to terms with the sexuality and/or gender identity.

A 2023 report found LGBTQ+ people are much less likely to be happy in adulthood when they were not supported at home and school when they were younger.

Here are just some of the celebrities who proudly love and support their transgender children.

See rest of article

"At 18, Chastity came out as a lesbian. Despite being a gay icon herself, Cher was less than impressed and ‘had a freak-out’. "

By freak out they mean Chastity was essentially kicked out by her gay icon mom.

[msclaritea]

Biden campaign steps up LGBTQ outreach as allies worry about waning support

[gaybottm]

1. “Trans people have always and will always exist.”

I'm sure they do. Where have I mention they do not exist?

2.“Gay men wouldn’t have rights or the implication of safety if not for the work most often led by trans people.”

This claim overstates the role of trans people in the gay rights movement.

Stonewall (1969) is often cited as an example of trans leadership, but the majority of those involved were gay and lesbian activists, with notable contributions from transvestites like Marsha P. Johnson and drag queens not transexuals LGB. TQ+ has been added recently.

Groups like the Mattachine Society (1950s) and the Gay Liberation Front were primarily driven by gay men and lesbians long before the newly added trans activists.

While trans activists contributed recently, the assertion that gay rights wouldn’t exist without them is historically inaccurate at best.

3. “Harm to the TQ community is harm to all of us.”

This assumes that all LGBTQ+ groups share the same struggles and goals, which is not true.

Gay and lesbian rights (marriage equality, discrimination protections, etc.) were fought for on the basis of sexual orientation. Never gender inequality because that doesn't exist since woman's rights.

4. “Trying to further divide our community will only serve to weaken all of us.”

The claim assumes that unity is always beneficial, but that depends on what is being advocated for. And the last election shows it's quite the opposite. Time for a TQ+ divorce!

5. “I do hope that one day you realize who is fighting for your right to exist and who seeks to destroy you.”

This presents a false dichotomy—either you support trans activism fully, or you’re siding with those who want to "eradicate" LGBTQ+ people. I won't put my rights on the line for someone who thinks they are a dog, cat, or baby, or for someone whose identity is based on a cross-dressing fetish. Which makes it clear that you are part of the problem, not the solution. Trans people have the same rights as I do. Fetishes are not a gender or a sexual orientation, and it’s time to call a spade a spade.

In reality, one can support protections for trans individuals while also questioning certain aspects of the movement (e.g., sports policies, medical transitions for minors, etc.).

Not every critique of trans ideology equates to hatred or a desire to cause harm. The sooner you learn that the better it be for everyone.

These fake bi people will end our gay rights to protect their dumb ideologies. The far right will read this and think, Oh, you can grow out of your gay sexuality or pray the gay away. They’ll say we don’t need gay marriage rights because we’ll just “grow out of it” since being gay is supposedly fluid.

These people need to be exposed and cut off from our LGB community, or we will lose everything because of these nutjob activists—the same ones who cost us the last election and will cost us all our gay rights.

I’m gay, and it is not fluid. I will not grow out of it because I’m not bi! And there are only two genders, and I love my own. Full stop! I hope you all see the danger of this ideology before it's too late for all of us.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed for Kettering Foundation:

The months since Trump’s election have been brutal for transgender people like me. States are churning out laws that strip us of legal recognition, bar us from bathrooms, void our IDs, and more. That should be enough, but 2025 has delivered a different, more insidious threat—one we were unprepared to face. It isn’t just the executive orders banning our passports, blocking transgender visa seekers from entry, threatening teachers with investigations for using our names, or erasing us from federal websites—though those do play a role. The real danger has come from mass overcompliance: institutions, including well-meaning ones, rushing to carry out the administration’s anti-trans agenda without being asked. These attacks began with us, but the consequences won’t end there. The country needs to understand the lesson being written in real time: do not comply. 

An Explosion of Targeted Attacks 

The first of Trump’s executive orders targeting transgender people came with a loaded title: “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The order declared that sex is binary and fixed at birth and uses rigid definitions of “man” and “woman” that fly in the face of established science. Without statutory authority, it then applied these definitions across all US code—resulting in sudden policy shifts like the revocation of gender marker updates on passports. The fallout has been immediate and destabilizing: some transgender people have had their passport renewals denied or even had documents confiscated, while others are left unsure whether they can safely travel at all. Compounding the damage, the administration has treated any contradiction to its definitions as justification for stripping federal grants—an abuse of executive power that sidesteps congressional authority. 

