#specifically bc of how often queer is used in academic settings

[utilitycaster]

The identity erasure in fandom is so exhausting.

I feel like someone could write a thesis specifically about Zac Oyama’s characters being pushed into queer/ nd stories by fandom without any regard to the actual textual stories of racism, model minorities, and othering that often arise from Zac’s work.

Like I can find hundreds of Gorgug/ Zelda/ Ragh fics and fics about Gorgug being autistic and only a handful that engage with Gorgug’s race. And actually, you’re just as likely to see a fic about fantasy racism towards Riz, which. Is not the story being told.

Truly wild.

You know, this is really fascinating to me both because I tend to only see the most ridiculous discourse coming from D20 and I don't read fic, but also despite neurodivergence being not uncommon among peole in fandom, as I said, people acted like Travis Willingham was too stupid to play a druid as recently as late 2021 (even after he'd played a hexadin). It's gotten much better and more AP actors have openly talked about having ADHD (Travis McElroy, Aabria Iyengar, Siobhan Thompson, Taliesin Jaffe, Ashley Johnson) which I think forced people to consider what ADHD looks like but now it's kind of become a new "oh this character is LIKE ME" thing where basically anything can be used as evidence, which is fine for headcanons but becomes a problem when you ignore the identities you don't personally have.

But yeah, Zac in particular gets treated terribly - I haven't seen people be as awful to Lou despite him also being a man of color (though I have seen people be weird about him not necessarily choosing to play fat characters and it's like idk man why do you feel he's obligated to play characters that represent you, especially since he does clearly choose to consistently play black characters?) but a lot of people ignore that yeah, Zac has consistently played Japanese characters whenever they've been in a real-world-inspired setting, and that Gorgug is a half-orc living with gnomish parents who is curious about his parentage and who ends up pursuing artificing like his adoptive parents and feels like a very meaningful exploration of being multiracial. I do, for what it's worth, think there is textual exploration of anti-goblin racism in the first season that isn't really followed up on...but it's kind of telling that also, Gorgug isn't canonically queer and Riz is, and Riz is played by a white actor.

I would like to see someone, actually, do an academic exploration of everything talked about here because it's like:

Is this character, in-world, textually an oppressed identity (Fjord, Molly)

Is this character portrayed, in-world, as being of an identity that is oppressed in our world but is not in their world (eg, Beau being a nonwhite human lesbian in a world that doesn't really have color-based racism, usually favors humans, and doesn't have homophobia)

Is the character portrayed by an actor with an oppressed identity (Zac is nonwhite, Ally is trans, etc)

Is this actor a person with an identity shared by their character (ie, Lou and Aabria usually play black characters but those characters do not necessarily experience racism in their world - Fabian doesn't but Kingston would as does Eursolon; Deanna and Suvi don't - if I'm wrong bc I'm behind on WBN sorry)

If a character has multiple identities, which one are people connecting to and which are they ignoring?

If a character is, for example, played by an (afaik) straight cis nonwhite man and played as a straight cis nonwhite man (Ricky Matsui as played by Zac) do people headcanon them as being more like themselves to make them more relatable? Does this happen more with nonwhite characters given the heavily white AP audience?

If a character's race in a fantasy world is metaphorical, do they care about it? when and how?

anyway. much to think about.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/749218521745145857/while-i-love-some-queergay-whatever

“Kissing on the forehead isn’t necessarily romantic” makes sense if we are talking about a work of media that is made in a time/place where that was a common thing between same gender platonic friends.

But are you, anon? Or are you talking about like, a piece of Western mass media from the past 50 years? Or are you talking about anime — because if anything, kissing is even more loaded in Japan than it is in the West, especially if there are other people around. (Lots of people in anime fandom love to use “but Japanese culture” arguments to no homo, but are banking on no one reading them actually knowing jack shit about Japanese culture — because it’s almost never true or based on any real Japanese cultural difference, there’s just making shit up. It assumes people will take for granted anything that frames Japan as “foreign and inscrutable and impossible for Westerners to understand” which is just Orientalism tbqh)

Just saying, because I almost never see this shit said about like, a novel from 1820 or something from a culture like, say, some Middle Eastern countries where men kissing other men platonically is a thing…. and almost always see it said about current media from a culture where kissing on the forehead would be seen as something you’d likely not do to a platonic friend of the same gender.

