#is a tactic used against a lot of queer people in different ways. but look youre not hating queer people. youre hating these degenerates

[gucciguccigarbage]

"wow what photomatt did and said is such bullshit and tumblr as a site has been perpetuating a transmisogynistic double standard" you agree now that it's the big event but are you fucking normal about that double standard yourself? Do you reblog callouts toward queer people that exaggerate personal spats or lack /any/ interpersonal harm at all but reveal those queer people are into something which elicits a disgust response in you? Do you decide that trans women who do terrible enough things, like Christine Chan, are okay to degender or full-on misgender? Or do you notice when others do? Yeah, banning a trans woman for a frustrated hyperbolic violent comment while letting nazis and violent transphobes run free is the corporate sin here and easy to point and jeer at but are you contributing to this environment that makes it so easy to tear down queer people, especially trans women, especially sex workers? If the CEO had managed to have a little more tact, would you be right there with the contingent (which does exist) of people saying it was predstrogen's actions, not her gender, which got her this treatment? Are you somebody who has simply decided to write trans people out of your category of "deviancy" from societal norms rather than deconstructing the moral weight of that deviancy, leaving the marginalized to fall on that sword as those you think you're trying to target for "being into weird shit" go unscathed? How many people who are now joining in to clown on the easy transphobia helped make it possible in the first place?

[blueratgrmln]

🌟OPEN DISCUSSION about the 2020's era of shipping culture, Sonadow in the Sonic Fandom, and how well-intended activism can circle back to the language and violence of oppressors 🌟 (Broken down into PARTS for the sake of readability and my own attention span lol. >>>FULL ESSAY HERE<<<) (>>>PREVIOUS PART HERE<<<)

PART 5

LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE OF OPPRESSORS

Now is where I will delve into the connection between Sonadow shipping (and overall shipping) debates and how well-intentioned activism loops back into mimicking oppressors. Thinking about how Sonadow is historically important to the Sonic Franchise, the Sonic Fandom, LGBTQ+ Sonic Fans, and maybe even video game history as a whole, I feel major discomfort and even dread when I see so many people (particularly those that are young) throwing around very serious accusations at (fellow) Sonic Fans and (fellow) Sonic shippers. Accusations supporting pedophilia or pedophilia itself is one of the most egregious. I've seen it thrown at Sonadow shippers, Vector x Espio shippers because Vector is 20 and Espio is 16 (despite it being another extremely popular LGBTQ+ headcanon-ed ship due to lack of representation), and even Knuckles x Rouge because Rouge is 18 and Knuckles is 16. It strikes me as counterintuitive and unnecessary at least, and actively dangerous at most/worst, seeing fellow Queer people utilizing the morality-policing, fear tactics, surveillance methods, censorship mindset, and rhetoric/language of our oppressors and using those things against the people in their own communities. Realizing that long-time Sonadow fans who felt inspired to come out and be unapologetically Queer because of that specific ship have been facing harassment and slander from fellow Queer people (who are likely younger than them), getting called "pedos" or "dangerous" or "suspicious" or "unethical" over the mere act of creating representation and Queer Joy with fictional characters and seeking some sense of comfort while surviving homophobic environments...bluntly, my stomach is churned and my blood is boiled. The last thing we need in this rapidly backwards-turning world is more in-fighting within the broader LGBTQ+ community that distracts our thoughts, emotions, time, energy, organizing, education, community-building, and activism away from the oppressors who are causing us real-world tangible harm, suffering, and death.

A random teenager on the internet drawing fanart of Sonic and Shadow holding hands, or even random adults on the internet drawing suggestive art or outright porn of these characters, is NOT going to be the catalyst that rapidly or gradually normalizes pedophilia or inspires worldwide support for unethical relationships. And yes, this includes content about the "weirdo/unethical/dark" ships that are found in the shadowy fringes of the internet and Fandom spaces. I am uncomfortable with a lot of it myself. But those ships and the people that engage with them ALSO can't have the same level of impact and reach (key words: Same Level) that real life oppressive systems have to cause widespread suffering. The key difference that makes widespread abuse possible is that the real life oppressive systems are disguised as wholesome safe environments that develop trust and closeness with community members. Those oppressive systems and the harmful people that support them are usually NOT on the freaky/dark/weird fringes of society, they don't outwardly appear that way, and they demonize the "degenerates", not associate with any such label. The Catholic church institution is a big example, the institution covering up uncountable cases of their clergy members abusing minors while those clergy members are positioned as a pure, trusted facet of society that people actively look to for guidance, safety, and belonging.

At NO point am I ever going to say that everyone online is perfectly pure and that we should ignore everyone's behavior online. When we do encounter legitimate creeps causing harm to real people (not watered-down definitions of what being a creep means) we absolutely need to call them out and keep each other safe. HOWEVER, by pitting fellow Sonic Fans, fellow Queer people, fellow shippers against each other with this blanket "us vs them" mentality that overshadows the real life patterns and signs of how widespread oppression and real world harm happens, we end up accomplishing a lot of what our oppressors want anyway: divisions, distractions, and outright mimicking the violent language and behaviors that they display toward us at ourselves. This is the point where well-intentioned activism goes wrong and circles back around to oppression without meaning to.

Many people are super-duper-sure that they have dismantled all of their -isms and -phobias and now identify with labels and movements that are on the right side of history. But all of us STILL need to be aware of the fact that our thought patterns, behaviors, logic, and emotional responses can be tied to previously held beliefs and mindsets, and they can sometimes carry over and linger in our minds even after significant "character development". This is true even if we don't immediately realize it and think that we are a "safe person" within our own marginalized communities and for other marginalized communities. It can be really hard to identify if/when that is happening sometimes, but it is pertinent that we are actively checking in with ourselves, listening to constructive criticism, and cross-analyzing whether we are unintentionally mimicking the language, behaviors, and violence of our oppressors, and what effects that can have on the people in our shared communities and the people we care about.

PART 6 HERE

[whitedemon-ladydeath]

I know cities tens to have more, uh, liberal views or whatever but as someone who spent a majority of my life in rural Iowa, who was then forced to relocate to a city in Minnesota (I would never step foot in this state if I had the choice. its FREEZING) I've never met so many self centered and self serving people in my damn life

i got this coworker who's this white kid from a middle class family who spouts off at the mouth regularly and she says so much shit about rural Iowa if i ever complain about how much I dislike the culture shock here. but it's always "it's so boring" "lol trump?" "weee have the mall of America. there's nothing in Iowa" and im sitting here so uncomfortable bec like

rural areas are regularly forgotten about? we are deep knitted cultural communities bec the government won't Help us? Democrats won't help us. we're uneducated and stupid and ignorant nevrrmind it was systemically created that way for voting. The leftists I've seen (this kid) are full of classism and ignorance

I remember that as someone who grew up poor as fuck in Iowa, we had limited channels. You know what that was? Fox News. We didn't have thr fancy channels and all the 20 different news channels.

