#and so they were forced into heteronormative roles

[virtualflowerbatathlete]

I am 100% open to all headcanons, I love bisexual!Piper and bisexual! Jason, but gay! Jason and lesbian! Piper scratch an itch for me that can’t quite be explained.

[respected-coconut]

Crazy how so many feminist readings of Frankenstein are consistently so heteronormative and lowkey sexist in it of themselves.

Like, the whole “the women of Frankenstein are boring and docile” argument, while has its amount of merit, feels more like an excuse to just further ignore and over-generalize the women in the book instead of actually trying to analyze them. Elizabeth especially is the main victim of this reading because she’s always read as the subservient woman that doesn’t have much say in the book, yet one of her most defining instances is her standing up for Justine in front of a court of law when others were too frightened to.

She literally dropped “They call this retribution. Hateful name! When that word is pronounced, I know greater and more horrid punishments are going to be inflicted than the gloomiest tyrant has ever invented to satiate his utmost revenge” and people still want to dumb her down and define her solely through her “reliance on men”.

And the whole “Victor usurped the biological/feminine power of women to give birth.” I’m sorry, but I kinda really hate this reading so bad. Not only does it read as incredibly transphobic, but at the same time it further pushes the idea that the only power/purpose a woman has is to give birth. How can you condemn Elizabeth for being “docile and subservient to men” but then turn around and say she and women are powerful through their ability to give birth and be mothers/wives? Does that imply Victor should’ve just married and impregnated his sister/cousin? Would that have “preserved Elizabeth’s power”? because it seems to me her marriage to Victor destroyed whatever power or autonomy she had. And what about how Mary Shelley herself was struggling with pregnancies and childbirth before and while writing Frankenstein? Was she a weaker woman for not being able to give birth properly?

The women in Frankenstein are obviously less active than the men, and that is a point to be made, but at the same time, we do such a disservice by making broad and disconnected assertions without actually giving the women the time of day for what they do do.

Can we talk about how Elizabeth was groomed into the role of a mother/bride since she was four? How she had dreams and wanted to “people [the world] with imaginations of her own”? How she lost hope in those dreams following the wrongful execution of her “more than sister”? What about how Caroline Frankenstein haunts the whole narrative; how her death influences Victor’s obsession with the dead and how she forced her children into an incestuous, (mutually) non-consensual relationship? Why is it so common that people will read Justine’s existence as solely a character to bring Victor guilt rather than looking deeper into how her conviction and execution affected Elizabeth’s perception of the world? Why is there so much focus placed on what these women aren’t instead of what they are?

Ok sorry for the messy ranting. Just had a burst of energy. As usual, I’m sorry for coming off as hostile and kinda confusing but at the same time I’m just a bit frustrated with the common interpretations of Frankenstein and wanted to yap. Feel free to add more ideas, I like talking abt this kinda stuff.

[ladyloveandjustice]

I love how in Princess Tutu everybody's relationships deepen and change in unexpected ways, leading to a deep love they all share at the end--Ahiru and Rue, Fakir and Mytho, Mytho and Ahiru, Mytho and Rue, Fakir and Ahiru--EXCEPT for Fakir and Rue.

It is ON SIGHT for them from the moment they meet as kids and throughout the entire anime... and the only real change in that in the last episode is that they are civil/neutral with each other. They don't even talk to each other when Mytho and Rue say goodbye, with Fakir only addressing Mytho and Rue only addressing Ahiru. I think they both now care if the other lives or dies, Fakir did help save Rue even if it was probably for Mytho and Ahiru as much as her and all that, and they probably understand each other a little better. But other than that? Nope. Just two people in the same friend group who want nothing to do with each other.

It's so funny how there's never a single tender moment between them when there is with everyone else. Like of course they're still not friends, Fakir's interactions with Rue are always just "WHERE IS MYTHO", trying to fight her, grabbing her and shaking her at one point, and calling her an ugly crow a couple times in the first season (and interrupting a moment where Ahiru might have been able to snap her out of being Kraehe). Meanwhile on Rue's side, she deliberately triggered his past life PTSD, attempted to murder him (which resulted in serious injuries), and said "hey man you're useless I think you should kys :)" every single time she saw him in most of season 2. Hard to get over that. And neither of them are as forgiving as Ahiru and Mytho are!

And what's also funny is as much as Drosselmeyer wanted Ahiru and Rue to hate each other's guts and fight incessantly over a boy, that never really happened- Ahiru never wanted to fight, was totally fine with Mytho choosing Rue, and loved Rue openly and deeply, just wanting the best for her, and on Rue's side, she did love Ahiru deep down but couldn't acknowledge it because of her father and her role in the story she felt she had to fulfill. BUT, meanwhile, Fakir and Rue WERE geniuinely hating each others guts and no-holds barred fighting incessantly over a boy. And had been since they were children. Just good ol' fashioned rivalry and "he's mine" vibes and Dross didn't even notice thanks to heteronormativity.

And that grudge runs deep, so I don't think they'll ever truly forget it even if they've stopped hating each other.

I like to think Fakir and Ahiru (whether in duck form or not) go visit Rue and Mytho, and that it's mostly fine but always extremely awkward when they end up in a room alone together. Just forced into stilted small talk and awkward silences. I also like to think because they can't conceive not arguing, they pivot to fighting over Ahiru: who she likes best, who's hogging too much of her attention, who understands her more....Rue probably just picks up Ahiru in duck mode and runs away from him with her at one point, and Fakir will be running after her yelling while Mytho watches in mild amusement.

[jbaileyfansite]

Interview with NBC News (2024)

Jonathan Bailey admits he’s still grieving the loss of Tim Laughlin, the wide-eyed congressional staffer turned fervent gay rights activist he played in Showtime’s groundbreaking limited series “Fellow Travelers.”

“Playing a character who is always searching for truth and has something to fight for that is meaningful and important made me really think, ‘How do you want to leave the world behind?’” Bailey told NBC News. “It’s a tiring thing for everyone to be like, ‘I want to make the world a better place.’ But Tim is an example of someone who’s a normal guy. He didn’t come from wealth, and he lived life to its fullest, including loving in a way that was just spellbinding.”

That love is the animating force of “Fellow Travelers,” which chronicles the decades-spanning romance between Bailey’s Tim and Matt Bomer’s Hawkins “Hawk” Fuller against the backdrop of key moments in queer history. After falling in love at the height of the Lavender Scare in 1950s Washington, D.C., Hawk and Tim weave in and out of each other’s lives for years at a time, unable to sever their bond. But after learning of Tim’s terminal AIDS diagnosis in the ’80s, Hawk drops everything to take care of Tim in San Francisco, where the former lovers are forced to address the true nature of their volatile relationship.