As executive orders continued to cascade from the Trump administration, an expanding list of policies became mandatory not just for federal agencies but for institutions across the country. One order barred transgender athletes from competing in everything from darts to disc golf to dance and threatened to strip funding from any school that adopted local or individualized policies. Another order targeted hospitals, warning that providing gender-affirming care to anyone under 19—including legal adults—could trigger federal investigations and funding cuts. Meanwhile, the cuts made by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have dominated headlines as organizations scramble to comply with vague and nebulous policies. Many organizations complied under the direct or implied threat of losing critical resources. 

The Danger of Pre-Compliance 

This last phase of reactionary compliance is where something more insidious began to unfold. Organizations, including those with long histories of supporting LGBTQ+ people, started erasing trans and queer communities from their websites, shuttering resources, and, whether out of fear or compliance, became willing enforcers of Trump’s anti-trans agenda.   The first signs came from government websites. Research papers on transgender health funded by federal grants were quietly removed or retracted. The National Park Service altered language at the Stonewall National Monument, stripping the TQ+ from LGBTQ+ and rewriting history to frame the uprising—led in large part by transgender people—as a fight solely for “LGB rights.” Even the biography for Sylvia Rivera, one of the most prominent transgender figures at Stonewall, was edited. Her section on the National Park Service’s Stonewall page now says she fought for “gay and rights”—a clumsy, ahistorical revision that manages to erase her identity while mangling the grammar. Such attempts to revise history and control language are designed to cleave away would-be allies, a common tactic of authoritarian regimes. 

[...] Many readers have likely noticed diversity, equity, and inclusion resources are quietly disappearing from their workplaces. Corporate donations to pride parades have dried up. Entire diversity departments and programs have been cut. In some cases, companies are scrubbing references to transgender and queer people altogether, fearful that even acknowledging our existence could jeopardize federal contracts or funding.  A chilling veil of silence has fallen over LGBTQ+ people in America—our existence is now considered too risky to even name. 

Fear and Uncertainty Breed Anticipatory Obedience 

A lesson can be found in all of this. The most devastating damage from these executive orders hasn’t come from their direct mandates but from their vagueness. The orders are deliberately opaque and create just enough uncertainty to push institutions into overcompliance. Risk-averse legal teams, fearful of losing federal funding or becoming political targets, preemptively erase transgender people from policies, programs, and public language. The cruelty lies in the ambiguity. These orders don’t explicitly bar specific conduct but deputize decision-makers to interpret them in ways that inflict the greatest harm on disfavored communities. 

[...] We are, in many ways, teaching those in power what they can get away with by complying with regulations that have no legal basis.  I understand the fear that organizations are responding to. Each individual decision that erases a mention here or cuts a program there can feel rational. Everyone wants to keep their head low, but fear calcifies into cowardice. And cowardice, when widespread, leads to the erosion of every value we claim to hold. 

Erin Reed wrote for the Kettering Foundation on the Trump Regime's war on trans people (and LGBTQ+ people in general). The overarching message: do not comply with Tyrant 47's demands.

[a-room-of-my-own]

You know the annoying thing is that, while the tide is turning in most of Europe and UK regarding the trans ideology, it's just getting started in my own country; or rather online media are trying to bring it over here, and there have been a few speakers on tv/radio talking about it, one of them a psychologist that claimed that it's nothing to be worried about regarding the rise in sex dysphoric kids cause actually the numbers are getting higher cause we're finally talking more about it(gods how I hate that rhetoric, whenever it's used for any topic on mental health; slight tangent: like yes, regarding mental health, part of it is we're talking more about that sort of stuff, but there's no denying that there are far more issues now than in the past; the numbers aren't just rising cause we're more aware. I really do hate it when people say that "oh we're more aware, that's the reason for high numbers).

However, people at the moment are still resisting the ideology, but I fear for how much longer; either that, or the ideology will make them even more conservative and against the LGB cause they're already conflating LGB with TQ+, and I really hate it. Honestly I fear that at this point the tide will sooner turn in the US.

In France we usually get the new American obsession 10 years after it started there, and I was really hoping that the tide would turn soon enough for us to be protected from the trans craze. Turns out we weren’t and faced the same collusion between trans activists, blue haired kweerios, former supporter of president Mao, fascists in balaclavas calling themselves antifa, idiotic bougie Parisians, critical race theorists, raging antisemites and Islamists (multiple labels can apply to one person, yes I know)

That’s quite the sour cocktail.

