#i truely don't don't give a shit if you don't like a certain character that a part of the fandom likes

[pettydisco]

🪿

[brsb4hls]

Managed to binge Sex Education (the first time I just stopped after season 1, it didn't really catch my interest, I was mainly in it for Gillian Anderson).

It's not a bad show, there are some compelling storylines, it touches important subjects and it is kinda charming.

However, there's one thing I do not like and that's inconsistency. (Or being hypocritical in general, not the case here, but same lane)

(Critical thoughts and discussion about drug use under the cut).

I feel the show was inconsistent, mainly in regards to handeling the subject of sexuality.

Presenting serious issues with a bit of humor is helpfull and healing, and sometimes done well (like, chili-oil as lubricant, the consequences of that and the transition to talking about menopausal issues was ok f.e.), but to me sexuality was often used way too slapsticky and silly. Also for cheap shock value.

And that doesn't fit the tone of the show, where the subject is meant to be taken seriously. Some jokes are to immature for that and missing heart.

One storyline that stood out to me was Hope's attempt to remodel the school. To me, that was actually the heaviest subject, because additional to regular disciplinic measures, she tried to manipulate and divide in an insidious way. The public shaming was a facist move even, truely horrible.

So I was looking forward to the students fighting back and when they did it was with a bunch of genitals and a shitty Peaches song.

In this particular case I didn't feel like it was the correct answer. Adam and Cal had very different issues, that had nothing to do with what the slideshow presented.

At least the consequence was realistic. Of course it was over the top and the school lost funding.

Fighting for freedom of speech, artistic freedom, ones own boundaries and bodily autonomy could have been done in a much more powerful way.

Another thing I felt was off was the depiction of drug use.

Maeve's whole storyline throughout the entire show was about how destructive addiction can be. And I think it was handled ok and realistic.

On the other hand we have Eric happily taking party drugs and a mushroom trip being used for shits and giggles.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in everyone's right to do to their own body what they want, I'm not moralizing here.

But I've also seen first hand what drugs can do to people emotionally and physically and there is no difference between pills, mushrooms, weed, alcohol and heroin. Literally none.

All off them can evidently get you addicted physically and mentally and can mess up your mental and physical health.

Even if you take them just once. It can get you killed if your heart can't take it or you forget to hydrate. That's common knowledge .

So why does the show make a difference between happy drugs and bad drugs?

I get, that Erin's addiction had more dire consequences because she had kids, but a guy flinging around a kitchen knife while on shrooms (yes, actual thing that happened in my social circle) can also harm people.

I'm not saying creative works need to have a certain moral stance regarding drug use. We all have critical thinking skills (hopefully) that we should use while consuming media, but it really ticked me off that there was such a huge difference in the way Sex Education depicted substance use/abuse.

Also, maybe it's my age, but I felt like the show was way over the top with a lot of stuff.

And a bit to soapy.

Well, I did like certain characters and their journey, otherwise I wouldn't have watched all if it.

And the soundtrack fits perfectly (which is extremely important to me, ill-fitting songs or score can ruin a whole show for me and the other way round.)

Maybe someone wants to give their opinion, I like to reflect on stuff and I'm still debating the show internally (so at least it did manage some sort of impact, a sign of a certain quality).

[sky-chau]

Lets get down to business.

^This is the checklist.^

I will reffer to it frequently.

Ive understood you the past six times. I understand your frustration but you have to think of it from a broader perspective and understand that there are more variables at play than wheather or not nonbinary people feel like an afterthought.

Just so were on the same page I'm going to make a list of things and people (in no particular order, since tumblr likes to re arrange blocks of text anyway.) I have taken the time to consider and continue to have to think about with every edit.

Femmes

POC

Butches

Nonbinary Folk (anyone who doesn't identify as a male or female)

Composition

Color Theory

Merchandising

Replicability

Color Blindness

Epilepsy

Disabled folk

Trans Women

Mainstream Culture

Intersex people

Production cost

Traditional Symbolism

Ease of Understanding

Character icons

Fun edits

Honoring the Dead

Jewish people

Queer history

Making it hard to erase any identity certain people might try to exclude.

The DAD test

So keeping all these things and the checklist in mind lets run shit down and try to fix the flag.

Goal: make nonbinary people feel included.

So NB people don't identify with the fem signs.

That's valid I get that, I gave an all stripe flag for y'all to use as you wish.

But that still makes them an after thought.

You're right I kinda seems that way. How about we just get rid of the fem signs all together!

Here's all the problems getting rid of the fem signs all together:

1: it leaves quite the empty space and feels like a bad composition

2: violates checklist points 2 and 6.

3:the spotlight would be flat out unrecognisable

Well how so?

POC would be unhappy to know that they have been dropped from the flag. Id imagine the same kind of backlash from disabled lesbains aswell.