“Fellow Travelers” was nominated for three Emmys in limited series categories last month: Bailey (who also won a Critics Choice Award) for supporting actor, Bomer for lead actor and creator Ron Nyswaner for writing.

Following the success of Netflix’s romantic drama “Bridgerton,” in which he played a rakish viscount looking for his viscountess, Bailey expressed a desire to tell a sweeping gay love story. He booked the coveted role in “Fellow Travelers” six weeks before the start of filming in Toronto, following an electric Zoom chemistry read with Bomer — one of the most prominent openly gay actors working today — that even brought one of the executives to tears.

While he said he inherited the “inherent shame” of the AIDS crisis as a gay man who came of age in the early aughts, Bailey, who is English, knew very little about the Lavender Scare. He credited the writing of Nyswaner for helping him capture the spirit of Tim, a devout Catholic struggling to reconcile his faith with his growing infatuation with the emotionally unavailable Hawk, who is adept at playing the system to avoid getting outed.

“There’s something so childlike and full of wonder and unadulterated kindness about Tim that never leaves him,” Bailey noted. “When you see the huge effects of the societal pressure and control on gay people and how it affects Tim, I thought, ‘How do you tell a story of someone who’s bruised, battered and frayed by relentless, unforgiving control?’ I think the older he gets, the more painful it is for him.”

Bailey, like many queer people, has had a complicated relationship with religion. He attended a Church of England school and, at 11, was a scholarship student at his local Catholic school, where he “was completely aware of the lack of education around sexuality and gender identity.” Like Tim, he began to question his own “inherited beliefs” in his 20s, when he came to terms with his own identity.

While Tim’s religion makes him believe that something is innately wrong with him, it also gives him the capacity to believe in a love that he has felt but cannot always see with Hawk, who complements him in a way that is both “beautiful” and “painful,” Bailey said. “I think to say that they broke up a few times somehow assimilates it to a heteronormative relationship — they were completely not afforded that.”

“What Tim realizes is that the act of loving is the thing that you want to survive with and live alongside and to die with, and to be the more loving one is sometimes easier,” added Bailey, who thinks “there was no other” man whom Tim loved as deeply as Hawk. “I think the power of their dynamic — the brilliance — is that they met at that time, and it’s just a genius way of discovering and exploring how political and social attitudes really can’t kill love.”

Bailey and Bomer, who have both acknowledged that a show like this might not have even been made a few years ago, see “Fellow Travelers” as a kind of love letter to the queer actors who came before them.

“The way we look at each other is also about the opportunity that we’ve got that wasn’t there before,” Bailey said of his and Bomer’s palpable on-screen connection, which has evolved into a close off-screen friendship. “There’s a weight that comes to telling your own story or other people’s story that are similar or shares elements of your identity.”

On the day of the Emmy nominations, Bailey was in Malta — where he has been shooting the new “Jurassic World” film — with one of his best friends. They had already planned to find somewhere to grab a celebratory drink together in the late afternoon. But by the time they had settled in and tuned in to the livestream announcing the nominees, Bailey’s phone began to ring off the hook.

“The thing that was special, if a little ridiculous, is that we took a little selfie, and I realized there was just a pride flag that was in the distance,” Bailey recalled. “Having now spent a lot of time in Malta, you realize there’s only a few.”

Now on the precipice of superstardom with his roles in “Wicked” and “Jurassic World,” Bailey is redefining what is possible for an out gay actor in Hollywood, becoming a heartthrob to male and female audiences alike — even if he doesn’t often think about that label. “I’m excited to play more roles the older I get, and we will see what the heartthrob status is when I’m in my 50s,” he said cheekily.

As his profile has risen, Bailey has wrestled with which parts of himself he is willing to share publicly. His Olivier Award-winning turn in a gender-swapped West End revival of “Company” gave him an opportunity to speak openly about his sexuality — something he didn’t feel the need to reveal unless it was tied to his work. Now, he feels much more confident in interviews to volunteer certain stories about himself, including a harrowing experience in which a Pennsylvania man called him an anti-gay slur and threatened his life in a Washington, D.C., coffee shop.

For Bailey, who is still adjusting to the privilege of being able to choose his next projects, the company he keeps going forward is just as important as the material he is given to work with. He will return to the stage next year in Nicholas Hytner’s London production of “Richard II” and will reprise his role as eldest sibling Anthony in the next season of “Bridgerton.” He will next be seen as Jack Maddox, a charming academic and celebrity crush of protagonist Charlie Spring (Joe Locke), in the sixth episode of the third season of “Heartstopper,” which premieres in October.

“I recognized in the show something that I obviously didn’t have growing up, which is aspirational, generous storytelling about queer identity and gender identity that wasn’t necessarily a gay [show],” Bailey said of his initial reaction to watching “Heartstopper,” which, like many older queer viewers, made him feel slightly melancholic. “There’s so many people of that generation who just love it, because it’s brilliant and so well-performed by such an incredibly talented young cast.”

But truth be told, Bailey doesn’t think he will ever be able to let go of Tim Laughlin, who he likes to believe had “a very happy end of his life” fighting for AIDS awareness with the ACT UP movement without Hawk by his side. After having spent a year unpacking the life-changing experience of playing the character in post-screening Q&As and media interviews, Bailey has grown to feel the power of his work “more than [he’d] ever known.”

When playing a character who is confronting his own mortality, “you just think about how life is futile and quick,” Bailey said, “and if I can live a life as front-footed and as curious as Tim, then I’ll be a lucky man.”

Source

[jules-ln]

Sometimes when I read posts that go

"MM was trying to impose her heteronormative views on Patrochilles by making Patroclus feminine, in the iliad both were very masculine warriors"

I have the desire to just go and say

📣"In your pursuit of accusing MM of imposing heteronormative views you have failed to recognize that you yourself are imposing modern views of masculinity, femininity and sexuality into the Iliad

As not only these things weren't the same in the context of the Iliad, but also you don't recognize the multiple times where the narrator compares both Achilles and Patroclus to feminine things

Even Achilles compares himself multiple times to a motherly figure, and Patroclus takes the role of the wife by doing household duties during the embassy plus the famous comparison between him and Cleopatra in the Meleager story, while later Achilles takes the role of the closest female relative in Patroclus's funeral

Now, the role Achilles fulfills in the funeral could be interpreted as either a wife or a mother. And the concept of Achilles acting as Patroclus's mother might seem weird to a modern audience, but I think it reflects the sentiment Andromache expressed to Hector in book 6 "Hektor, thus you are father to me, and my honored mother, you are my brother, and you it is who are my young husband." So she's basically saying that Hector is everything to her; the most important and loved person in her life. Likewise Achilles and Patroclus are everything to each other, including father, mother, brother, and maybe even wife and husband

And so while the criticism of forcing heteronormative dynamics to Patroclus and Achilles is valid (criticism I personally don't think applies to tsoa, but that's another post) The idea of both Achilles and Patroclus taking what today we consider a hypermasculine role in their relationship to each other isn't just anachronistic but also inaccurate and it seems more likely that both performed a mix of femininity and masculinity within their relationship

Also, womp womp"

[therainscene]

I’ve been enjoying the sympathetic, we-aren’t-being-shown-the-whole-story takes on Henry lately, and it’s reminded me of something I always found odd about the scene with the rabbit.