In ten years they managed to completely undermine feminism, ecology, anti-racism and LGB rights activism. We’ve reached a point where many people don’t want to hear anything about it anymore. I mean we have local planned parenthood promoting the Islamic veil and prostitution at the same time.

So what happened basically is that this ideology propelled many people towards the right and the extreme right. The left is slowly disappearing and the extreme left, to just exist in the media has been acting like a 1930s NSDAP supporter for literal months, obsessing over Jews and Israel.

Pride parades and feminists events have become sad displays of nonsensical ideologies and the media loves nothing more than interviewing the most unhinged people attending. So I’m afraid - and I’ve been saying that since the beginning - that without a strong reaction from LGB people themselves this will, in the end, send acceptance back to the 1980s.

And I’m not blaming it on gay people at all, I mean I see what feminism has become and how all major charities have been taken over… it’s really hard to be heard. If anything I’m heartbroken for the victims and for all the people who are going to suffer from this. People will forget the fetishists who will go back to their birth name and underground clubs, but not about the « slippery slope » that for them started with marriage equality.

[vintage-bentley]

How in the fuck are you going to be anti trans and a Good Omens fan as if both the book and the show don’t explicitly establish the existence of several nonbinary characters and both Aziraphale and Crowley themselves are genderless beings

Not to mention both David and Michael’s staunch support of the LGBT (really emphasizing the T here, since you love to drop it) community as a whole, and David literally has a trans child

Part of me is even asking this in good faith because how do you see a series that is so incredibly queer and like it considering how much you shit-talk trans people on your lackluster TERF blog

There’s many reasons, actually! I’ll explain them in good faith, because I think that people who ask questions like this don’t understand the perspective of so-called “terfs” and assume we think like you do.

Firstly, I’m a feminist, so I’m used to media not aligning with my politics. I expect it, actually. Down to very simple things, like knowing I’m never going to go into a show and see a woman just existing with body hair like men do in shows all the time. But I’m comfortable and confident enough in my beliefs that I can consume media that doesn’t align with them. This extends to my feelings regarding gender. A they/them character doesn’t make my head explode, it’s just the same for me as seeing a Christian character (like Ella from Netlix’s Lucifer) or a female character who’s pro-beauty culture (like Elinor from First Kill). It’s a representation of a belief I don’t agree with and personally don’t believe in, that’s all.

Secondly, Good Omens is set in a made up universe with fantasy themes. I can easily get behind the idea that the true forms of angels and demons are genderless, because that makes sense to me in the same way God being genderless makes sense to me. This doesn’t have to carry over to me believing that humans can be genderless (I don’t believe in the concept of internal gender identity, because I don’t believe in souls. So I guess the better way to put this is that I don’t believe humans can be sexless unless we’re using gender and sex as synonyms). In the same way that it makes sense to me that angels and demons have souls that are put into bodies issued to them…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Or how it makes sense to me that Aziraphale and Crowley could survive without food, water, and sleep…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Etc. etc.

Basically, just because something is in a fantasy show, doesn’t mean I have to believe it’s real.

Thirdly, what the actors do in their own lives is none of my business. I don’t agree with supporting the TQ+ especially in relation to LGB (considering they’ve made it a primary goal to harass lesbians into pretending we can like penis, and to take every chance they get to express their hatred for homosexuality. I love to drop the T because they dropped me and my fellow homosexuals years ago). If two straight male actors want to do that, whatever. I also don’t agree with Sheen having a baby with a woman his daughter’s age, but that hasn’t stopped me from watching the show or appreciating his talent.

This all takes me back to what I said about believing you don’t truly understand the perspective of those you call “terfs”. Just because you might not be able to comprehend watching and enjoying something that doesn’t perfectly align with your worldview, doesn’t mean others feel the same. For example, many radical and rad-leaning feminists enjoyed the Barbie movie, despite it not being radical feminist. We’re capable of watching and enjoying things we don’t agree with, and of having discussions about why we don’t agree with it.

A much simpler answer to your question would be: I’ve always loved angels and demons and all things supernatural. I’ve always loved old cars. I love Queen. Religious/moral commentary and critique interest me. I love lighthearted comedies. I’m gay and starved for representation of healthy gay relationships. I love gay star-crossed lovers stories (go watch First Kill). Naturally, I’m going to love Good Omens, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with my worldview.