Republicans need rural areas poor and divided and angry to get votes. get them mad at the minorities also looking for jobs to keep their eyes off the people further driving up prices. Keep their schools poor and underfunded

Pride in family and community and tradional IS a part of "small town thinking" and a lot of those things are because that is what keeps our towns alive. we have no choice But to help each other. Our pride is our armor and it gets thicker and more bullheaded the more we keep getting called ignorant and stupid

i know there's definitely a lot of problems with rural areas especially for minorities. as a queer person w different pronouns Im hesitant about living in one again and there's also the violence w bipoc and queer communities

and the thing is is that I know a lot of liberals/some leftists here in the city I've seen who will take that struggle and use that as a shield against their own hateful attitudes towards bipoc and queer communities in cities and it takes away a lot of the visibility of the queer and bipoc people who choose to live there

Virginia (unless it was West and I just forgot can't remember rn) was a blue state until Obama came in and took the jobs after promising new and better jobs and communities. Republicans and Democrats both use the Appalachian region and people for their own benefit and Republicans and far right politicians rely on desperation

a lot of leftist things I see are long term plans, that help everyone for the better. these people don't have the luxury of Waiting for Better. Keeping poor folks, in rural areas, desperate is a key tactic from Republicans bec at least they Pretend to care about them. (I have never voted for a republican and I never plan on it LMAO)

you see "pro cop", I see "that's my cousin". you see "pro military". I see "that's my late brother". you see "evangelical church preying on poor people" I see "that's how im going to make dinner tonight"

We didn't get colleges coming to see us. we got the national guard and the army coming to see us. bec the poor, desperate boys wanting an out are the best bet to getting bodies for a war they're too young to grasp

I dunno I just. I hate cities. I hate the shallowness and self centeredness I keep encountering. The unwillingness to help others. the unwillingness to take on an inconvenient few hours to help my understaffed coworkers. and i understand that it's just different cultures and societal expectations but it's really, really lonely. I hate all the buildings. I hate all the concrete and lack of trees and plants and cows and ducks and farms

rural areas are so beautiful and have a lot of nature and I just don't want to give up on my home

[dairy-farmer]

hope my question doesn't sound so awful, i'm curious, when it comes to you and your ships like BruTim and etc., would you consider yourself a proshipper?

it's not! don't worry!

i consider myself very firmly anti-censorship which means that i am very firmly proship.

i know that there has been an attempt at changing the meaning of proshipping by people trying to cast it in a bad light because if you control the definition of something then you basically control all future arguments. (interestingly it's anti shipping that is the reason for pro ship's existence. livejournal was full of people telling others that their ships were gross and launching crusades against ships they hated calling themselves "anti-x-ship". pro, the opposite of anti, emerged to show as a symbol that you weren't an asshole. a lot of proshippers don't like or even approve of all ships but they believe you shouldn't get targeted and harassed for something as stupid as a ship essentially)

proshipping is something that i agree with not only for the anti-censorship aspects, it's also the finer details

1) your fictional interests are not a reflection of your irl beliefs

2) that harassment, doxing, and threats are not a logical or stable reactions to seeing something you don't like

3) fiction is not what influences reality it is interpretation of fiction that does (you were already a bad person if something you saw on tv or read in a book made you violent or do something depraved etc)

i've been lurking in fandom for a long time and i've noticed a trend with antis that have shaped a very low opinion of them because of the glaringly clear political agenda so many antis appear to have. there's been a rise in 'anti rhetoric' that pretty closely coincides with the rise in american alt-right movements and this is no different because it's people being radicalized by the exact same pipeline. anti's, right wing, q-anon people, etc say (oftentimes line for line) the EXACT same arguments.

arguments that tend to be anti women and anti lgbtq+

i realize indoctrination is hard to spot especially if you're young, vulnerable, or its being said by someone you look up to. but there are two things to keep in mind when you think about all the claims and stances antis make.

is the claim outlandish or incredibly bold? such as saying that people who like lolicon or make nsfw art of underaged characters are pedophiles. that is a VERY serious accusation and people online say it like its nothing. when you understand the full depravity of a crime like pedophilia there is ABSOLUTELY no way you could ever equate drawings of a fictional character to a living breathing child.

who benefits from you believing those claims?

-you ever wonder why ao3 writers who are majority queer women in their mid 20s tend to be baselessly accused of pedophilia? even though the profile of a pedophile in the USA is of a middle-aged white man in their 30s-40s? if we wanted to characterize fandoms by most likely to have pedophiles i'd be eyeing the nascar and sports fandoms given their fan basis fit the profile better.

did you know referring to queer people as pedophiles is a very age old tactic of eliminating public support or sympathy for them. look up 'boys beware' a 1955 PSA directed at boys to help protect them from the "sick" "pedophiles" known as the homosexuals.

-you ever wonder why antis claim to be "for the children" and yet use terms like 'cp' when referring to real children?

did you know RAINN has stated the proper term to use is CSAM-child sexual abuse materials. because 'child' and 'porn' cannot be used in the same sentence? fundamentally "(often) pornography online depicts adults who have consented to be filmed, that’s never the case when the images depict children". you'd think someone who cares so much for real children would get that.

-you ever wonder why so many antis rally for censorship on ao3 and cite the overnight mass deletion and censorship of fanworks from livejournal as proof of something that occurred because there was too much "cp" on the cite?

did you know it was it the 'warriors for innocence' who were behind not just livejournal but issues with other fansites and who directly stated their goal was to "hunt down people who support homosexuality, pedophilia and incest" and who have very clear ties to dominionism, and "Christian Patriot" militias?

do you notice how that's exactly what antis today say about "proshitters" just without the 'homosexuality' part because that part is being whispered since they know being homophobic within fandoms who are en mass queer would lose them a lot of support?

the anti and proship structure is a very american creation because it was born on forums mainly populated by americans and its only recently that this has started affecting overseas fandoms. recently on twitter a LOT of japanese artists have started referring to themselves as proshippers and blocking anyone who has 'antiship' in their description box because proship is the default for basically everywhere else that doesn't have american theocratic conservative powerplays.

maybe being an anti started as being an asshole but that's no longer the case. it's no longer just about "i hate this ship" its becomes "i hate this ship because ive fallen into an alt-right pipeline to appeal to the young future conservative and so fiction is real and you, a dirty fucking queer, are a pedophile, rapist, molester!!!!'

all you have to do to see a grown up politically involved "anti" is to turn on an american news station and watch the debate about banning library books that contain "explicit material" like things related to critical race theory or homosexuality. because that's what an anti evolves into. that's what all indoctrinated conservatives evolve into.

so the anti objectives and alignments have very firmly changed to something i will never respect or side with.

i think that an old article about WFI can summerize what i think is happening with modern antishipping and a changing political climate:

and if by chance an anti has somehow read this far: u were lied to girl. they knew you were a sucker and desperate for online connection or to be part of the "young activist" wave. but you were easy to trick and they filled your head with lies to help them push the christian conservative agenda that women dont deserve autonomy and gay people are depraved freaks who should all die.

"No mistake should be made here: these people are not so much about stopping pedo's, they are about erecting and establishing a hate filled theocratic society by any means necessary. They are all about control. And they are firmly entrenched in the belief that they are "more right" than anyone else"

[hereticalapothecary]

Hi gorgeous… I pray you’re doing well. I pray you reach out to the One True God Jesus… unfortunately worshiping all these other “gods” just leads us further into destruction and doesn’t really feed our souls… Jesus is not the religion that hurts people and I’m sorry if that’s been your experience but a direct connection with the Spirit of God will guide you and fulfil you in ways you never thought possible.. God bless you beautiful. Please don’t be afraid to pray to Jesus and just give it a try… whether that be now or later…

If you don’t know what to say, here’s a prayer for you…

“Dear God,

I pray you come into my life and show me the way. Please guide me with Your Spirit and lead me in Your Truth.

In Jesus’ name

Amen”

God bless you beautiful. Jesus loves you so much

Oh dear friend you’ve caught me on my lunch break. I have the time.

You think you’re doing me a favor by coming into my inbox and preaching Jesus behind a grey face but you’re really not. See, had I not been through a lot of therapy I’d probably be furious and trauma triggered right now. I mean I won’t lie I’m a little annoyed but like I said, I’ve got the time.