On the surface, this looks like a budding serial killer engaging in that red flag behaviour of torturing animals. We see the ensnared rabbit screaming and struggling in front of a young Henry, and older Henry tells us, “as I practiced, I realized I could do more than I possibly imagined...”

But then we see young Henry’s face... and I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see a child torturing an animal for fun. He seems thoughtful, troubled.

What really gets me about this is older Henry’s narration over this shot: “I could reach into others, into their minds, their memories.” What does that have to do with killing a rabbit? He’s not in a mind-reading trance here, his eyes are open.

Immediately following this scene, Henry segues into telling us about his parents, how he’d reached into their minds and seen that they’d done “such awful things”. We see Victor haunted by a vision of the baby he accidentally killed. It screams like the rabbit, unable to escape its burning crib.

Here’s what I think actually happened with the rabbit:

Virginia set up traps to get rid of pests. (Victor was spooked by the dead animals around his property, so I don’t think he was involved.) Henry saw this while practicing his mind-reading, and upon investigating, found a terrified, injured rabbit. He sympathized with it; his mother viewed him as a pest, too, a problem to be solved via cruelty. He killed it to end its suffering, and soon developed a habit of mercy-killing all the animals ensnared by his mother.

I think this reading is a much better fit for Henry than “weirdo kills animals as practice for murder.” When he kills his human victims, he tells them, “it’s time for your suffering to end; it will all be over soon.”

He finds children ensnared by abuse and forced conformity. He sees them in pain, trapped in their burning cribs by cruel or foolish authority figures. He sees himself. He shows them the mercy he wishes he’d been given.

This is, of course, hypocritical. Henry has no right to decide on other people’s behalf how they should cope with their pain -- he’s turned into the same abusive authority figure he’s always railed against. He sees humanity as “a unique type of pest”, just as his mother saw him. Even his beloved spiders were kept imprisoned in jars so he could study them, just as Brenner imprisoned him in the lab.

Many abusers see themselves as victims, and they’re often right. That doesn’t justify the abuse they perpetrate, but in their own minds, they feel justified. They feel like they have no other option. That’s what makes the cycle of abuse so hard to stop.

Here’s what I find most interesting about sympathetic Henry: if he’s a demonstration of the good within evil... what does that imply about his narrative foil?

Will does not like to hurt others and he does not want to become that person. He couldn’t even shoot the Demogorgon in self-defense.

But he’s quick to hurt himself if it means helping his loved ones. He was willing to sacrifice himself in order to close the gate in S2, and he immediately bottled up his feelings to deal with the Mind Flayer in S3 despite being in the midst of a complete mental breakdown as a result of bottling his feelings up for too long.

And in S4, Will knows that his feelings are exactly what will make Mike feel better, but he’s too scared to come out or risk making his bestie feel uncomfortable, so he shills for heteronormativity and disguises his feelings as his sister’s under the assumption that’s what Mike wants to hear.

It is not what Mike wants to hear.

Mike feels pressured to lie to El. El is so distracted by his bullshit that Henry has time to kill Max. Max’s death opens the final gate.

The world ends, and Will Byers played a key role in it.

In his zeal to be a Good Celibate Gay and do no harm, he contributed to the worst harm imaginable. But he felt justified in what he was doing. He thought he had no other option than to decide on Mike’s behalf how he should feel.

Henry’s gonna have a fucking field day calling him out on that one.

Will isn’t a villain and he isn’t going to become one; the real villain in Stranger Things isn’t a person or a monster so much as the monstrous things people do. If there’s one lesson to take away from this show, I’d say it’s to remember that any of us -- even sweet, gentle, well-meaning Will Byers -- is capable of evil.

But it’s okay. Will’s internalized homophobia may have helped end the world... that just means honesty, acceptance, and love are the tools he’ll need to save it again. We’re all capable of that, too.

[waterghoulcalamity]

all this discourse on twt about who gets to sit on whose lap seems so strange, forced and honestly dumb to me because—for context: someone posted the picture below with the caption being something like "some pls draw loustat like this.

all fun and games until they start posting the fanart and most of them it's lestat sitting on louis's lap which i, admittedly, figured that people wouldn't be happy with because i've always had the impression that this fandom (at least the twt side) views lestat through a more masculine lenses and you can see this in a lot of loustat fanfiction that he takes the role of the "man" in the relationship, with louis being the wife, and don't much like it when lestat takes more feminine/soft role in the relationship. me however, i was happy that people were starting to be more open to shed the heteronormative glasses and the roles and whathot, and have fun with cute fanart but yeah, no.

to my surprise (or maybe not) the discourse was how "some people" (derogatory) expect louis to take the role of the man because he's a black man (what) and lestat the woman because he's white (again, what) and the entire time i'm sitting there confused because this never crossed my mind and, from my perspective, this wasn't even something that was happening in real life?? I don't know, i tend to not involve myself with discourse because i find it exhausting, but i guess this one caught my attention due to how out of nowhere it seemed.

admittedly, i don't think i'm the right person to talk about race. while i'm not white, i'm also not american, and in my country race is not the first thing that pops to mind when we think of the source of issues, but I understand that it is different in america, so perhaps they're right and i'm the one who's being disrespectful and underreacting? who knows.

well, i've rambled plenty, sorry again. i guess that, ultimately, i'd just like it if people stopped making discourse out of everything and started focusing on having fun and enjoying the show that they like a little more, not everything has to be about a group being wrong and another being right. sometimes it's okay to enjoy a joke.

[unreadpoppy]

bg3, infographics, mysogyny and you

Preface: this is a long ass post that I wrote some many weeks ago, and that because of some stuff I've seen, I'm compelled to finally post it. It's very like a spurn of the moment thing, not extremely well thoght out but I still think it's relevant.

.

Recently, a few people have posted some, in my opinion, really insightful infographics showing the difference in content to how many works (in AO3) there are to the female characters vs the male characters of BG3 and I've been thinking about how it relates to fandom in general, but also...everything.