You can’t “impose your cultural norms” on something from the same culture as you lol, or something from another culture that has the same norm! And an (for example) American assuming that modern American media plays by the rules of modern American culture and seeing it through that lens, doesn’t necessarily mean that American is unaware that different norms exist in different cultures. But like… it just makes sense to analyze a current American show for American audiences set in America in the modern day through the cultural standards of 2020s America and not, say, Bangladesh or Namibia or 1850s America.

And on another note, if you were as much of a fan of “queer readings” as you claim to be, you’d know that they often have little to do with authorial intent. In fact, it’s often specifically about reclaiming media that didn’t have you in mind as the audience.

(Seriously, I really doubt you have read many of those queer readings, bc if this bothers you so much, the stuff queer studies academics and cultural critics see as “gay subtext” in old Hollywood movies — hell, the stuff that gay, bi and sympathetic-straight directors and actors and writers often very much INTENDED as gay subtext in those movies — would make your brain explode.)

Anyway, we’ve all been in fandoms where there’s a ship some people insist has a ton of subtext but it’s just two guys sharing a scene occasionally and they just WANT to believe it’s there when it isn’t, and it can be annoying sure if there are so many people insisting this that it’s inescapable and becoming fanon that affects the fic about the ships you like, or if they’re pushy and sanctimonious about it. (My current fandom has a group of people who insist the only reason other people don’t see all the “subtext” for their random rarepair is racism or something, and then ignore how much textual stuff they have to deliberately leave out or misinterpret for their reading to “work” lol. Like scenes where their starry eyed expression is directed at a different character and that’s obvious in the actual episode but not in their selectively edited gif set or meta post.) But that is not the same as doing that with KISSING ON THE FOREHEAD ffs. And also, let’s not pretend that slash (or femslash) shippers are the worst offenders, like het shippers — and the broader culture — doesn’t constantly treat “a man and a woman interact” as meaning “they could/should be a couple,”

If you’re not bothered by that, but you’re bothered by when people do it with two men or two women… yeah you gotta ask yourself why that is. I have an idea why, and it’s not bc of your greater cultural open mindedness lol

--

[elizabethrobertajones]

It’s interesting how we interpret things diff in fandom. For ex, I’ve always felt negatively towards dean’s use of sex as comfort Bc of my own experiences w csa but to some other people this reads as more positive on the whole. Do you think that maybe this is what makes people have such astronomically different takes on a character/plot event ?? Maybe this would also apply to 8x17 being read as conversion therapy while others wouldn’t see it. Not original thoughts but interesting nonetheless

Yeah, this is a whole thing in literature/media interpretation classes… You know what’s wild, it’s a pretty postmodern concept that everyone has their own interpretations and there’s rational reasons why we would see things very differently based on our own experiences. Incredibly this wasn’t always the case, and it used to be that there were definitive interpretations and analysis created by a sage literary critic which were then the be all and end all of the interpretation, even if with modern eyes those might seem inherently flawed. It’s why when we learn about historical texts they teach us both the context that the original audience would have interpreted it in, the stuffy academic opinion, a range of other thinkers, and importantly the modes of interpretation to attack it for ourselves, and a chance to write our own opinions. 

When it comes to fandom, people as a whole seem very set in the original stuffy one true interpretation thing, which is completely wild to me. I don’t see it as contradictory to read and reblog a dozen different metas on a scene and even if there’s one I personally lean towards, I find it fascinating to consider multiple interpretations and how they come across to people. And, often circumstantially, certain things seem to fit better than others. For example there are a few Dean hook ups I’m quite positive towards that he seemed to be in a healthy place and it wasn’t too weird, while others are quite tellingly wrongbad to me where he’s in a very poor place and it makes me very sad to see him trying to apply that comfort to very little effect. If someone writes meta that ALL of them are good or ALL of them are bad then I’m probably going to end up reblogging meta that says both to get both viewpoints to have the meta background to pick and choose to where it seems more suited to me to say either.