Why not just make them into stripes too?

1: we all know how much backlash the brown stripes get from white people who think they're ugly.

2: if nonbinary people are represented as a white stripe and disabled people were a white fem sign, what color stripe would we associated with disabled people?

3: too many stripes.

Alright so stripes aren't a great idea, why not change the fem signs into something a bit more nueteral? Like just circles.

1: looses the clever side of the design that has a couple walking down a road or atop a light house, who's sillouhets are the projection for the spotlight.

2: making them into say a circle is rather abstract and would not catch on.

3: would violate checklist points 2 and 4.

4: its just bad design.

Why not add a third sign?

That gets a bit too complicated and starts confusing the message.

So then how do we compromise in a way that is practical and appeals to a mainstream audience but isint racist/albeist?

Well you make the flag more versatile. Give it different forms for different people with different needs.

But why is the one with the fem signs introduced first and one for Enbies introduced second? Why not introduce them all at once? Why have a primary flag at all?

This is what's called boiling the frog.

If you introduce people to the new flag idea starting with 5 flags that can be used interchangeably, they're going to be rather overwhelmed and might find themselves angry at such a preposterous idea.

So what you do is you introduce the flag with the most signage as the "main flag" and for every flag that is a subtraction of signage, introduce it as a resource for editing.

This allows people to use whatever form of the flag makes them most comfortable without making anyone else feel as if though they've been excluded from representation entirely. It also gives the opprotounity to explain to the clueless why you're using the "resource for edits" as the flag. It gives you a chance to explain to the curious the nuances to your identity at a pace that the person questioning would not be overwhelmed by, and might actually have a shot at understanding.

To say one is an after thought when 1.0 also had nonbinary people is truely reading a tad bit too into it and s little foolish considering you've been woven into the fabric of the flag since the very beginning.

Wait, why do we have to appeal to mainstream culture at all? Queer people have never been mainstream?

I think Natalie Wynn (contrapoints) said it best:

"If you want to persuade someone it helps to meet them where they're at"

So what does that mean?

Well it means baby steps. If we wish to educate people on the variety of lesbians we first have to appeal to what they think a lesbian is. Then over time you can slowly slip your more woke and educated points in.

Most people (outside of tumblr) dont know what a nonbinary person is, much less what the signage for them would look like.

But even that is not what lesbians as a whole are mostly concerned about as for us, where people are currently at is still not knowing what fucking flag to use for lesbians. The fem signs give a very difinitve answer to the question "wait what's that new flag suppose to be?" and potentially sparks interest into finding out why a post used this flag instead of the lipstick lesbian flag.

While it's not the wokest flag around it has been made very strategically to make replacing the old flag, easier and make more sence to the clueless onlooker.

Now a little bit about how graphic design and symbols work:

Lets talk about bathrooms for second. More specifically gendered public bathrooms. I know this is a hot topic and a lot of people are on board with having gender neutral bathrooms.

So for the sake of this example working lets get more specific and say were talking about porta potties. Technically all porta potties are gender neuteral, BUT for camping events lasting longer than a few days on grounds with no plumbing they have a womens porta potty.

Womens porta potties are exactly the same as all the others. They even have a urinal pipe for men. The reason that there is a womens porta potty is because some women do occasionally go on their periods and hazardous waste with blood in it has to be treated differently than hazardous waste without.

Now there's alot of different women and not all of them wear dresses. But the sign on the door to the womens portable shitter has a little picture of a person in a dress.

They dont use that signage to alienate people or dictate what women can wear. It simply uses the culture to illustrate what this crapper is.

They could put a biohazard sign on the women's toilet but, all fecal matter is a biohazard, blood or no blood.

Since not everyone is super savvy on what the bio hazard sign would imply about a women's camping toilet, that would be considered hostile design. Its not easy to understand.

Hostile design as a term usually applied to doors, or anti homless spikes but can be applied more broadly.

Now using the fem signs on the lesbian flag is the same as using the little dress person on a bathroom. Its not making a statement about the demographic using the item, it simply serves to make as obviously as possible using the cultural landscape it lives in, what the thing is for/about.

The most common signage used for lesbians is the interlocking fem signs. Using it on a thing simply states that thing that it is printed on is for or about lesbians.

Without the signs, it may be hard to figure out what flag its suppose to be if nobody told you.

Your frustration is valid and I'm not trying to make you an afterthought. Ive put alot more thought, time and, effort into this than I think anyone realizes.

If enough nonbinary people say they really wont use or support the flag I will make a new one, but be warned: I will throw a fit.

I will whine about it not only because I'm a little bitch like that, but also because its actually a fucking challenge that will require starting over from scratch.

But don't get me wrong I am still absolutely HELLBENT on making a flag that works.