As a quick rundown, what happens is: almost all of the female characters have a lot less content when compared to their male counterparts (at least writing wise). And I think this is a great moment to stop and think on why is that.

There's a lot of point to begin with but I want to begin with something larger and that is the society most of us are raised in. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's fair to say that most people grew up in places that had its fair share of sexism and give it or take, that does shape how we view the world.

I'll speak from my own experience. Even thought I had a mostly liberal upbriging, I went to a very conservative school and when I was growing up, I saw a lot of videos on youtube that anaylized media in what i can only describe as "god forbid women do anything". Video after video, I saw people commenting on how x female character was a mary sue, how she made no sense and ruined the plot, so many video essays on the """strong female character trope"""" that would end up just enforcing gender roles again. And I'll be honest, this DID affect how viewed female characters.

The best example I can give of this is with bg3 itself. There was one day that I stopped and realized that Minthara was the first time I ever obsessed over a fem character as much as any male character. And the second thought I had after this was 'oh my god why???'

Why did I always cater more to the male characters than I did to the female ones, when most of the times, I liked a lot as well?

I'd like to point out that I've seen the topic of "Most fic authors are cis straight women" being brought up a lot and frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of it. First, because I think it's overall a very...heteronormative way of seeing stuff and it's assuming a lot of stuff that puts a sour taste on my mouth (as a queer woman myself, I really don't like that implication but that's on me). Second, because saying that 'obviously women are going to write more about men' feels very...weird. Third, I just think that this argument fails to really question the why of it all and gives too simple an answer to something is anything but.

One can make the argument that these female characters are written differently than the men, and yes that is true and it's even historical (I wrote a whole project on the invisibility of women in theater through the ages and a lot of it has to do with how women were written, but that's a story for another time).

But I don't think that's true for all cases. It's easy to blame an imaginary writer's room than question that you might have internal biases.

Because at least it's what happened to me. I grew up hearing how female characters were inferior to the male characters and it affected how I viewed them. It's something I had to stop and reevalute and it led me to appreciate characters I once loathed.

And it sucks to realize that. It sucks to realize that even as a woman myself, I was not immune to commiting sexism, that I hadn't fully outgrown the shit I saw as a kid. Does that make me a bad person? No. You're not to blame for being raised in a way that leads you to have certain prejudices.

But it doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.

And no, the solution is not to suddenly go write a bunch of femslash. Because no one is saying that you should feel ashamed for writing more for men, or forcing you to like female characters. But, I ask you to do something much simpler.

Think on the why. Why, even when we love female characters, we don't show them as much love as we do to the male ones. Why we might feel more compelled to write for the men than for the women. Because sometimes it's questioning ourselves that we can find something about us we didn't know and change how we engage with media.

And you can brush this off as just fandom stuff, but I think it does, in some ways, also reflect a bit on how we act as whole as a society. Hell, writing this whole thing made me think of how the way I was raised still interferes with my own sexuality (which is a very personal topic for me to get on here but it was worth mentioning). What I'm trying to say is that sometimes something small is an easier way for us to understand the bigger, systemic issues around us.

I know that it sounds like there's nothing to be done cause fandoms have always been like this. But, personally, this sort of conformity to the norm causes more harm then good. Things won't change unless you decide to do something about it. And the good thing about fandom is that it's small enough that doing literally anything can create some impact than, I don't know, trying to solve big, real life societal issues.

This is getting long so I'm gonna try to wrap this up quickly. No one is shaming you if you write or obsesses more or even care more about male characters than you do female ones. I just ask you to think about it and be honest with yourself. Because then maybe, just maybe, next time you engage with another media, you might end up enjoying a female character much more and obsessing over them just as much.

[littlecello]

Lazarus: An Autopsy

So. I just got back home, and though I have to get up at stupid o'clock for work tomorrow morning, I am sitting down at my computer to give you all as much of a detailed write-up of the table read as I can. Please bear in mind these are my and Fern's opinions personal opinions, so if you disagree with anything said here, that's totally fine! This is all coming from the perspective of people who have been in the fandom since 2012 and 2009 respectively, and both of us love the show very dearly.

Now, without further ado - here is a summary and discussion of the table-read of the pilot episode of Lazarus. The detailed write-up is under the cut, but I want to share this shaky train-doodle I banged out on the way home to give shape to my own feelings:

Set Up

This was a dramatic table-read, meaning actors were sat on stage, taking the roles of the main and side characters, plus one narrator who read out the scene-set ups in the script. This was a complete reading of the pilot-episode as it would have aired on TV, complete with songs playing over the speakers as they appeared in the show (off the top of my head - Another Brick In The Wall, Somewhere Over The Rainbow (Ukulele Version), Life on Mars (yes they went there), Merry Christmas Everybody, and several more). It's important to note that this was not performed by the original actors; rather, they brought in a troupe of actors associated with the BFI, called the BFI Players. Unfortunately they aren't credited on the BFI website and there were no printed programme notes, so I can't tell you their names. Notably, though, Ashley Pharoah (co-writer of LoM) was present; after the table-read, there was a short-ish Q&A session.

Lazarus Pilot: A Summary

We start in 2024, with a car chase. Sam Tyler, now DCI of Internal Affairs of Greater Manchester Police, is hot on the pursuit of a Constable who we later learn has raped multiple women while on duty. Notably, Sam is driving exactly the way Gene would, ignoring regulations, nearly running over pedestrians and a cyclist. Sam apprehends the PC on the campus of Manchester University, which is filmed by the assembled students of the lecture that's been interrupted (a quote from the script: "heteronormative queer trans students") - that video subsequently goes viral as another example of police violence. It's clear that the PC is guilty of his crime, but he's let off, and most of CID pretty much turns against Sam. Sam's DI, incidentally, is biromantic and asexual, which is also turned into a joke with Sam making some acephobic remarks.

The next day, Sam finds the rapist PC dead - hanging from a lamppost as though he's died by suicide. CCTV reveals that about an hour before his death, a car idled in front of his home, and the PC had hurled abuse at said car. The driver cannot be seen. That same car is seen at a carehome in Didsbury, idling there just like it did in front of that house... and that car is also confronted, by none other than a geriatric Gene Hunt.

Here is where we start to realise that this Sam is different. It seems he never went back to 1973. He never had that accident, he never met Gene Hunt - he is, however, married to Annie Cartwright (only until half of the episode though, at which point she says they need to get a divorce). A lot of anachronisms going on here, but those will get explained a little later in the episode. Sam also starts having visions - first of a Space Hopper that keeps passing him by, later Clangers from the Planet of the Clangers appear to him. He keeps remembering lines we've heard in Life on Mars ("I never stitched anyone up who didn't deserve it", "If you can feel things you are alive, but it's when you can't feel things that you know you aren't alive", etc). Eventually, he goes to visit Gene in the care home and invites him for a drive, to see if that will jog any memories.