[thelostgirl21]

So, guess who ended up watching the whole "Jobriath A.D." documentary, crying her eyes out over a guy singing about Sunday Brunch in his pyramid, and making a whole video dedicated to Jobriath and Hugh's performance as Radovid?

Actually, I also made another version (unlisted) for those of you that are already familiar with the artist, and might want to enjoy some of his music and the visuals without being distracted by the text at the bottom:

But yeah, I'm kind of so sad and upset that I never got to know about him before (given how huge of a fan of David Bowie I've been since my teenage years), and that the gay community totally failed to support him, back then.

I mean, I'm not blaming them. We've had the same issue with feminism where we used to make it all about women assuming more traditional men roles; until we finally realized that it was just as important to give more social value to traditionally perceived feminine qualities, traits, interests, and professions - in men, women, and any other gender, really - as well!

So, I can recognize that the gay community attempting to distance itself from the whole "flamboyant fairy" image likely came from the rest of society attempting to reduce them to it (among others), and creating some kind of convenient "right" vs "wrong" way to be gay narrative (a divided minority is much less powerful and loud than a united one).

Even today, we are facing a similar issue with some members of the LGBTQ+ community claiming to be part of the "LGB" without the "TQ+".

Note: the "B" of that "LGB" is often barely tolerated as a "temporary transitional phase", though; a "stepping stone" towards either the "L" or "G", or a return to being "straight".

Ultimately, it's about our survival instincts making us fear losing the relative safety we've acquired by being positively accepted and valued by those that hold the most power.

i.e. The "TQ+" is too controversial and different from the cisgender monosexual majority to be readily accepted?

Well, let's distance ourselves from it to keep us "LG"s safe, then!

While, of course, reassuring the dominant majority that the "B" will eventually choose a side, so its okay to let them come along while they are still "searching themselves". No worry! We're still as "normal" as you are!

It's all very, very binary.

No, it's not. The world is filled with beauty, diversity and nuance...

And sadly, by rejecting a part of our collective identity to better "fit in", we are sacrificing a part of our very own soul and culture. We are hurting ourselves and giving up power, not acquiring it.

So yeah, I'm not "blaming the victims" by accusing the gay community of any intentional wrongdoing back then, but JFC! It hurts.

It really hurts that he didn't receive comfort, love, and support from his very own people, at the very least, when the mainstream audience lashed out at him.

Yes, the publicity and the hype built around him made everything worse and gave off the wrong image (he probably came off as being a bit of a "self-absorbed prick", rather than someone in a position of great vulnerability), but they freaking ate him alive out there!

And he deserved better not because he was incredibly gifted and talented, but because he was a freaking human being.

What his talent and giftedness had to offer us was a voice, though, that we allowed to be silenced, and the world and our culture became lesser for it.

Jobriath did pave the way for others to then succeed, but I'm against the idea that someone needs to fall and sacrifice themselves so that others may rise. Yes, it happens, but it shouldn't have to.

I don't believe for one second that it is or was ever necessary.

But if it does happen, then yes, I say make it count for something, at the very least!

So, maybe that's why I'm so touched by the fact that Hugh listened to his music and drew inspiration from it while portraying his character.

40 years after his death, you now have a young openly gay actor being offered the role of an openly gay prince (that later becomes king) on a major fantasy show that isn't specifically about LGBTQ+ themes (like, say, "Sense8" could be considered to be), who is listening to Jobriath's music to help him connect with, build, and embody his character.

And, while I am genuinely glad that some artists are doing covers of his songs (ex: Adam Lambert with "Imaman") and bringing people's attention towards his work...

In Hugh's case, I think that what I find really touching is the fact that there's an element of "practicality" to it, if I'm making any sense? A connection that seems to be more internalized / intimate between the two artists...

Art is a means of self-expression, and sometimes you are trying to express a message, an emotion, or an idea that you wish to share with others in the world, and allow it to take a life of its own.

So, it's like the music Jobriath created - that little part of himself and the things he wished to communicate with the world that he left behind - is being listened to and welcomed by Hugh, and then combined with his own creative sensitivities to be integrated within a theatrical performance.

The spirit of what was initially shared lives on, while evolving and taking on a new form that will then go on to connect with people in a different way.

It's not so much about celebrating the songs themselves and paying tribute to the artist's work by covering them, but becomes about honoring the artist's spirit and the emotions, themes, ideas, etc. those songs were covering.

And I am genuinely not saying that one way of connecting with the artist's work or expressing appreciation for it is better than the other, not at all.