But honestly? I just feel bad for you. Because this was the only way you’ve been taught to believe and this is the only way you’ve been taught to act. How much success has this tactic gotten you? People probably haven’t responded well in the past because no one likes being proselytized to be totally honest.

Feels bad, huh? Like the whole world is cruel and evil and this must truly be the only way because people are so mean when you’re just trying to save them. But the reality is, people are good and kind too, but people don’t like being told their belief systems are wrong.

See, you don’t know me. And I don’t know you but I can make some assumptions because I’ve been in your shoes. I’ve been the person who sees someone who has “strayed from the path” and goes “I’m praying for you” but again, it doesn’t actually help.

I grew up evangelical, probably a lot like you. And I’ll say it, I was a good Christian. I did mission trips to Africa, to Europe. I served in my community, did children’s programming, camp counseling. I went to college and got a degree in Biblical studies because I just loved God so much.

So what changed and why did I leave? After all it was people and not God, right? Well, yes and no. I left mostly because of the hypocrisy. I read a Jesus who loved the poor and stood for the oppressed while watching my classmates and professors speak out against marginalized communities in the name of Jesus.

So yes, people hurt me in the name of Jesus.

But so did God.

See, I believed that if I didn’t believe in God the right way I’d go to hell for eternity. That I could only be happy if I had Jesus in my life. And I was super depressed and it felt like I was in an abusive relationship with God.

“You’re nothing without me. Everything good in your life is because of me. Everything bad is from the enemy or I’m teaching you a lesson. You are inherently evil without me. Love me or burn forever.”

That didn’t feel like love to me - because it’s not. I realized if a human was telling me those things I’d call it abuse. Why would I let God say those kinds of things to me if I wouldn’t tolerate humans saying it to me?

So I left. And yeah, I’ve wandered to different gods. I’ve experienced too many spiritual things to deny the existence of higher powers and spirituality. But God and I are back on speaking terms now at least, and frankly I believe whatever makes you love your neighbor more is God, whether that be under the name of science and atheism or under the name of Jesus.

Here’s the thing. You can repent of this lifestyle of arrogance that causes you to come anonymously into the inbox of a queer mystic to preach evangelism 101. I don’t need your version of God because I already have God in my life.

Because here’s the thing about loving your neighbor: your neighbor also gets to choose what love looks like to them, too. And most people are not going to say that anonymous proselytization feels loving to them. It actually comes across as tone deaf and judgmental. I know that probably isn’t your heart - I have no doubt you do what you do out of a sense of love and obligation.

Because I want you to understand the harm your rhetoric can cause, I’m also going to tell you how to love me.

First of all be kind and listen to me.

Secondly, go bake something for someone physically near your location. Go make some chili for your neighbor. It’s cold out where I live, homemade goods are always nice when it’s cold.

Find your nearest food shelter and ask what they need - I hear menstrual products are always needed. Ask if they need volunteers!

Donate an eSIM to Gaza or to another organization working for a free Palestine.

If you don’t have access to any of that, just text a friend and tell them you love and appreciate them. I promise you will be the hands and feet of Jesus more by doing those things rather than telling me that I’m wrong. Because truth be told you have no clue my spiritual path because I keep a lot of it to myself these days. And I like where my path is leading me so far because it encourages me to stand up for myself but also love others more. How can that be anything but God if it’s bringing more love to the world?

I pray that you find peace and happiness in your faith, but also that you stop acting with pride. I pray you may be saved from the same despair and disenchantment I faced and also recognize the harm that can be done by being dismissive toward religious trauma. I’m willing to share those experiences if you have more questions. God loves you, and I hope you can see that I am also loved and made in the image of God even if my beliefs differ from yours.

May God bless you, truly.

[tjmystic]

I made a recent post equating evangelical Christianity with Zionism in the Jewish faith, and I would really like to expand on that.

Bear in mind that I’m not Jewish, and, though I’ve studied Jewish texts extensively and talked to Jewish people to better understand their perspective, I’m not an expert. I can’t speak for the Jewish experience any more than I can speak for the Black experience or the male experience. I can, however, make educated observations as an outsider, and I welcome any corrections where I may have gotten something wrong.

Now, the meat of the argument: the link between evangelism and Zionism is that both ideologies are firmly rooted in fear.

I’ll start with evangelism, if only because it’s the area I know best between the two. The argument I always hear for evangelism is that it comes from a place of love and genuine concern for others. This is an argument that comes from both evangelical Christians and those who would like to sympathize with their actions. Having been raised an evangelical Christian, I won’t deny that there are definitely people who view it this way and express the need for proselytization. (Of course, the churches I attended wouldn’t have called themselves evangelical, nor would they have ever used the word “proselytize”. Not because they disagreed with the definitions, but because none of the people I went to church with knew what those words mean, how to spell them, or how to use them properly in conversation. If you’d like to know more about how this particular brand of ignorance shaped my personal views on Christianity and how my experiences were both similar to and vastly different from most evangelical Christian youths, I’d love to say more.) After all, at surface level, the idea behind evangelism is that telling people about Jesus and convincing them to follow Him will save their immortal souls. Considering how short life is and how endless the time after death is, securing a safe place for the soul is of utmost importance for Christians.

But that’s not the real root of it. The real root of evangelism is fear. Because it’s not really about saving someone else’s soul—it’s about saving one’s own. Pretty much all Christians believe that the way you treat others is highly influential on how Jesus will judge you after death. (How Christians interpret what the “right” way to treat others is, however, varies greatly. It’s why you see a lot of especially fervent Christians refuse to so much as talk to queer people or anyone they consider a “sinner”—they think that even the act of acknowledging these people is enough to damn them to hell for all eternity.) What this means, in terms of evangelism, is that evangelical Christians fear that they will be sent to hell for not converting as many people as possible. If they try and fail, that’s the other person’s fault, and they won’t be held responsible for it. But, just like the definition of the “right” way to treat people, the definition of what constitutes as “trying” to convert others covers a wide range of actions. For some, it might mean bringing Jesus up in conversation wherever they can. For others, it might mean wearing a cross or carrying a Bible or having one of those little Jesus fish pendants. But for others still, it might mean enforcing prayer in school, removing any works of media that might convince people to “stray” from Jesus Christ, and banning anyone who loudly advocates against Christianity. People in power use these tactics for control (just look at what missions did to Native Americans), but their followers use these tactics out of fear. If they don’t convert as many people as possible, if they don’t expel those who are too far “lost” and might influence others in the flock, then God will hold them responsible, and they will bear the punishment of hell.

Zionism works off of a similar principle, but with a few key differences. First, just as Judaism in general is more focused on how its followers live their lives and what they do with their time here on Earth, Zionism focuses on where Jewish people call home on Earth, not where their souls, spirits, or essences go after death. Second, it’s based on a very real and documented concern rather than a purely fictitious one. (I say “fictitious” with my whole chest as someone who still considers themselves Christian, though not a fucking evangelical.) Even if hell is real, the fear of it is not something we can point to as proof of anything. It’s just an idea. Anti-semitism, however, is very real and continues to be a serious problem today. Jewish people are still frequently the victims of hate crimes and expulsion, which, in turn, becomes a very reasonable fear that anyone at any time might turn against them. Likewise, history proves that this has pretty much always been the case. It makes sense that they would crave a place where they can be among their own people without constant fear and risk. It’s even better that the place they point to happens to be their ancestral homeland. And third, it has significant political backing. I’m not saying that evangelism doesn’t, just that evangelism has to be sneakier about it. Although the rise of Trump and his ilk has caused a widespread movement of fascists and conservatives saying the quiet part out loud (i.e., “I perceive anything you say or do that prevents me from spreading Christianity, even by force, as an anti-Christian sentiment”), most people still aren’t stupid enough to do so. It’s similar to how political correctness, in theory, helps people become more respectful in their language but, in practice, often just serves as a tool for oppressors and assaulters to learn to mask what they say. As such, supporting Zionism is much more widely accepted, especially in so-called liberal societies. It recognizes the suffering that Jewish people have undergone and presents a solution that seemingly aligns with both Jewish and Christian religious beliefs. However, it also allows governments to shove Jewish people into a far corner of the world instead of making any efforts to include Jewish people in the places where they already live. It’s anti-semitism masquerading as genuine concern. As more proof, in some areas of the U.S., segregation used a similar tactic. Where they couldn’t outright say, “We think that Black people are monsters who shouldn’t touch our innocent white people,” they would say, “It’s unsafe for Black people to live in communities with white people who want to kill them.” No effort to suppress those violent, murderous tendencies. No effort to actively make the communities safer. Just a brush off and a washing of one’s hands.