Gene, however, has other ideas - he eventually forces Sam to stop by the roadside, insisting "I'm going back! I'm going BACK!" The two start arguing, and then it devolves into a physical fight, which pushes them into the road... at which point, they are both his by a car. A red Audi Quattro, in fact, and just as everything fades to black, we see someone with white cowboy boots and a white leather jacket get out of the car...

1977. Sam wakes up utterly hungover in the Cortina, next to Gene who's driving. These are their 70s selves. They get to the station, where they find out that they've both been suspended due to Gene assaulting the Superintendent ("I didn't assault him, I strategically placed him... in a bin."). The department has been disbanded and taken over by none other than Derek Litton. Sam and Gene leave, with Sam driving home... to his wife Annie. On his way, he realises that he must have dreamt about 2024, and obviously doesn't understand what is going on. He talks to Annie about it, who becomes upset that he's starting to talk about all the future stuff again. It becomes clear that the case that Sam was investigating in 2024 (the dead rapist PC) is mirrored in 1977. And, crucially, near the end of the episode we realise that Gene also has memories of what we saw happen in 2024... and just at the end, when Annie is on her own, she suddenly sees the video footage mentioned at the very top (the fight at the MU) playing on the TV, and realises that Sam was telling the truth.

The Good

Let me start with the really enjoyable part of this afternoon - the actors who performed the script for us. They all did a brilliant job, especially Sam's actor. I'm pretty sure he must have studied up on John Simm's performance, because he got Sam's tone and cadence so closely to the original that I could really believe he was the character. The production was done well too, with the songs being played over the speaker system; plus, the narrator was absolutely brilliant at setting the scene, reading the descriptive bits of the script with loads of character and humour. The other actors were great too (Litton got a fantastic impression). The only one I wasn't convinced by was Gene's actor, because he gave his Manc accent a very theatric drawl that sometimes made him sound like a pirate. Definitely didn't come close to Philip Glenister's brilliant delivery of his lines.

Speaking of lines, there were some genuinely funny jokes in this. The whole scene with Litton was hilarious, and some of the modern-day jokes landed quite well too (Sam's DI pulls an "ok boomer" on him, to which he responds "that's Gen X I'll have you know").

And of course, I have to mention that it was SO LOVELY to meet a bunch of you in person!!!! It was lovely to chat, and thank you especially to @bisexualroger and friends who came and said hello, you genuinely made my day 🥹 The Bad

Sigh. Buckle up.

This table-reading really cemented for me what I've been saying for several years: The writing in Life on Mars is very mediocre. What made the show so amazing and special was the fact that the crew and actors took that material and elevated it to the heights we know and love. If you take that away... All of its shortcomings become very glaring.

This was even more obvious with Lazarus. Although we have to remember that this was a pilot, which means it was basically a sales pitch to studios and as such they tried to cram as much exciting stuff into it as possible, on the whole it just came across as very confused and embarrassingly self-referential. The characters often (but not always) came across as caricatures of themselves. The script often pointed out the race/ethnicity of characters in ways that felt very unnecessary and strange (more on that later). Most of the dialogue that took place in 2024 was incredibly stilted (again, more on that in a little bit). Most crucially, although it's clear that Lazarus was trying to bring Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes together to tie them up in a neat little bow, it just felt far too all over the place, even for a set-up episode (Lazarus as a whole was planned to be two series with 6 episodes each, like LoM). The Ugly

Basically, this show was supposed to be commentary on the present-day commentary between the public and the police... written from the perspective of two Old White Men(tm) with an unhealthy amount of nostalgia for the past who seem to think of the police as literal guardian angel, which is why they made Gene an actual angel (this is confirmed by what Ashley told us the ending of Lazarus would have been, which I will write up tomorrow because this would be too much for this post).

So, what does that mean in practice? It means that everything that was set in 2024 was an absolute shitshow. There were jokes about "wokeness" in every scene - things such as gender identities, diversity, ethnic food, vegan food, recycling, climate activism and more were only ever played for laughs, with a clear emphasis that everything was better in the "good old days". Especially all the jokes about gender and sexuality made me so angry, seeing as the fandom who has kept the show alive for the last 10 years is overwhelmingly queer.

Worse than that, this show would have been absolutely choc-full of copaganda. We already learn in the pilot that the entire philosophy is that "bad cops" are simply "rotten apples" that need to be removed from the force, which can only happen from the inside (this is Sam's role as DCI of Internal Affairs). And also, the public are just way too mean to cops, for no reason whatsoever - this is very literally shown in a scene in 2024 where a male PC touches a drunk woman's arm in sympathy and she yells at him "DON'T TOUCH ME", whereas in a mirrored scene in 1977 we see a PC giving a woman advice, who seems to be extremely grateful for it and even squeezes his hand for it. Which, if you know ANYTHING about what was going in Manchester at the time, in the wake of the Yorkshire Ripper and the associated police failings, is laughable at best, and an insult at worst.

Furthermore, during the Q&A, Ashley Pharoah unintentionally told on himself and Matthew Graham. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said that when they both realised during the watchalong on twitter back in 2021 there still were a lot of fans of the show, that's when they felt compelled to properly give Lazarus a go. It very much came across as him saying "we loved the attention and wanted more of it, oh and also we thought we had something to say about the state of affairs regarding the police". Which, as I have laid out above, frankly is a sick joke. After everything that's happened - the protests in 2020, the way police forces in the whole country handled the Sarah Everard case, the fact that the current Chief Superintendent of GMP is an old conservative guy - the fact that Matt and Ash had the audacity to shop a show like Lazarus around to be picked up for TV is... astonishing. The confidence of white men, eh?

In Conclusion

Both Fern and I are very, extremely glad that Lazarus was not, and never will be made into a TV show. We are very glad that we get to keep Sam, Gene, Annie and all the others as they are. And we are also very glad that we went to this table-read, since we can now stop wondering what could have been. It's done and dusted. And, funnily enough, this has invigorated my fandom fire for LoM. I now want to create art of the characters I've come to know and love, to reinforce who they are to me. They are our characters now, Ashley and Matt. You don't get to play with them anymore. You don't get to twist them and put them through the wringer.

Tl;Dr

[crossdreamers]

A transgender Norwegian sexologist on how to celebrate the transgifted

Not long ago the non-binary general practitioner, sexologist, professor emeritus and Norwegian nestor in clinical sexology, Esben Esther Pirelli Benestad, was interviewed by Blikk magazine.