Just that as a non-professional artist myself, the idea of leaving anything behind that would have the power to touch a fellow artist's soul, help them grow as a performer, and continue to express and explore certain themes that I personally connected with at that time in my life - even if I would no longer be there to personally guide them - would be incredibly moving and make me feel like art really has the power to transcend boundaries and even death itself.

Because Jobriath's songs tackled issues related to identity, gender, relationships and self-discovery, among others...

And Radovid, as a character, is very gentle...

He's sensitive, empathetic, boyish, openly admits to being scared, freaking huddles himself in a corner to cry when he finds out his guards have been slaughtered...

I mean, when it comes down to it, all Radovid really wanted, this season, was a pretty song and someone to love and belong with...

Someone that could see him as he really is, and see some value in who he is, too...

So Jaskier, sweetheart, listen to Milva...

Because, let's be honest, you're a bit useless in the whole "rescuing Ciri" venture. I mean, you're not useless now, since Geralt is still recovering from his physical and emotional injuries, does greatly benefit from having his emotional support bard around, and you're not quite entirely done holding out interviews to find him new useful companions to watch after him and help him on his quest (don't think I didn't notice what you were doing with Milva!)...

But ultimately, this is going to involve a lot of fighting, and that's not where you're at your strongest.

However, there's a King in need of some serious rescuing, too, that could really use your wits, ability to know, influence and inspire people, and your Sandpiper connections.

You're not a hammer, you're a fellow spoon, luv; and the whole mess that Radovid has been thrown into is a situation that would most definitely requires two spoons, at the very least!

Thankfully, you've already proven that you know how to make two spoons work together very well, and become an effective weapon to annoy the hell out of those trying to keep people trapped!

You and Radovid pooling your own respective resources and joining forces together?

Philippa and Dijkstra would be so fucked... So, so fucked... And not in the "fun way".

So, as soon as Geralt has sufficiently recovered and has enough people with him to watch his back out there, get back to Radovid ASAP and get your whole "spooning thing" on, alright?

Fair warning: He might specifically need a big spoon to help dig him out of the whole mess that's threatening to bury him alive right now... Just saying!

Anyway, getting sidetracked again!

I guess my point is that Radovid is displaying the kind of emotional intelligence, insightfulness, and empathetic qualities that are more traditionally associated with feminine characters.

And that, if they are to ever make him rise to a position of great power within the kingdom, the worst possible thing Netflix could do is probably make him lose those qualities.

If princesses, in fantasy, have been allowed to gain power and become beloved queens through their compassionate and nurturing nature, their ability to genuinely care about the fate of every living person (and even creature) on their land, and "triumph over evil" by building mutually beneficial alliances with said people and creatures, so should a freaking gentle and sensitive gay prince, I say!

There really is no need to "harden Radovid", and change the very core of who he is just to "give him power".

To have him become more confident and assertive in who he is and what he can do, absolutely!

But using his trauma as an excuse to make him become some kind of angry, "tough", paranoid, uncaring and controlling leader? No.

Especially in a context where Radovid is a character that people are expecting to become hard and cruel because of his videogame counterpart, please be brave enough to completely defy those expectations by letting him be his own person!

Because Netflix's version of Radovid, thus far, is a superb example of queer representation done right, too.

And I'm going to attempt to phrase that as best as I can, so hopefully what I'm saying won't be misunderstood, but having a queer actor portray a queer character does offer an added layer of authenticity to the role.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from opposed to the idea of having straight actors portraying certain queer characters in a context where gay, bisexual, pansexual, etc. actors are also being offered straight roles.

I'm a huge fan of Malec (the pairing of Magnus Bane and Alec Lightwood), and I think that Harry Shum Jr. and Matthew Daddario did an amazing job portraying a very realistic and domestic relationship between a bisexual man and a gay man.

They both approached the roles with lots of humility, openness, asked for the queer community's guidance and feedback on their portrayal of the relationship (the fact that some of their fellow cast members on the show are queer IRL - including Nicola Correia-Damude, that portrays Maryse Lightwood - likely helped), etc.

And, when it came to filming scenes requiring to show a lot of love and intimacy between their two characters, they didn't hold back, either.

So, I do think that you can definitely be straight IRL, and feel confident enough in your own sexuality and in who you are to explore and embrace other orientations through your acting.

Not to mention that having such actors show that they aren't afraid to portray queer characters on TV, and to openly support and associate with the LGBTQ+ community, is setting a positive example for other cisgender straight people out there.