And there’s also the fact that the evangelicals who also belong to what is essentially a death cult tend to support Zionism because they think that a Jewish presence in Israel is necessary to spark the Rapture (i.e., the thing where Jesus returns and causes a whole fiery Apocalypse, for those of you are lucky enough to not know what this nonsense idea is).

With all of this in mind, I just want to say one final thing: you can choose what to believe in. That shouldn’t be a radical statement, and I challenge anyone who disagrees. Regardless of your religious beliefs or nonbelief, nothing is stopping you from picking which elements to include and which elements to leave out. Religion and spirituality are personal things—they aren’t political statements, they aren’t final exams at school, they aren’t terms and conditions in a contract. They’re personal beliefs. Being Christian doesn’t have to mean that you’re evangelical. Being Jewish doesn’t have to mean that you support Israel. Do your research, investigate how your actions and beliefs affect real life people, and go from there.

[chocolatepot]

chocopot, first of all: i followed you on tumblr bc I found your Howl's Moving Castle fics so incredibly charming. <3 Thank you for writing those.

I've been in fandom long enough that I've seen major fan wanks come and go, enough that i've gone from "oh no, fan wank! can't we all just get along?" to "omg this has all happened before why can't you fools see" to just leaving to go outside and smoke a cigarette til it's over, a la that meme of ben affleck.

I enjoyed the OFMD show, of course. I found it so charming, and it was such a wish fulfillment for me personally to have the perfect delicious dynamics that fandom eats like a full course meal, with the additional surprise of the canon supporting those pairings. I also appreciated the canon approaching this with a light touch, enough to leave room for fandom and also eschewing the usual ham-handed After School Special style way queer rep often is.

(I am of course not dismissing those representation efforts in any way, but those storylines don't always have the forward momentum that leads to the creation of fanworks. Sometimes the non-canon character dynamics lead to MORE fanworks because of more ambiguity to play with, funny enough)

I've been living vicariously through ofmd fanwank from you (thanks for being out there in the field, haha). So much of the Discourse with a capital D just seems so wild to me. The best way I can think to describe it is, instead of the "YesAnd" of most fandoms that feed off each other's energy, it's instead more of a "NoBut."

I was wondering if you think there's something different about this particular flavor of wank and what factors you think contribute to it.

Thanks for reading my long ask, and all the best!

Thank you! I'm glad you liked them. I gave up on DoMAYstic after like a week but I think I wrote some cute fluff during that week.

I started writing a response to this ages ago, but I think I need to scrap it and start over because I was getting too into the weeds.

On one level, I don't find the fandom that wanky at all. The amount of fic, art, gifsets, and vids created for OFMD after just one season is incredible, and while it's slowed down since last summer, it's still pretty intense. I see loads and loads of "Yes And" posts like "imagine ed and stede going to bed on the revenge after they reunite. imagine stede wrapping ed in one of his nightshirts" on Tumblr, and people posting their fic updates and other people reblogging and liking them. There is also discussion of representation in the show and how it's interpreted in fandom, and sometimes the latter is more of a "No But," but it's all in earnest and I think it's productive even when I disagree with people and quietly scroll past.

Now, Twitter? Twitter is an entirely different beast. Twitter as a website is designed to stimulate wank, making people express stupidly brash opinions for attention and then making other people feel the need to amplify that or dunk on it. Every time I spend a day doing Twitter on my fannish account, it's so draining and makes me feel like there's no hope for the fandom because it does the same thing. From my perspective it looks like there's a lot of clout chasing, people becoming semi-BNFs and attacking each other and getting hoist by their own petard when their tactics get used against them.

It's a microcosm, though. Almost none of it seems to escape the group of OFMD fans on Twitter who seem to really care about the drama, so I just kind of ignore it, or enjoy hearing about it secondhand.

The fandom is mostly a "Yes And" place. Sometimes in a good way (feverishly making excellent content), sometimes in a bad way (passing around flawed fanon as Definitely True). The AO3 category is bursting with creativity, thousands of canon and setting AUs, fusions, new ways to have the reunion happen, takes on backstory, and more. There's an incredible amount of fanart that does the same things. The fact that the slash juggernaut is also the main canon ship seems to have produced a fandom with a high degree of unity. While there's lots of discourse over Izzy stans, judging by AO3 that's actually a pretty small faction of the fandom as a whole.

[renthony]

Reminder that the discussion about needing non-alcoholic and all-ages queer spaces was pretty universally agreed on until asexuals started agreeing that we wanted access to them, too. Then suddenly it was "homophobic" to point out that gay bars aren't accessible to all.

I have a hair trigger for this conversation because of how many times it has been brought up SPECIFICALLY to drag ace and aro people through the mud. If someone shits on the idea of queer cafes, my hackles go up, because of how often that topic has been used to abuse aspecs.

"do you have a source"

I was a mod on a few different ace & aro positivity blogs roughly between 2015-2019. I have seen some shit, y'all. "Queer cafe" discourse isn't inherently aphobic--of course it's not!--but it gets used in a shitty way A LOT.

(TW sexual assault & substance abuse) Also, I won't go to queer bars anymore. Half my friends are recovering alcoholics, and one of the few times I DID go to the local queer bar, some twink I had never met tweaked my nipple because he thought it was funny. So.

Alcohol companies prey on queer people. Underage queer people exist. Disabled queer people exist. Sober queer people exist. All these are reasons for non-bar queer spaces.

But the SECOND aspec people started agreeing with that? The discourse changed. Suddenly queer bars were sacrosanct and could never be critiqued or you'd get called a homophobe.

It's directly rooted in aphobia. And nobody really talks about it outside aspec places.

tbh I feel completely insane a lot of the time because of how many things immediately put my hackles up bc they've been used to abuse aspecs

but y'all, there is SO MUCH of it

Aspecs have been consistently abused by the entire rest of the queer """community""" for so long.

"dare I say asexual" is a phrase that will immediately activate my fight-or-flight

I can't look at aspec pride edits anymore without remembering the mass-spamming of aspec tags on tumblr. They were full of gore, animal abuse, and fake pride edits proclaiming people like Ronald Reagan and Charles Manson as "ace icons" for no fucking reason other than hurting people

There used to be a lot of common community pride symbols that were pretty well known across most English-speaking aspec spaces. They're almost completely gone now.

And I just...I feel so paranoid and insane and overreactive, and it's so hard to explain to people who didn't live through it that, yes, there are lots of seemingly-innocuous things that got used as abuse tactics against entire aspec communities. And we don't get believed.

idk man, I just want to see more people talking about the way pretty much every single ace or aro person has been traumatized and gaslit and forced out of queer spaces. The "it only happens online" bullshit hasn't been true in fucking YEARS.