They made some important points about the development of the language and narratives used to describe gender variance:

According to Pirelli Benestad, for a long time people only used the term 'transvestite', and then came 'transsexual'.

The 'transvestite' term

'When I came into the picture in the early 1970s, it was important to maintain a sharp distinction between transvestites and transsexuals.

'Being transsexual meant that one wanted to "change" gender from the gender one was assigned at birth. While wearing dresses and stockings, or flannel shirts and jeans, was portrayed as something that some enjoyed on Saturday night.

'Transvestism, dressing and behaving like the "opposite" sex, did not challenge the heteronormative gender system in the same way, and many transvestites assigned male at birth had both wives and children.

'The distinction helped that the wives could still keep their husbands, even if they had a penchant for expressing themselves as women from time to time. Double-role transvestites, who acted as both men and women, was a term used at the time,' says Pirelli Benestad....

Pathologization of gender variance

Until 2018, gender variance, whether you considered yourself a binary or non-binary trans person, was a diagnosis of illness, Astrid Renland writes.

'When I looked up the encyclopedia to find out more about myself, it said that "transvestites had a morbid urge to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex." It was deadly poison for those who were less robust than me, because it said here that we were sick,! says Pirelli Benestad.

'But I myself and many with me knew that we were not. We felt that it was about something more profound, something that touched our gender identity.'

The forced binary

'I use to say that trans people are indigenous people without a country, and the land we were allocated by the majority population was pathologised, says Pirelli Benestad, who links it to the fact that cis people have dominated professional development in the trans field.

'The trans field as a field consisted exclusively of cis people in both research and clinical treatment, so trans people were assessed according to cis people's gender norms. One was either male or female.'

According to Pirelli Benestad, this contributed to transgender people having no choice but to define themselves as the "opposite". The minority had to express itself and appear as the gender majority did.

'Many trans people are binary, but also among those of us who were previously described as transvestites, there were some who felt that they had to follow the either-or gender norm. It is "natural". If you were born a man and felt like something else, you had to be a woman. There was no language for anything else.

A language for the nonbinary

'But already in the mid-1980s, I documented together with Berthold Grünfeld [Norwegian doctor, specialist in psychiatry and professor of social medicine at the University of Oslo] in a research project on heterosexual transvestites, that gender identity could be fluid between experience yourself as a man or as a woman,' says Pirelli Benestad...

'We ourselves have developed concepts and built up specialist expertise which we have given back to the cis world,' says Pirelli Benestad, who points out that much of this work has been done in collaboration with their colleague and wife, professor and sexologist Elsa Almås.

'First we used the term near-binary to describe the distinction between cis and trans men and trans women, then we formulated terms such as bi-gender, gender fluid and gender cruising,' says Pirelli Benestad.

The transgifted

In addition to "coining" new terms, they have introduced new words such as gender enthusiasm, gender talent and transgifted as a counterweight to the pathologization of the trans population, Astrid Renland writes.

- When you create space for people to let loose and show the talents they have for gender and identity, then people become much freer and much more beautiful, Pirelli Benestad asserts.

PHOTO: Professor emeritus Esben Esther Pirelli Benestad (left), together with her colleague and wife, professor and sexologist Elsa Almås, introduced new words such as gender enthusiasm, gender talent and trans gifted as a counterweight to the pathologization of the trans population .Photo: Reidar Engesbak/BLIKK.

Google translation of the original article.

"Den rødeste kluten", by Astrid Renland, Blikk

E.E.P. Benestad MD: From gender dysphoria to gender euphoria: An assisted journey

[psicheanima]

Omg Angel is supper pretty in your style!! Like, I have never seen him portrayed in such way but it somehow works very well! What are your personal opinions on him though?

Well, in 2019, they were my favorite CSM character (majority of Makima’s depth had not been revealed yet.) unfortunately, the popularity of CSM has soured them a bit in my view because while prior, no one cared about them, so I didn’t see any opinions on them. It was just my personal echo chamber. Basically anything I wanted to say about them, or think about them, was all there was.

But now, Angel has become a very popular character, been fetishized, and twisted unnaturally into something they are not to fit into peoples heteronormative views of their relationship with Aki. They are drawn and written by the majority (and simply characterized this way by non creatives) as an infantile whiny brat, and a dress up doll. I don’t feel majority of Angel fans care about their character. In fact, I’d say a cool 5% do.

My favorite thing about Angel is their religious imagery, their memory wipe and being forced into a never ending slave role while robbed of everything that makes them happy, even Down to small things like “down time.” Every moment Angel complains about working is recontestualied by the ending knowledge that Angel was living a happy, peaceful life and has that ripped from them— not only forced into a role as weapon but forced to weaponise the lives of the people who had cared for them.

This meshes incredibly well with Aki who willingly takes upon the role of weapon, and forgoes any “human” luxuries, stripping himself of personhood until he realizes that killing yourself for a dead family is impossible when you have a real, living family who loves you. They’re tragedies in opposite directions. They build off the other so well, you can tell Angel was crafted with Aki’s character in mind.

But I don’t see that really discussed. It’s just sexualization, and specifically thinly veiled transmisogynist rhetoric, and that really disgusts me. So I’ve been turned off from the character to avoid seeing that things. From an objective standpoint, top 5 character in the series. Thank you very much for the compliment, I’m happy then that my portrayal of them is something different from the norm. I’m very glad :)

[jillapril]

Now that I’ve watched the first episode of HotD S2, I have the feeling I have to organize my thought about the Alicent and that Cole… situationship.

1. First things first - she is writing letters to Rhaenyra, she is lighting a candle for Luke… She stills feels for her and wishes for a kind of reconciliation. Everyone knows about her feelings for Rhaenyra. Cole explains it to himself in the same way he explains his own story with Rhaenyra. It shows that he does not really know that much about Alicents true feelings. Aemond seems to see it way more clearly.

2. Alicent saying to Cole, that they cannot do it again, implies that this is NOT an affair that has been going on for long. (Which was my biggest fear.) The affair is new and she actually (thinks she) wants it to be a one-time thing.

3. No kisses, no signs of tenderness. The affair does not seem to be romantic.

4. Had the feeling she was hesitating to help him with his armor. Seems like she is conflicted about their roles and how much closeness she really wants here. And of course, she might have had the memory of helping Rhaenyra with her dress a long time ago.

5. Alicent rubbing her skin excessively in the bath tub makes me think she feels kind of „dirty“ on a deeper level. This might come from feeling very conflicted about having this new sexual thing going. Because it does not suit her idea of being an honorable woman / dowager? And not just that, she also causes a knight to break his vows (again.). It’s also possible that she still has a deeper problem with sexuality (as she experienced it to be something that men force upon women) - and now she feels dirty for having sex, maybe also for giving in to arousal, or maybe for using sex (though parts of her disgust it) as a relieve for some other repressed emotions.