But I guess a lot cases people get really invested in their particular theory or analysis and can’t see past it either to how other people could think different things, or to find it interesting that they do, and to see how those ideas can be equally merited either talking about the same instance or how it can’t be applied uniformly. Some people just aren’t very flexible and get very angry about their one idea being challenged, even though something like a very specific read of a scene, like that 8x17 reads as Naomi putting Cas through conversion therapy, could be given a few different readings but it never hurts to say “this scene also can be interpreted as…” even if when you have your overall opinion of what’s going on there it might not mean as much overall. 

I personally read a huge overall narrative of Cas vs Heaven as a queer kid in a conservative family so it makes a lot of sense for me to read it that way. Someone who generally leans towards interpreting him as various other things such as portrayed as a soldier first or a metaphor for him being an immigrant among humanity, or other ways in which this metaphor don’t apply so neatly might have much less use for that interpretation but I find it super weird to think of the ones that apply less to a personal read as therefore wrong. There shouldn’t be a right and wrong in this case, but a collection of interpretations you can understand, respect, see the reasoning for, but at the end of the day are not the ones you fall back on for your overall personal meaning and understanding of the show. 

But then at the end of the day, I think the way we all approach the story differently and that leading to different interpretations also comes down to our need for validation etc. I approach it with a somewhat detached academic curiosity when it comes to the fandom’s meta project, as much as the story and characters mean to me, the analysis can be super fascinating but also not particularly relevant or “useful” in the sense of getting a clear grounding in tools to keep on understanding the ongoing show like abstract literary parallels to old episodes or whatever. Like, I just like reading essays branching off and exploring themes and parallels and such, while a lot of people are more interested just in hashing out a clear picture of what happened in each episode, what influenced it, and how to use those tools to guess what happens next or something, which is a fascinating practical application of analysis which is really a hallmark of fandom for ongoing projects and something I’d never even thought you could use analysis for before I got to fandom… 

But for people who are much more interested in a clear interpretation of validation of their readings of characters an plot, they just want the things which will prove to be the most accurate to canon and give them the clearest answer and vindication with new episodes, and that means a lot less room for theoretical asides, and for clear answers for what things mean so that when that thread of the story continues there’s certain ground on what it’s telling them… It means a lot less room for having multiple points of views on events and knowing clear right and wrong interpretations means that it’s easy to determine how things are going. 

Which I think in some ways can lead to quite aggressive fandom behaviour, not just in the obvious gatekeeping of ideas and fighting over interpretations, or refusing to engage with theories that contradict the one you’re most invested in instead of dabbling in them all, but also that when new content appears, people get upset or argumentative about events in very odd ways about what things meant. Obviously you can see it most with anti-factions which are aggressive about people applying interpretations about ships and stuff, but also with getting so rigid about a reading that if the story changes meaning, people are left in the lurch. 

To not be contentious about any current specific stuff so I’ll just use a large vague example, Carver era had very clearly defined symbolism and themes and tropes, but Dabb era didn’t use these and Dabb’s approach to storytelling is very subtle in some ways and really brash in others, none of which can be read like the carefully weighted symbolism of Carver era. I find a LOT more use in analysing the emotional arcs than the symbolism between showrunner eras, even when there is symbolism, it’s often… topically applied? Presifer sat with flames burning behind him in his staff meeting, but Cas sat in front of a similar open flame pit in 14x01 and I don’t think there was any parallel in their intent or behaviour, and I wouldn’t draw the two together, but to take the symbolism of each. But for some people who had been really hugely into the language of Carver era, Dabb era completely threw them, and was physically enraging by how much Dabb wasn’t writing like Carver used to, and there was a lot of upset about how basic his writing was and how wonderful Carver’s symbolism was, and how the show didn’t MEAN anything any more. Of course it still meant TONS, but it wasn’t being expressed in the same way any more, and by running headlong into Dabb era still trying to read it like Carver era, these people bounced off completely and could never get into it in the same way as when there were very prescriptive symbolic and metaphoric rules to follow which made understanding events so easy you could just take a glance at a single screenshot towards the end and explain everything about the scene and its wider meaning in the mytharc. 