It IS happening IRL, y'all. I don't go to queer events in my city anymore, even pre-covid, because I've had falling-outs with multiple ppl in my community who decided to shit all over aspecs. It's not the only reason, but it's on the list.

Aphobia is REAL, it has MATERIAL effects, and it HURTS.

[mister13eyond]

I think something about that last post I reblogged, is like- there's a kind of thought I see exclusionists buck back against, and it's something I think we all need to wrap our head around for things to ever improve, but it's also a kind of revolutionary thought, so bear with me:

Queerness is a normal and common part of the spectrum of human experience because there is no standard human experience.

We spent a long long time in our lives being told that to be queer is to be deviant, to be outside the norm, to be outside the Standard [tm] for human development. And I think there are two reactions to this, neither of which fully works: The first is to say "actually, being queer is JUST LIKE being straight! Look how normal and acceptable we are. We're just like you, we also want families and marriage and houses in the suburbs, there's nothing about being Queer that makes me any Different from a straight person." I've heard this called assimiliationism, and this is a survival tactic we present to straight society: we NEED them to believe that we're not a threat to their hegemony, because otherwise they'll never stop attacking us. This tends to be the angle that exclus come at things from- "are you a Normal, Acceptable queer person or are you one of those Confusing queer people that makes cishetallo society not take us seriously?" But many, many MANY queer people get left behind by this kind of thinking, because- well! Many of us never WILL fit the cishetallo model of 'normalcy' and have no interest in it. The second is to say "alright, well, fuck you! If you say I'm weird and deviant and bizarre, then I'll own it- I'll wear it, I'll wear it with pride, I'll revel in being a weird unsightly queer who isn't part of your squeaky-clean suburban image." I tend to fall more here; there's a degree of comfort and safety in owning the weapons thrown at us, and this kind of thinking usually leads to queer solidarity and intra-community acceptance, in that- anyone who DOESN'T fit at the cishetallo table is welcome to sit with us. Anyone who doesn't feel that they belong with cishetallo definitions of relationships, self, body, sexuality, attraction- they're all allowed here; our only measurement is "left behind by these narrow definitions." But I think that's still not far enough because it misses the root thing- the central issue, the one that made me realize why clinging to hardline definitions of who Is and Is Not queer will never work: Cishetallopatriarchal norms are artificially constructed and enforced and are not in any way natural human behavior. That's the issue. When I realized that, it became perfectly understandable why so many more people are seeking out their own definitions, trying to understand themselves, finding they're queer, increasingly drawn to queer communities: the things cishetallopatriarchal society enforces as Inherent, Gendered Behavior simply aren't true. Human experience is, in fact, a largely messy, complicated, subjective and individual experience. We share a LOT of things- there is, inherently, very little in the human brain or body that separates men and women. Our secondary sex characteristics are easy to change. Intersexuality is as common as redheads. Behavior is almost entirely from nurture and not nature; cultural values do more to define men and women than any degree of inherent Instinct. Possibly the only example AT ALL i can think of is that birthing parents tend to have different instincts/needs after giving birth than inseminating parents, as- you know- it's pretty natural for the person who just carried and pushed out a whole human child to instinctually need to rest, recover and feed the child with their mammary glands while the inseminating parent is more motivated to go bring home food and supplies. And that's a Pretty Specific set of circumstances. Historically, humans have... been a pretty mixed bag. We have some strong commonalities and we're socially-motivated, inclined to keep the peace in our group, and to create settlements and in-groups, but we're not naturally straight, or cis, or sexual. It just doesn't make any sense- if every single person was naturally driven to pair up into a breeding pair and focus on raising children and their family alone, who would be left to take care of needs outside the family? Who would be there to practice medicine, to assist the family unit with childcare, to tend sheep, to act as midwives, to contribute weaving and sewing and

pottery? Humanity needs as broad a range of genders, sexualities, ace-allo spectrum experiences, even just PERSONALITIES as possible- we're not meant to be identical and all go after the same goal because we were not meant to exist alone. We were not meant to be individual, a single family who never cares for or interacts with another family, a breadwinner and a child-rearer and nothing else to the community. We were always meant to have groups- some who don't want children, some who don't want sex, some who pair off into households with two men or two women or three people or god knows what else- so that, as a community, we had diversity and a broad range of helpers and levels of involvement.

Queerness is a normal part of the human experience. Being someone who doesn't neatly tick cishetallopatriarchal boxes of gender and sexuality is a normal part of human experience. More people are queer than any of us know, because queerness is not a deviation from the norm, because the norm is fake.

[potteresque-ire]

More ask answer about Word of Honour (山河令, WoH) and the so-called “Dangai 101 phenomenon” under the cut ~ with all the M/M relationships shown on screen, does it mean improved acceptance / safety for the c-queer community?

Due to its length (sorry!), I’ve divided the answer into 3 parts: 1) Background 2) Excerpts from the op-eds 3) Thoughts This post is PART 3 💚. As usual, please consider the opinions expressed as your local friendly fandomer sharing what they’ve learned, and should, in no ways, be viewed as necessarily true. :)

(TW: homophobic, hateful speech quoted)

Here are the key points I’ve picked up from these op-eds:

* The state believes Danmei can turn young people queer. * The state also believes Dangai dramas can turn young men “feminine” to suit the taste of Dangai’s young, largely female audience. * The state views queerness in both sexes, and androgynous beauty in men as negative traits. * The state is wary of Danmei and Dangai’s popularity and wishes to contain them as subcultures. * The state is particularly annoyed by how the Dangai dramas have achieved their popularity with CP-focused promotions and marketing tactics, in which the actors are involved and blur the line between fictional and real-life suggestions of queerness.

What do I think of, concerning the acceptance and/or safety of … everything, with the above opinions given by the state media about Dangai?

* For c-queers, I don’t think things are different from before—these op-eds didn’t change the big picture for me. The op-eds taking traditional BL characterisation for Dangai / Danmei means the state’s intended focus of the genres is not its queerness; this is not unexpected, as the established review system is supposed to have removed the show’s queer elements, and to characterise those elements as queer would be a critique against the NRTA.

 While unpleasant, the veiled, antagonistic view towards non-traditional gender expressions and homosexuality isn’t new: the state has long believed popular culture can turn its young male audience “feminine”; the NRTA directive that bans homosexual content from visual media already makes clear its stance that homosexuality is, while not criminal, something that is Not Good in its eyes.

A (very) good thing that can be said, I think, is that none of the op-eds explicitly disapprove of the queer elements, the things that got away from being censored—of which there were, arguably, many in WoH. While Article O2a noted such “playing edge ball” (note the articles use this term to avoid mentioning “queer”), the comment right after was neutral / positive (“provide their audience with room for imagination”). Article O3, meanwhile, acknowledged that Dangai can be imitated by introducing suggestive atmosphere between male characters in their plot layout, thereby admitting that suggestive atmosphere between male characters in their plot layout is a defining trait of Dangai—and it didn’t say anything bad about it; the criticism was only for non-Dangai playacting Dangai.

This signals, to me at least, that Dangai can continue to be the cover for queer relationships to reach its audience for now — which is, perhaps, the best case scenario for continued queer representation on TV, given the current sociopolitical climate.

* For Danmei / Dangai, I’d also venture to say the genres are safe. Upcoming Dangais may need to undergo stricter / further reviews (if the rumours surrounding Immortality 皓衣行 are to be believed), and whether they can still achieve explosive popularity after such reviews remains a question; the genres themselves, however, will likely survive. 