So what about those sexual experiences… Alicent being on top both times implies that this whole affair has something to do with her being the one in control. Given that she fears she’s losing influence on her sons, her father has always had his own agenda, her maid was a spy, her husband is dead - it makes sense that she wants to have at least Cole still under control! So starting to get physical with him might result from a) feeling everything and everyone is slipping through her fingers, so she starts to strengthen her influence on Cole in the one way she knows as a power over men. Worked on Viserys, works in a way with Larys as well - so now she uses it on Cole. However, it looks like - and this is different to the formerly mentioned - she does get some pleasure out of this. Which leads to b) Alicent has just started to get in touch with her own sexuality and is kind of fascinated by this new experience. However, this does not necessarily mean that the pleasure she is experiencing has much to do with Criston Cole as a person or him being a man. Maybe this is more about Alicent learning something new about herself. Maybe this experience even could have had the power to open up her very closeted self in a good way, helping her to get in touch with her most suppressed feelings… but well. Sadly, as she was having sex now while her grandson was murdered, I guess sexuality will remain a completely contaminated field to her.

That all said, I think Alicole in episode 1 wasn’t the disaster I feared it would be! Of course it is not over yet, it still has the potential to really bother me. But for now, I think what actually bothered me the most was not the portrayal of Alicent, but hearing some casual viewers say that they were not surprised about Alicole at all. Like there had been any signs leading up to this other than them being a pretty woman and a pretty man - so of course they must be having sex??? I really dislike the heteronormative banality that Alicole is feeding.

However… I still recognize the Alicent I got to know in season 1. Thank god. And I am also still convinced that her heart belongs and always will belong to Rhaenyra. (Which obviously is also causing her permanent troubles inside and outside, but that’s the kind of drama I‘m here for. :)) So let’s see what happens next…

[nerdygaymormon]

You post a lot about trans things, how can you be so sure? What if you're wrong?

Trans, enby, genderqueer, and intersex individuals are part of humanity. I don't understand why recognizing the full spectrum of humanity is considered dangerous. Everyone deserves respect.

Unfortunately, because this seems new and foreign to people, many are uncomfortable and refuse to acknowledge pronouns and they vote for restrictive laws such as limiting health care or making special laws about bathroom usage. This serves to further marginalize these queer individuals and greatly diminishes their health and well-being.

This is not new or unique. Many indigenous cultures around the world recognize more than 2 genders.

Gender is about identity, roles, and societal expectations. For most people, it aligns with their biological sex which is about anatomy and chromosomes and so on, but gender and sex don't always align. Even biological sex isn't strictly a binary as evidenced by intersex individuals. There are variations in chromosomes, genitals, hormone levels, and secondary sex characteristics.

We have genderqueer, trans, and nonbinary people who share with us their reality of not fitting in the gender binary. There's also gender fluidity, where someone's gender identity and expression shifts over time. Learning from them about the reality of their lives is important and teaches us a lot about gender. Acknowledging their experiences and that a spectrum exists can significantly improve their mental health and well-being. Why would I not want that for a group of people?

Science is increasingly producing studies which support that gender is not binary. A modern biology textbook, or even listening to a science-based podcast episode about gender will make this point.

We already have seen such damage from trying to force queer people to fit into heteronormative cisgender lives. That is something our church and our society was wrong about because they refused to listen to queer people and their experiences. And the harm wasn't restricted to queer people but also affects others, like the spouses of all those gay people who were told to get married and it would make their gayness go away. You're asking me what if I'm wrong, what if YOU are wrong and trans people actually are speaking the truth about their lives and experiences?

For trans people, studies show the best outcomes for their mental health includes some form of transitioning. Letting people have the autonomy and agency to make the best choices for themselves is important.

[alchamy34]

Gwen needs to be canonically independent and not be tied down.

I have to say how grateful I am that other individuals see all the evil, homophobic intentions spider-verse is giving. This is so cruel to Gwen.

Not only is Marvel animation refusing to confirm Gwen's sexuality or at least giving her a purpose of independence, but they are cowardly by forcing her to revolve around a guy named Spider-Man.

I have already made a couple rants/complaints about this but I was reminded of how pissed I get by this as a feminist.

I'll say it again: Spider-Gwen exists for an important reason--she's supposed to stand out! To be different from all the other Gwens.

Those versions died because their whole purpose was to be the gentle damsel in distress hot nerdy straight girl. It's just upsetting how most (and I mean 98%) of Peter Parkers try to force their idealization of straight girly Gwen onto her. Rather than accepting how different and unique she is from the other versions.

So her being Miles's love interest is proving how her true existence is wasted on the big screen. From 2014 onward in the comics, she was always supposed to be queer. She represents what its like to be closeted because no one truly accepts her whole identity. Hence that line in ATSV where she said out loud how she can only show people half of who she really is. It represents the negative results when coming out to everyone. She was hated for that.

I am against Gwiles ship because it encourages the heteronormative patriarchal mindset. Enforcing the misogynistic gender roles and saying all the things about queerness being a sin to be true. It breaks my heart when someone is forced into being straight in hetero hell.

Remember the comics of when Gwen discovered a reality where she was married to Miles and had kids? Not only was that Gwen's biggest fear but also represented queer women's biggest nightmare. Being in a marriage where she can never reciprocate her husband's love, losing her individuality and identity, being viewed as a possession or trophy wife? I wouldn't choose that life ever!

She deserves to express her freedom to be herself. To be accepted, to love anyone she wants to love. The fact that Peter and Miles attempted to take that away proves the fact of how they were trying to be forceful on her to be the illusion of the Gwen that they wanted to shelter and treat her as property.

That's why ships were there is pairings with Quake, fem!oc, Felicia Hardy, and White Fox are much better ships. They are perfect opportunities for Gwen to explore her Bisexuality with someone who she can love out of mutual interest. Female characters who would accept all of her for who she is as a person. She should choose her own happiness and enjoy the freedom she yearns for herself.

Footloose and leash free.

[pupmkincake2000]

I once had this topic in my posts, and I want to talk about it again. Perhaps I will say the same thing, but in this context it is important to bring to the main idea.

