#i know i can be really bitchy about pushing back on the homophobia meta but it's not because i think it's wildly irrational

[ladyluscinia]

Why do some people say Izzy is homophobic? Flippant jokes I get, but there are people claiming this seriously. Yes, he's often very mean towards characters who just so happen to be homosexuals... But what in the world would make anyone conclude he's not a perfectly equal-opportunity mean person?!? Same with the racism accusations. Probably preaching to the choir here... And I personally don't even like Izzy (as a person; as a character he's brilliant), but it still gets annoying.

I mean... if the question is whether or not Izzy Hands can plausibly be interpreted as homophobic, then I think the answer is unambiguously yes.

I don't think it was avoidable with the story they are trying to tell. Homophobia is pretty deeply entangled with expressions of masculinity and how people see gay relationships. Izzy's literal purpose as an antagonist is to be so against the BlackBonnet relationship that he was willing to try and get Stede killed over it. And thematically, to do anything interesting with stuff like embracing self-expression or arguing that open honesty and vulnerability are good for people, someone has to fill the role of objector. In a televised medium especially - where you aren't sitting in Izzy's POV and you definitely can't read his mind - there is going to be a level of interpretation to his motivations and what, exactly, he's finding objectionable, and some people will come to the conclusion that he's a homophobe. 🤷‍♀️

It's a side effect of trying to say something not completely shallow in your writing - you will run up against grey areas and you can't make the audience unanimously stay in the intended track. Multiple plausible interpretations will exist. A character who objects to other masculine characters expressing emotional vulnerability will plausibly be read as homophobic.

It's our job as we watch the show to look at all the plausible interpretations and decide which is the strongest, just like it's the writers' job to make sure their intended interpretation is the one the most audience members settle on. Complete consensus is impossible, so I'm not, like, surprised that some people are sticking to their guns on that one, but I'm still pretty confident Izzy being homophobic will end up the weaker interpretation.

I actually think Izzy being more or less doomed to being plausibly homophobic is what makes the writing for him so good. Because a much easier option, or a weaker writing team, would have gone in on it. Yet another story about homophobes making gays' lives unhappy, only this time the twist is we make the homophobes a punchline. It's way harder and more interesting to pull off an antagonist that hates a gay relationship but is only plausibly homophobic, and there's a perfectly valid and even encouraged read of the show where he's not. That's actually cool (and why I'll be pretty disappointed if it turns out he is just Mr. Internalized Homophobia).

🤔 My more controversial opinion, though, is probably that I think once you get to a certain level of theorizing unconscious / unintended homophobia in fiction then it functionally doesn't exist. That's pretty much what I'm trying to say here. In real life there is some value to recognizing that everyone has some unconscious biases they're probably acting on without realizing, but in a story... if the character / their actions won't be acknowledged or treated as homophobic, or they won't make the leap to homophobia at any point in unpacking or addressing their flaws, and you aren't trying to say anything about the author's personal biases or blindspots coming through? If a tree falls in a fictional universe but nobody writes about it, does it make a sound? Did it even fall?