Article O1 was a very positive, very enthusiastic review of WoH; its determined focus on the show’s aesthetics (as TU’s review) signals to me that the state approved of the genre’s take on aesthetics—which, again, also includes the aesthetics of a world cleansed of its real problems, which also aligns with the NRTA’s directive on TV / web dramas to focus on the positives of life in the country (Previously translated in this post: D12: … They [Pie note: the dramas] cannot place too strong an emphasis on social conflicts, must showcase the beautiful lives of the commoners.). Article O2b was very critical at places, but actually tried to sever Danmei  / Dangai from its major complaint, argued that the attention-grabbing gimmicks path was taken * instead of * aspiring to positively, proactively guide and display Danmei culture, therefore positioning Danmei on the “good side”.  While Danmei was named a (bad) influence for potentially turning youths queer (and predator, by the cartoon) in Article O2a, no mention was made of eliminating the genre both in the same Article or its editorial (Article O2b). The focus was placed, instead, on the subculture’s “containment”, and how it has been broken for “Rot Culture” to reach mainstream. The implied solution to Danmei’s “bad influence”, therefore, was to re-contain rather than eliminate.

[Logically, of course, this makes little sense. Blaming Danmei on turning youths queer is already confusing correlation and causation—youths may be drawn to Danmei because they are queer, rather than Danmei turning them queer. Re-containment, meanwhile, suggests that the state, which isn’t a fan of gays, is okay with Danmei turning kids gay… as long as there aren’t a lot of kids.

However, I’m hoping to tease out what the state may do, not whether the state is logically sound.]

Article O3 had the harshest wording on Danmei—“the canon and the Rot Culture behind it still hides large amounts of pornographic, violent content…”; “this vulgar custom of “playing edge ball” as a means to tempt, to lead the audience into indulging in fantasies [Pie note: sexual fantasies implied by the idiom 想入非非] have spread from visual media production…” . Still, no word on axing the genre, only containment.

* For CP culture, specifically, actor-character based CPs that are promoted with the dramas: while I don’t see it on the chopping board yet, these op-eds are, I believe, warnings for those in charge of the promotion and marketing of the upcoming Dangai dramas to tread carefully. I find the reach of these warnings difficult to predict still, because these warnings can be genuine—as in, the government truly believes the CP-focused promotion and marketing tactics are morally objectionable—or they can be more for show, in that the true reason behind the warnings is that CP-focused promotions, which also put a heavy focus on in-drama candies, make the NRTA / censorship board look like a joke and the government had to put up some objections to save face. 

In all cases, companies will likely need to talk to the government to nail down its stance. Whether to heed the warnings afterwards, tone down or eliminate the CP-focused promotions will require a thorough risk-benefit analysis. After all, CP culture appears to sits at the heart of the money-making machinery of Dangai dramas. The expenditure of fans is mainly to support their favourite actors and see their interactions, and money is, ultimately, what Dangai 101 is about.

Finally, for the sake of completion ~ how likely did these op-eds reflect the actual opinions of the state? Here are the sources of the articles:

Article O1: 上觀新聞, which is under Liberation Daily 解放日報,  the official daily newspaper of the Shanghai Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

Article O2: 半月談 Banyue Tan, a state-controlled biweekly magazine published by the Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of China.

Article O3: 光明日報 Enlightenment Daily, a newspaper associated with Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (中共中央機關報).

None of them are of the calibre of People’s Daily (official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party). However, they’re all very well-respected state-sponsored sources. Banyue Tan does require an asterisk  ~ while affiliated with the Xinhua News Agency, the massive influence of which has earned it its nickname “the world's biggest propaganda agency”, Banyue Tan‘s authority on this particular issue of Danmei/Dangai has been somewhat undermined by a … strange (?) trivia to end this super long piece: the magazine has also been caught in the controversy surrounding 227. Due to its pro-TU, pro-Gg stance, antis have insisted there are Gg fans within its writer’s ranks, who have used the state-sponsored publication for their private, support-Gg purposes. To this day, the argument is ongoing—with the criticism of Danmei in Article O2 sparking another round of “discussion” due to its previous approval of TU—and the lead anti is a well-known international politics professor and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) mouthpiece named Shen Yi (沈逸), whose claim to fame was the US government cancelling his visa and denying him entry due to suspected espionage …

[Banyue Tan was not the only state-sponsored publication caught in 227′s cross-fire. This is one of the reasons why some political watchers have suspected 227 to have a political component, that some form of political power struggle was happening in the post-227 chaos and disguised as the fan war.

While the truth may never be revealed, one thing is for certain ~ fan wars are about the worst things fans can do for their favourite idols, by lending space for such veiled conflicts to happen, by lending the names of their idols / their idols’ fans to the actually warring parties who may not wish to reveal who they are.]

[Okay okay, I will shut up now :) ].

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 <-- YOU ARE HERE

[assortedpuzzlepieces]

Ok, I’m about to go off on a GIANT rant about a specific issue I have with John Winchester & how the show intentionally & canonically portrays him as an ableist, homophobic asshole through his portrayal by JDM, so buckle up.

For the record, this is something I’ve always believed, but after listening to podcast episodes from @otrsupernatural & Carrying Wayward, one super clear example of why has just snapped into place & I feel compelled to share it.

So I want to start by noting a couple things that stand out. First & foremost, I think JDM is an incredible actor & I think he brings his A game with his portrayal of John. John Winchester is undeniably an asshole, & yet JDM balances that so well against the idea of loving parent, to not only make the character more realistic, but also to give real authenticity & depth to the trauma his children experienced at his hands & answer why they act the way they do in regards to him as their parent.

John is someone who, on the surface, appears to be a loving and concerned father, who makes mistakes, but does so because he’s in shitty circumstances & doesn’t have a lot of options or has his own trauma to battle that limits the choices he believes he has.

However, the show also gives us other content that proves there is more to John than that caring but broken man from as early as S1 & into the beginning of S2, & this content screams the truth of his ableism & homophobia, & gives some really strong evidence as to why these are two of the primary struggles of his children through the end of the series.

To explain, we 1st have to look at characters from earlier in S1. In 1x10, Asylum, we are introduced to Dr. Ellicott. He is shown to be someone who is canonically ableist to people with MHI. He sees them as less human, he does unethical experiments on them, he tortures them, just, lots of gross stuff there. On top of that, we see him as a ghost using what appears to be electrical shocks to Sam & Dean to possess & harm them, which resembles electroshock. There are also strong echoes of conversion therapy in this episode.

After this, we have 1x12, Faith, where Sue Ann is using dark magic to attack & murder people she hates, which specifically includes a woman who was pro choice & a gay man. This not only shows that she was homophobic, but that she condemned sexual freedom & bodily autonomy for women as well, which is in relation to homophobia, as well as deeply rooted in misogyny.

So essentially, we are shown a doctor who tries to force people to be less mentally ill or queer by “curing” them, & then a woman who took it a step further & murdered them to “cleanse” the town. We are given two different, but very interwoven ways with which society has tried to get rid of queers & disabled people, & it’s not subtext, it’s literally stated.

Now, in the show, both Dr. Ellicott & Sue Ann are the villains, & while the show demonstrates their ableism & homophobia, it also clearly condemns them for those actions. They are both dead/gone by the end of the episode & their actions are shown as evil. This is SO important, especially for a show that has failed in other episodes to truly state what exactly is the problematic action in the episode (looking at you, Bugs & Route 666).

That said, if Dr. Ellicott & Sue Ann are villains, then we must also extrapolate that ableism & homophobia are intentionally being written as evil in the show, so other characters who demonstrate these actions are also bad. (Yes, I know I’m being super redundant right now, but I just want to be really damn clear on this to demonstrate why I believe John’s characterization is intentional).