It kind of goes to show that, just because one is exposed to diversity when it comes to love, romance and sexuality, it won't magically "turn them gay".

Because, trust me, if Matthew Daddario didn't magically "become gay" after all those steamy kisses and emotionally/physically intimate scenes he had to film with Harry Shum Jr., likely nothing will!

And most bisexuals I've personally discussed the character of Magnus Bane with did feel like he was an accurate representation of their own sexuality.

Just like, as a panromantic and pansexual person, I'm 100% "vibing" with Joey Batey's portrayal of Jaskier.

I have no idea what Joey's actual sexual orientation is, or why he decided to explore pansexuality with his character before they made it official, but I feel like "he gets me".

Even his decision to make Jaskier become specifically romantically attracted to the way he perceives Radovid's intellect (sapioromantic) - and swoon over how intelligent and insightful he is on screen - is something that I can viscerally connect with, since I'm personally exclusively romantically and sexually attracted towards geeks.

If you were to pay attention to the way I'm looking at my partner dungeon mastering a D&D game, you'd think I was watching him perform a freaking striptease! It's uncanny!

So, even if Joey was to tell me that he is straight, I'd be more than fine and happy to have my own romantic and sexual identity be represented by him. I feel like he truly "gets me", regardless of whether it's from personal experience, or because of his own ability to put himself in other people's shoes and intimately connect with their reality.

It's just that, in Hugh's case, knowing that he is gay, and that the role has a personal significance for him, offers another layer of appreciation for the character and the actor's performance.

He just seems to be so happy to be living at a time and age where you can get that kind of representation in a major fantasy show - where you can have queer characters that are complex, fleshed out, and not reduced to mere stereotypes - and to be given the chance to be a part of the people that are making it happen, that you can't help but feel it, too.

It almost makes me wonder if they cast Hugh Skinner specifically because they knew how different from the videogames their version of Radovid was going to be, and they needed someone that would look like he has such a wonderful time with this role, and is so grateful to be there and be given the opportunity to play him, that hating on the character would literally feel like kicking a puppy!

Me: I don't think I could ever feel as protective over a fictional character as I feel about Jaskier.

Hugh Skinner: Hold my - I mean Jaskier's lute, I've got this!

Me: Ah, crap. Here we go again...

And the sad part is that, back when the whole controversial romance between Radovid and Jaskier was planned and filmed, no one had any idea that it would be Henry Cavill's last season.

But now, they bascially introduced a version of Prince Radovid that is the polar opposite of what the writers of "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt" came up with, and paired him up with a character that has never been established as being queer in the books and the videogames (Jaskier)...

...right at the height of the angry toxic gaming community's "let's all assume that Henry Cavill is leaving because of the showrunner's blatant 'woke agenda', and all of these outrageous changes that were made to the source material the games (ex: OMG! They decided that a splendid full-figured black woman could fit the book description of "Margarita Laux-Antille emerged from the pool with a splash.. Ciri could not stop herself from taking a peek. She saw Yennefer in the nude many times and she didn't think anyone could have a more beautiful figure. She was wrong. At the sight of a naked Margarita Laux-Antille even marble statues of goddesses and nymphs would sob with jealousy"... HOW DARE THEY?!?!?!), and call for the boycott and cancellation of the series" movement!

Do you guys ever wish that the LGBTQ+ community had some kind of huge "bat signal" to let fellow queers - that, in this more specfic case, haven't seen "The Witcher" yet - know that there's this absolutely amazing queer romance happening on a show that totally deserves their love and attention?

And that said queer romance could really use their love and attention right about now - and throughout the next season - if we've any hope that the show will keep on running and remain popular for as long as humanly possible, given that it has just lost its biggest star (that was playing the main character, no less), and there's a bunch of people that have decided that they would no longer be watching it because of that.

Somehow, I'm just heartbroken over the prospect of the show not having the chance to really further develop Jaskier and Radovid's stories (both their romance, and each individual character's journeys), and the actors not having the chance to fully really portray and develop them.

Radskier is basically "Malec material" being introduced in a show that has a disproportionately high number of angry right-wing ideologists and incels gamers "fans" that are dedicating entire YouTube channels to trying to punish the TV show for daring to have a more inclusive cast and broader view of beauty standards than its videogame counterpart, and making a womanizer keep the same impulsive drive to love and sexually connect with a bunch of different people he becomes spontaneously enamored with, but without said sexual drive being motivated by them being women.