So, the found-family trope. It has been perverted into "here's a set of characters, I've squished them into the heteronormative roles of father/mother/child". - found family CAN be that, in some cases, but that is not what the trope was initially founded on. The found family trope was built on NON-CONVENTIONAL FAMILIES/RELATIONSHIPS. It is about finding a family OUTSIDE of the one you were born into, a family that can be whoever you want, and look however you want it to. That's the very reason it's so popular in LGBT+ spaces. It is not about pushing people into strict parental/child roles. It is about finding family in other people, regardless of what they are to you. Romantic partners absolutely count as found family, so no, we are not pushing aside a lovely found-family trope for the "sake of a ship" (a silly sentence to begin with, imo, but I digress) Hank and Connor ARE found family, because you can find your family; your comfort, your helper, your partner in life, in your husband, wife, or partner. The opportunity for a queer love story does NOT cheapen anything, especially in todays world, where it's desperately needed right now.

So, when people say they are not infantilizing Connor by making Hank treat him like a son because adults are allowed to have parents and that Connor is smart and all but he’s still unexperienced when it comes to human emotions and needs someone to guide him and that Connor needs a guide, an anchor in his life I always ask myself why.

Why it has to be Connor of all androids? Why do people think Connor needs an anchor, a guide and why do they think he’s unexperienced? Considering, he’s a clever machine whose brain, or whatever he has in his head, works much faster than human being’s. Does that mean all the androids need a guide and an anchor? Isn't that infantilization? Weren't they actually shown as independent individuals? Doesn't this destroy him as an independent person who's already decided who he wanted to be and is aware of his own actions? In addition, people forget that he is not a human and he may not need the very concept of a father figure or parents/child relationships at all.

I have often seen how people who insist Connor needs a father, need a father figure themselves, in fact, they simply project their desires onto Connor and Hank due to a lack of fatherly love or attention, and some of them have directly admitted this to me. Tho, they choice of Hank as a father figure seems really ridiculous, considering how his relationships with Connor started. But then again, Connor is not a human, and such concepts may be alien to him. We do not talk about Markus here, because he lived for 10 years with a man who considered him a son from the very beginning. Therefore, Markus is the exception rather than the rule. We leave out Alice because she was essentially programmed to be a child and needs to be taken care of, this is basically her function. And there were no other examples of family relationships among androids, there were only couples.

The most interesting part is also that people who are usually against HankCon, seem like the ones who are applying their personal feelings and issues to the characters. Can your partner not be your family? Is your partner not your friend, your confidant, and the person that helps you heal and uplifts you? Those things aren’t locked to just platonic or familial relationships.

Although I'm still sure that good old stereotypes are to blame, because if Hank was younger or at least looked younger, no one would think of him as a father figure. If people are only doing this because of his age and looks (and I suspect that's the case... in most cases), it's largely the fault of the fandom itself that forces Hank into this stereotypical role. Because a lot of people who played the game, but have never been part of the fandom, have no problems seeing Hank and Connor as a potential couple or just who they are accrotding the plot - friends), it just shows how incapable they are of analyzing characters. Because according to this perspective, any human being, if they are not a child or a teenager, will be more experienced in life than any android. Shouldn't androids view all humans who are over 20 as their potential parents or parental figures then? But for some reason, if a human being looks young, no one assigns them such a role, although from such a point of view this is exactly how it should be. So either people accept that Connor is an adult, capable of making adult decisions (while remembering that he is not human), or they accept that any android is infantile by the very fact of their existence and needs a parental figure, even if humans who the androids interact with, look young.

[thestrangestthlng]

Bi Buck and the internet interneting

I'm absolutely fucking living for the positive male bisexual representation we've been getting in media. Three masc male bis in the past year (and some change) is fucking amazing. Not only are they coming into their sexualities, their growth and development is detailed and explicit.

Furthermore, we have them having their sexual awakenings at different phases in their lives. There's no timetable on figuring out your sexuality. Personally, I as already in my late-20s/early thirties when I realized that yes my aesthetic appreciation for women was more than just aesthetic appreciation. We have Nick Nelson falling in love with his friend in high school, Alex Claremont-Diaz falling in love and having his awakening in his early-mid twenties, and now Buck realizing that his jealousy and feelings are more than just wanting to be friends in his early thirties.

Of course, the internet loses its collective minds--mostly for good, but you know the internet is always going to the internet.

There were a bunch of comments about how the show was "ruined" and asking why everything has to be gay. Here are some direct quotes.

"ABC just fucked up an amazing show and ruined my favorite character."

"Enough already. Why must it be in every freaking show on television? We'll see how the ratings go."

"Not Buck😢. ABC has just ruined 9-1-1."

"I'm done... tired of not being able to watch anything with the gay agenda having to be added."

"Ruined the show for me."

"WHY WOULD YOU RUIN BUCKS CHARACTER LIKE THIS. BYE"

"BRO WHY DID YOU MAKE BUCK GAY NO"

"Didn't and don't like where this Buck storyline is going.. smh"

Let's start breaking down this fucking foolery. First and foremost, 9-1-1 is a RYAN MURPHY show and the show has been queer af the whole fucking time. What we're not going to do is erase Hen like she hasn't been there the whole fucking time.

So, I personally this that people are mad about this development in his character because Buck is masc. Not only masc, but he's a firefighter, a manly man's job. Being a queer masc in that type of setting is threatening to some men's heteronormative opinion of what masculinity is. It makes them uncomfortable because he's not a stereotype. Buck's personality hasn't changed because he's started kissing boys. Hen is not an issue because Hen having a more traditionally masculine role as a lesbian is not "threatening" to their opinions of what masculinity is. Michael isn't an issue because he's not a main character, he's not in the 118.

But someone is like "not everything is homophobia" and went on to say about how sometimes people just don't like change and that if you got to know someone for six years as straight you won't like it if they were suddenly queer.

Holy microaggressive queerphobia Batman.

Buck hasn't changed more than his character growth and development over the years. Also, they've been shining a queer beacon over his head for years, which is why so many people were hesitant to get invested in the show thinking it was just going to be another queerbaiting situation.

As a bi myself, I am ecstatic to see more and more positive representation, but to sit here and say that his character is ruined or the show is ruined because he did what they've been hinting at for years, that's goofy.

Like, if queerness offends you so much, why are you watching it?

Moral of the story is that queer people come in all shapes, sizes, personalities, mannerisms, etc. The fact that media is including more masculine presenting queer men is amazing, because we've been force-fed stereotypes that are palatable for straight men for decades. It's supercalafragulisticexpialidous that we have bisexual male representation because that's new new. There's so much biphobia and bi-erasure it's so amazing to see it on the screen (and also not just being queerbaited for years.)

Hollywood: Keep it up.

And because I can: have some bi boy appreciation:

Just lusting; nothing to see here.

Honestly, though Taylor is so fucking pretty, he's literally punchable.

They're literally low key raising a family together, and ya'll are surprised. (Also, side note, I will die for Christopher.)