Now, in 1x21, John finally “learns” about Sam’s psychic abilities, & I say that in quotes bc there’s reason to believe he knew about it already from Missouri & was just in denial until confronted with the evidence, at which point he has a very strong reaction. As Ali pointed out, it’s interesting that he has such a strong negative reaction, as he clearly doesn’t have an issue with Missouri as a psychic, & yet he’s upset about Sam being one. He demonstrates the mindset of “othering” people outside of his family, which is a common treatment of both people w/ MHI & queer people - the mentality that “those people” are fine in general, but “not my son/daughter/family/me”.

So here in that episode, we are already getting an attitude from him that clearly parallels ableism & homophobia, & that is on top of other comments he made that are clearly rooted in misogyny, like his “that’s my man” to Dean in the flashback in Something Wicked This Way Comes (1x18).

THEN - the final nail in the coffin is the “secret” he tells Dean before he dies in 2x1; that Dean needs to either save Sam or stop him. By now it’s crystal clear he views Sam as something “other”, something not fully human, & his response? It’s literally “cure or cleanse”. Either make him “normal” or get rid of him.

To repeat, John LITERALLY uses ableist & homophobic language & tactics towards him son because he is different, & also tries to force Dean to do the same, passing on that legacy, by trying to erase anything about Sam thats not his personal definition of “normal”, all out of FEAR of who his son is & what he might do.

And the show CONDEMNS this behavior from the very beginning, even before we ever see him act this way!! They make it clear that ableism & homophobia are BAD, show John act that way, & then condemn him AGAIN when Dean tells Sam & it is made clear to the audience that what John asked of him was wrong.

Like… holy fuck. There is literally no way I can watch this & not believe that his characterization was not 100% intentional with him being set up as a bad person & his actions as condemnable. It’s just not narratively possible. John Winchester was intentionally written to be an asshole & we are supposed to see him as one, & any love we see from him is only meant to validate the complicated feelings Sam & Dean have towards him, not undermine the knowledge that he is a bad person. It’s literally in the text.

*Edit - Im adding a point here, since it’s been brought to my attention. John’s concern about Sam being infected with demon blood & possibly corrupted does not detract from the parallel being made between his actions & those of IRL people who are homophobic or ableist. In fact, this is another argument for that in interpretation, & here is why -

For literal thousands of years, mental illness has been viewed as demonic. People w/ MHI were thought to be possessed, evil incarnations, or even just sinfully corrupt & given to wickedness. People w/ physical disabilities were believed to be punished for moral failings, not faithful enough, etc, etc. Queer people were believed to be sexually deviant, witches, destroyers of families, etc.

These beliefs carry across many religions, but especially Christianity, & are present even today in some more extreme sects. And the people that believed these things? Well many of them were parents who “loved” their child & were trying to protect them from evil by purifying them. They too believed they had valid fears & good reasons to torture, maim, & even kill their children.

So to anyone who would argue “well it’s not the same because John had a good reason to be afraid of Sam” - shut the fuck up, because no, he didn’t.

Sam hadn’t hurt anyone. He wasn’t doing anything worth killing him over. He was a good kid who was hurt by someone outside his control & yet he only started doing anything that was truly wrong when he was pushed to it by circumstances that were again, beyond his control, & only then bc he was trying to do what was right!!

Anyone would do that, not just a kid w/ some demon blood powers. So let’s not act like he was inherently dangerous just BC he was different, bc guess what? That’s part of that mindset too. Sam was a good fucking person & John seeing him as less was John’s failing, not Sam’s.

[thedreadvampy]

So like there's still that ask expanding on the Exclusionist Leads To TERFery argument sitting in my inbox and I will respond to it when I can formulate an answer that's less than 2000 words long.

but I wanted to spin out a specific thing which is that anon repeated the ol' "queer is a slur is TERF Rhetoric that TERFs Started" and that is something I have a very DIFFERENT lot of feelings about

the idea that queer is a slur wasn't started by TERFs. It was started by.......people using queer as a slur........a thing that they still very much do.....

Look, I like the word queer. I self-describe as queer and I use the word queer interchangeably with LGBTQ. I have friends who only want to be called queer bc it sums up the fluidity or nonspecificity of their identity. I think queer is a useful and valuable terminology for us to have in our wheelhouse and personally I prefer it to LGBT because it makes a lot more space for the muddiness and complexity of sexual and gender identities.

but it's a slur.

or at least, it originates as a slur. it gets its power from being a reclaimed slur. when people say "we're here we're queer get over it" they're throwing the word back in the faces of those who use it against them and saying "you don't get to own this part of me, I'm taking back ownership".

and like. that's a reclamation and I believe powerfully in the strength and beauty of reclaiming that word

but it's also not unreasonable that people who have been hurt by it (which. in the wider world it still is often a slur) might not want to reclaim it or deal with it.

like. I love the word queer and while I wouldn't refer directly to someone who hates it as queer, I do passionately believe in its value and use as a general term. but. it's reductive and honestly offensively unkind the way many people act as if having a complex or negative relationship to a word often flung as a weapon, with a long history of violence as well as reclamation, is evidence of gullibility or malice.

there are a lot of reasons people don't like the word queer and some of them I find odious - the vitriol some people sling around at "kweers" in their hatred of the term queer is honestly just. depressing. and there are people who hate it because it runs counter to their desire to carve the community up into neatly divided Ls, Gs, Bs and Ts and also forget the Ts. but there are also people who think queer is a slur because it's been used as a slur against them. or who don't believe in reclamation. or who are uncomfortable with a word reclaimed as a defiant political statement being coopted by corporate interests.

like there's a lot of reasons people have to dislike the word queer and consider it a slur. and to boil them all down to "oh it's TERF Rhetoric" is not just reductive it's largely untrue and it's aggressively uninterested in other people's experiences and needs. and to say "queer was never a slur until TERFs started spreading this rhetoric" is a) factually untrue and b) ignores a century or so of very diverse opinions about the use of the word.

also. relatedly. other people have said this better than me but this watering down of what TERFism is and this framing where everything bad is TERF Rhetoric honestly just feeds into TERF's ability to fly under the radar like. a lot of TERFs consider themselves queer, because TERFs are not a monolith, they're a disparate group limited by a core philosophy that is specifically and only defined by a hatred and distrust of trans womanhood.

and a lot of people who aren't TERFs hate the word queer, or, like me, like the word but think whether or not it's a slur is very situation-dependent.

and this tendency to say something false about TERFs to bolster an unrelated point (TERFs created the concept that queer is a slur) if anything helps weaken people's resilience to TERFism because ultimately the strongest recruitment tactic TERFs use isn't a slippery slope of exclusionism, it's trauma. like any reactionary movement, they hook onto people's trauma and fears and they tell them 'you're right, you're heard, you're suffering and the world's against you and it's their fault.' and if someone comes into an LGBTQ space and says 'I am exhausted by having the word queer spat at me I never want to hear it again' and a bunch of people turn around and say 'uhhhh claiming that queer is a slur is actually terf rhetoric so we're not interested in you spouting TERF Propaganda' like. Is this helping the community? is this resisting TERFs? or is it just muddying the lines of what TERFs are and why we don't want them here and reducing them to an abstract The Bad People?

[jeannereames]

Hi, Dr. Reames! I just read your take on Song of Achilles and it got me thinking. Do you think there might be a general issue with the way women are written in mlm stories in general? Because I don't think it's the first time I've seen something like this happen.