And bits and pieces of that narrative is bleeding into the more moderate audience, without realizing how problematic or nonsensical some of them are at their core.

I wish there was some kind of "Malec fans hotline" you could call to say "Guys! I know this may not be your usual TV show genre, but there's something exceptionally good happening right here that you need to come and checkout! You have two lovers from two different worlds experiencing an instant soul-deep connection in one of the most adorable "meet awkward cute" of TV history. And that connection throws one of them a bit out of a loop, because he's never romantically fallen in love before (he's greyromantic)... And one of them is expected to basically sacrifice all of his own wants and needs to honor his duty, because he was born into a highly regarded and powerful royal family... And he initially tries to conform to his family's expectations, but realizes that it is not who he is... And there's this situation where he keeps some information from the man he loves, and the other realizes it, he becomes scared that he made a mistake trusting him and pushes him away... But then..."

How do we get the audience that is usually into these types of stories to migrate towards "The Witcher"?

*Heavy sigh*

But yeah, all I hope is that Liam Hemsworth's performance as Geralt will be well-received, and that the show will be deemed successful enough for Netflix to continue investing in it so that these storylines and characters will be given the chance to continue to grow and develop...

[coochiequeens]

I hate that Project Veritas broke this story. I hate them for how they went after Planned Parenthood. But I also hate how it’s right wing media investigating this shit because left leaning media is more concerned with not appearing “transphobic”. Even if that means silence when minors are being exposed to “butt plugs and lube v spit” in school. 

A prestigious private school in Chicago, Francis W. Parker, defended dean of students Joe Bruno on Thursday following the release of a video in which he said the school’s LGBTQ sex-education programming includes passing around sex toys and instructing students on how to use them.

“During Pride — we do a Pride Week every year — and I had our LGBTQ+ health center come in. They were passing around butt plugs and dildos to my students. Talking about queer sex. Using lube versus using spit,” Bruno says in one clip.

Bruno, who has been in his current role for four years, added that students asked him: “‘How does this butt plug work? How do we do — like, how does this work?’ . . . That’s a really, like, cool part of my job.”

Bruno reportedly wasn’t aware that his statements were being recorded at the time by a member of Project Veritas, an American organization known for making similar undercover videos. The outfit has been successfully sued by an organization over its tactics.

However, the release of the undercover video apparently has not shaken Francis W. Parker School’s faith in Bruno. The school defended him in a statement released Thursday.

“He was filmed without his knowledge or permission while describing one example of our inclusive, LGBTQ+ affirming, and comprehensive approach to sex education. Veritas deceptively edited the video with malicious intent,” the statement said, as reported by WGN-TV.

According to the outlet, the statement also said: “Parker administrators and Parker’s Board of Trustees support Parker’s programming, the strength and inclusivity of our curriculum, and the dedicated and talented faculty and staff that teach it.”

The revelations have prompted the school to offer “mental health check-ins” for students, Chicago’s NPR satellite, WBEZ, reported.

During the surreptitious video recording released by Project Veritas, the interviewer off-camera tells Bruno: “You have so much freedom. So much wiggle room,” to which Bruno responds: “So much freedom. So much money to do stuff.”

According to Parker’s tuition and fees website section, cost of enrollment at the institution ranges from just over $37,000 a year for junior kindergarten up to over $42,000 for grade twelve.

When did sex ed start to include sex toys? It’s around the same time the TQ+ attached themselves like a parasite to the LGB isn’t it?

[i-never-thunk]

I am a lesbian and I don't believe that it is the public education system's responsibility to teach students about the LGB community in any way outside of an ACCURATE historical curriculum.

I think it's dangerous to influence children about things that:

1) we do not have enough scientific/empirical evidence to support the implementation of (e.g., the use of hormone injections, puberty blockers, so-called "sex reassignment" surgeries, etc)

2) oversimplify ideas about gender identity and sex in a way that is easy to accept without thinking about it critically, and further, doing a disservice to students by not allowing them to contemplate or challenge these ideas

3) encourages students to conform to ideologies they don't necessarily have the capacity to understand in a meaningful way

4) provide false information that has been perpetuated by the TQ community (e.g., statements such as "men can get pregnant", "some women have penises", "puberty blockers can be reversed")

5) would potentially cause unwillingly students to engage in sexual activities that they do not actively want (e.g., pressuring a young lesbian to sleep with a male who "identifies" as a lesbian, or not disclosing trans-identities which would cause the other individual to withdraw consent) .