(What’s interesting is that the show wasn’t previously written like this - Kripke era runs on mirrors and flips in a way which is actually more similar to Dabb era but minus, of course, 10 years of show history which makes Dabb have such a meta, kaleidoscope version of this, and it was in a very heightened, dramatic form which is very elegant and sublime and worked well as the tragedy it was set up to be… Gamble era was more like Dabb era in running more off emotions but lacked a clear symbolic language AND didn’t have the back to front structure Kripke did, being caught in the middle of completely overhauling the story, and I honestly don’t blame her showrunning in a sense that it was an almost impossible job to salvage the subtextual telling of the show from itself in the wake of Kripke essentially ending the show in 5x22 with raised middle fingers at anyone who dare continue past the original vision. Leaning into their trauma and the story’s trauma was a sensible bridge, all things considered, but it makes hers the least elegant storytelling >.> Anyway this is a total aside… it’s early in the morning and I’m just sitting here :P)

Anyway. Yeah, you can tell I do find it interesting to think about how everyone has all their own interpretations :P I mean I know it’s my own experiences which make me so annoying about having this uwu all interpretations are valid sort of approach to it as well, which is just another interpretation at the end of the day. Though I will be snobby and say I do think it’s better that people could read each other’s analysis and even if it doesn’t go hand in hand perfectly with their pet interpretations at least acknowledge it’s interesting and has its own merits, rather than dumping on it in a knee jerk reaction. But then, some people come to the show and end up with their interpretations because the emotional meaning they give is so intrinsically personal, another interpretation DOES feel like an attack, and trying to deal with people who CAN’T accept that some of us are just shooting the breeze and aren’t in a death grip to any one meaning can get very sticky. Especially when someone seems rational for a while but then on disagreeing they get very emotionally violent and it takes you completely by surprise when you thought you were just chatting and then it turns out you’ve hurt them in their most deep emotional place by being like, anyway lol whatever I still mostly ascribe to this other idea - OH NO SORRY D: WE WEREN’T ON LOL WHATEVER TERMS OH GOD OH - 

[scriptlgbt]

Cleaning up

Hi! Mod Scix here! We’re trying to cut our way through the inbox, and I’ve compiled a few similar asks. This post will be a lot of ask and very short answer. Please understand this isn’t me being rude, I’m just trying to be efficient so we can get less behind. (hee hee, “behind”)

The first category of questions are errors:

Anonymous said:

(nb 2/3) They’re feminine, but choose against HRT/surgeries (maybe later?) bc they’re on PREP and the combination might lead to lower bone density (they’re a MedSchool stdt, they’d know). And they’re on Prep bc their boyfriend, the protag, is Poz, but their relationship isn’t healthy (constant arguing and protag trying to decide NB-char’s career for them). But NB-char puts up with it for years. Partly for love, partly bc protag accepts their gender, and they think they won’t ever have that again

Anonymous said:

Clarifying a few things about my ask (I'm the anon with the love triangle): 1. Gender/sexuality is of minimum importance in this story. Tough to explain, but the MC doesn't really have a concept of those issues? She's afab but agender for all intents and purposes. 2. The relationship between the two men is way healthier/happier than that between the MC and her ex. 3. There's no animosity between the MC and her ex's current partner.

Sorry, the rest of your questions are missing. If it's still a relevant question, please resend.

The next set I call research:

@teal0cean said:

Hello!! Love you guys! I wanted to ask if you know about the history of HRT for trans males. As in. What was or wasnt available or how the process of transitioning was during some historical period or other (im interested in early 20th Century!)

@yevie said:

Do you have any information on what sorts of resources/information would be available for a (lower-middle class, 20 year old nursing student in a metropolitan area) trans man in 1995? [Resources in terms of both social transitioning, especially in his academic and work setting and also resources in the whole LGBT community aspect and having access to the language to describe his experiences.] (He's also gay and ace, if that's relevant.)

Anonymous said:

I heard theres discourse about the terms FTM/MTF/etc. whats that about??

Anonymous said:

So I've always wondered about this, but I don't to seem like I'm insulting anybody. :( I just really want to know how it works... but I'm to scared to ask so I'm going to drop it here, because I think you will understand! :) (1/2)

You see, If a female decides to do the transision to male. How will she get the male genitalia and loose the female one? I really want to know. Does it hurt? (2/2)

Anonymous said:

How and when do people realize they might be homosexual?

Anonymous said:

Can you think of any really good ideas for a short LGBTQ film? Thank you!

Anonymous said:

Do you know where I could read a bit more about lgbtq+ stereotypes so that I don't do it myself?

Anonymous said:

What is bi/tri/polygender

Anonymous said:

I am making a documentary so i need a good script on it in hindi, would you be able to provide it?

So these are all research questions. Not actually what we are here for, though we do sometimes dive in. The first couple may be tougher to find using google, but the rest are pretty easy to dig up. Or else need to be reworded to narrow the focus. And sometimes the questions we get have built-in assumptions that kinda make it impossible to answer fairly.

Like the assumption that we write Hindi.

If anyone wants to answer these, please be civil.

The next section is the quick answer:

Anonymous said:

Do any trans men choose not to take hormones, even if they're available to the person? I know this answer would really vary from person to person, but I'm thinking of writing a trans man who doesn't want to take hormones, and I'm not sure if that would be considered unusual or not really understanding of the desires most transgender people have.

@pan-at-thedisco said:

Is it plausible for a trans boy who can definitely afford transition surgery to choose not to? Is this something that happens often?

Yeah, transfolk sometimes choose not to get surgery or take hormones. Don’t worry about “often,” it’s fiction.

Anonymous said:

Hello there, I have this male character that I wrote a long time ago and only recently have I been seeing him as bi, now he has crushes on guys but he still ends up with a girl. I can't help but feel like I "cheated" in a way by making a bi character have a hetero relationship but I don't want to change his relationship. I just want to hear your opinion about this.

It's not a hetero relationship, because he is in it. Just don't write it that the new relationship is fixing him, or more real, or anything like that.

Anonymous said:

I want to ask about usage of the word "queer" not in reference to a person or their gender/sexual orientation. Its original meaning meant "strange." It later became a slur, and has now been reclaimed by some in the community. I'm wondering if it's still okay to use it in its original meaning (i.e. "In front of him was the queerest fog he'd ever seen.") or has the evolution of the word has made that no longer acceptable, even if you're writing period/a specific atmosphere?

Go for it! Just be aware it sounds kind of old-fashioned.

Anonymous said:

hi! do you think it would be considered ok for a nonbinary character in a historical setting to use their language's equivalent of "it/its" pronouns? i'm cis and i'm worried people will take it the wrong way, but the character just wants to be convenient as their language only has one set of gender-neutral pronouns and it's for inanimate objects

No. If it's a fictional language, then it can have a gender-unspecified pronoun that doesn't only refer to objects.

@dreamwishing said:

I have a rather odd question. Odd enough that I'm not sure where to ask. This may not be the right place, and if it's not, maybe you could point me in a direction? That would be great. Everyone asks how to avoid stereotyping lgbtq+ people, but...how do I avoid stereotyping homophobes and the like?

...make them rounded, complete characters with more than one thing in their life.

Anonymous said:

I have a villainous character who is a combination/amalgamation of various people of different genders/sexualities, and they don't have a gender. I'm planning to refer to the character with they/them pronouns, and it just doesn't feel right to give them a gender. But since they're a bad guy, would it be... what's the word... transphobic (I guess? you know what i mean) to portray them as agender? I have other agender characters, if that makes a difference. (It's fantasy btw)

Having other agender characters -- well-represented -- solves the issue for you just fine. Also, make the villain interesting. I love a good villain. 

Anonymous said:

Will the mod/s be monitoring the comments at all? I've seen quite a few hateful replies and reblogs toward nonbinary and demisexual people. I would love to keep following, but it sucks having to be subjected to people invalidating my gender and sexuality in the comments.

There is nothing we can do about comments. "Never read the comments" is often a good idea. Alternately, block the blogs that are evil, and you'll soon find it was the same few all along. Anything really terrible, let us know so we can block them ourselves, and let our readers know.

That was a lot of work. I know it doesn’t look like much, but it took me a few hours and I’m wiped. Some kinds of work are more labor than they appear, and this is that kind of labor.

Still and all: love you all! Just not that way. 

~~Mod Scix