Teach them about the history of the AIDS epidemic and the suffering of gay men. Teach them about the stonewall riots (again, an accurate depiction). Teach them about LGB people who are persecuted globally for their same-sex attraction.

Don't teach girls that if they like "boy things" like Legos or idk, archery, that they are in fact a boy. Don't teach boys that if they like to dance and sing or the color pink that they must be a girl.

Teach them that it's OKAY TO Like whatever they like, and that doesn't mean that they're something other than what they are!

**Edit: I read this post again later and wanted to add:

6) deceive the students into believing that this information is a fact and not as a belief system that is held by a small group of people, and that it shouldn't be questioned or challenged under any circumstance (kind of in line with 2)

[vintage-bentley]

Just adding to the JKR and gay Dumbledore discussion; another thing to remember is that when JKR began writing the books, Section 28 was still in effect and she likely would have had trouble with putting in nondeniable homosexuality in her books. and yet, as the other anon said, she definitely was laying out the backstory even if she thought she'd never been able to show it beyond coding. In addition, the tabloid reporter who wrote about Dumbledore in the final book, the way she wrote about him, Grindelwald (evil wizard boyfriend), and Harry, it was in the very British way of never saying it outright, but insinuating enough to get the point across while still maintaining plausible deniability to get around British libel laws. To a Briton, it would be far more obvious that the Wizard Tabloid was trying to call Dumbles a flaming q*eer who maybe never should be trusted around young schoolboys (sorry for the language, but that was the sentiment in story). American Tabloids don't have the subtlety, so this might not have pinged anything in American readers. Or came across far more subtly. She also didn't bring up the fact that Dumbledore was gay unprompted for press. She was at a Q&A session in 2007, and a fan asked if Dumbledore ever had any girlfriends or romances [there were a few Dumbledore/McGonagall shippers back then, so the fan may have been trying to ask about that]. She replied, very casually, that well he was gay so no girlfriends but he did have a romance (with Grindelwald). The crowd went bananas, and she seemed surprised, said she would have said something earlier if she thought people cared and would be this happy about it. The scriptwriter for the movies did know, as she once had to tell him to cut a scene where Dumbledore starts talking about a girl he liked in school. She apparently had elaborate backstories for all the main teachers in school, but never found a way to make any of them relevant (aside from Snape's) to the story as it's told from Harry's POV, and most kids don't really give a toss about their teachers personal lives. But she always wrote Dumbledore in a way she thought was coded enough that older readers would pick up on it. But she never tried to toot her own horn, with like LOOK AT MY GAY REPRESENTATION!! LOOK AT HOW BRAVE I WAS! PRAISE ME!!! or anything. She wasn't trying to get praise for gay rep without actually having it be gay, like some people...

I guess now is the time to admit that I assumed the evil boyfriend was Voldemort 💀 I was just like “yeah that makes sense” and I understand if the HP fans want to point and laugh at me

A few people have pointed out the existence of Section 28 in both discussions of HP and GO, and it’s incredibly important context. (Especially when comparing how the two books went about it…one still being respectful to gay fans, and the other being like “okay section 28, you don’t want us promoting homosexuality? We’ll take it a step further and make a joke about burning f slurs, you’re welcome”)

Tbh I’m surprised that the Anti-JKR crowd hasn’t called out the inclusion of that tabloid…it seems like the perfect thing for them to misinterpret and bash her for.

From everything I’m hearing about this, it seems like she’s been very respectful and casual about the whole thing. To me, it seems like she had an idea about her character that she legally couldn’t put into the books, and was honest about it when asked. And she seems to understand that it’s not explicit representation that deserves praise, otherwise when she was accused of being anti-LGBT she’d be all “oh but Dumbledore is gay and he’s amazing representation!”. Meanwhile Neil expects praise for being all “A/C are literally anything you want them to be except gay”

Dumbledore aside, I have a lot of respect for JKR’s support of LGB people from what I’ve seen of her tweets. She’s always one of the first to speak up for lesbians when the TQ+ are being lesbophobic, which I think is really important given her large platform. I have no doubt in my mind that she’s an ally, so it doesn’t surprise me that she handled a gay character so well.

It’s so fascinating that a woman can be this respectful regarding a gay character and receive so much backlash…but a man can be Neil Straightman and have the entire internet kissing his ass. And it’s funny that JKR has lost her belief in gender because of how she’s been treated due to her sex…yet Neil’s sex benefits him so much, which allows him to deny the importance of sex.