And my next question is, could you delve further into this thing you mention about modern female authors writing women? How could we, beginner female writers, avoid falling into this awful representations of women in our writing?

Thank you for your time!

[It took a while to finish this because I wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it. Still not sure I like it, but I need to let it go. It could be 3xs as long.]

I’ll begin with the second half of the question, because it’s simpler. How do we, as women authors, avoid writing women in misogynistic ways?

Let me reframe that as how can we, as female authors, write negative (even quite nasty) female characters without falling into misogynistic tropes? Also, how can we write unsympathetic, but not necessarily “bad” female characters, without it turning misogynistic?

Because people are people, not genders, not all women are good, nor all men bad. Most of us are a mix. If we should avoid assuming powerful women are all bitches, by the same token, some women are bitches (powerful or not).

ALL good characterization comes down to MOTIVE. And careful characterization of minority characters involves fair REPRESENTATION. (Yes, women are a minority even if we’re 51% of the population.)

The question ANY author must ask: why am I making this female character a bitch? How does this characterization serve the larger plot and/or characterization? WHY is she acting this way?

Keep characters complex, even the “bad guys.” Should we choose to make a minority character a “bad guy,” we need to have a counter example—a real counter, not just a token who pops in briefly, then disappears. Yeah, maybe in an ideal world we could just let our characters “be,” but this isn’t an ideal world. Authors do have an audience. I’m a lot less inclined to assume stereotyping when we have various minority characters with different characterizations.

By the same token, however, don’t throw a novel against the wall if the first minority character is negative. Read further to decide if it’s a pattern. I’ve encountered reviews that slammed an author for stereotyping without the reader having finished the book. I’m thinking, “Uh…if you’d read fifty more pages….” Novels have a developmental arc. And if you’ve got a series, that, too, has a developmental arc. One can’t reach a conclusion about an author’s ultimate presentation/themes until having finished the book, or series.*

Returning to the first question, the appearance of misogyny depends not only on the author, but also on when she wrote, even why she’s writing. Authors who are concerned with matters such as theme and message are far more likely to think about such things than those who write for their own entertainment and that of others, which is more typical of Romance.

On average, Romance writers are a professionalized bunch. They have national and regional chapters of the Romance Writers of America (RWA), newsletters and workshops that discuss such matters as building plot tension, character dilemmas, show don’t tell, research tactics, etc. Yet until somewhat recently (early/mid 2010s), and a series of crises across several genres (not just Romance), treatment of minority groups hadn’t been in their cross-hairs. Now it is, with Romance publishers (and publishing houses more generally) picking up “sensitivity readers” in addition to the other editors who look at a book before its publication.

Yet sensitivity readers are hired to be sure lines like “chocolate love monkey” do not show up in a published novel. Yes, that really was used as an endearment for a black man in an M/M Romance, which (deservedly) got not just the author but the publishing house in all sorts of hot water. Yet misogyny, especially more subtle misogyny in the way of tropes, is rarely on the radar.

I should add that I wouldn’t categorize The Song of Achilles as an M/M historical Romance. In fact, I’m not sure what to call novels about myths, as myths don’t exist in actual historical periods. When should we set a novel about the Iliad? The Bronze Age, when Homer said it happened, or the Greek Dark Age, which is the culture Homer actually described? They’re pretty damn different. I’d probably call The Song of Achilles an historical fantasy, especially as mythical creatures are presented as real, like centaurs and god/desses.

Back to M/M Romance: I don’t have specific publishing stats, but it should surprise no one that (like most of the Romance genre), the vast bulk of authors of M/M Romance are women, often straight and/or bi- women. The running joke seems to be, If one hot man is good, two hot men together are better. 😉 Yes, there are also trans, non-binary and lesbian authors of M/M Romance, and of course, bi- and gay men who may write under their own name or a female pseudonym, but my understanding is that straight and bi- cis-women authors outnumber all of them.

Just being a woman, or even a person in a female body, does not protect that author from misogyny. And if she’s writing for fun, she may not be thinking a lot about what her story has to “say” in its subtext and motifs, even if she may be thinking quite hard about other aspects of story construction. This can be true of other genres as well (like historical fantasy).

What I have observed for at least some women authors is the unconscious adoption of popular tropes about women. Just as racism is systemic, so is sexism. We swim in it daily, and if one isn’t consciously considering how it affects us, we can buy into it by repeating negative ideas and acting in prescribed ways because that’s what we learned growing up. If writing in a symbol-heavy genre such as mythic-driven fantasy, it can be easy to let things slip by—even if they didn’t appear in the original myth, such as making Thetis hostile to Patroklos, the classic Bitchy Mother-in-Law archetype.

I see this sort of thing as “accidental” misogyny. Women authors repeat unkind tropes without really thinking them through because it fits their romantic vision. They may resent it and get defensive if the trope is pointed out. “Don’t harsh my squee!” We can dissect why these tropes persist, and to what degree they change across generations—but that would end up as a (probably controversial) book, not a blog entry. 😊

Yet there’s also subconscious defensive misogyny, and even conscious/semi-conscious misogyny.

Much debate/discussion has ensued regarding “Queen Bee Syndrome” in the workplace and whether it’s even a thing. I think it is, but not just for bosses. I also would argue that it’s more prevalent among certain age-groups, social demographics, and professions, which complicates recognizing it.

What is Queen Bee Syndrome? Broadly, when women get ahead at the expense of their female colleagues who they perceive as rivals, particularly in male-dominated fields, hinging on the notion that There Can Be Only One (woman). It arises from systemic sexism.

Yes, someone can be a Queen Bee even with one (or two) women buddies, or while claiming to be a feminist, supporting feminist causes, or writing feminist literature. I’ve met a few. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t necessarily jive with how we behave. And ticking all the boxes isn’t necessary if you’re ticking most of them. That said, being ambitious, or just an unpleasant boss/colleague—if its equal opportunity—does not a Queen Bee make. There must be gender unequal behavior involved.

What does any of that have to do with M/M fiction?

The author sees the women characters in her novel as rivals for the male protagonists. It gets worse if the women characters have some “ownership” of the men: mothers, sisters, former girlfriends/wives/lovers. I know that may sound a bit batty. You’re thinking, Um, aren’t these characters gay or at least bi- and involved with another man, plus—they’re fictional? Doesn’t matter. Call it fantasizing, authorial displacement, or gender-flipped authorial insert. We authors (and I include myself in this) can get rather territorial about our characters. We live in their heads and they live in ours for months on end, or in many cases, years. They’re real to us. Those who aren't authors often don’t quite get that aspect of being an author. So yes, sometimes a woman author acts like a Queen Bee to her women characters. This is hardly all, or even most, but it is one cause of creeping misogyny in M/M Romance.

Let’s turn to a related problem: women who want to be honorary men. While I view this as much more pronounced in prior generations, it’s by no means disappeared. Again, it’s a function of systemic sexism, but further along the misogyny line than Queen Bees. Most Queen Bees I’ve known act/react defensively, and many are (imo) emotionally insecure. It’s largely subconscious. More, they want to be THE woman, not an honorary man.

By contrast, women who want to be honorary men seem to be at least semi-conscious of their misogyny, even if they resist calling it that. These are women who, for the most part, dislike other women, regard most of “womankind” as either a problem or worthless, and think of themselves as having risen above their gender.

And NO, this is not necessarily religious—sometimes its specifically a-religious.

“I want to be an honorary man” women absolutely should NOT be conflated with butch lesbians, gender non-conformists, or frustrated FTMs. That plays right into myths the queer community has combated for decades. There’s a big difference between expressing one’s yang or being a trans man, and a desire to escape one’s womanhood or the company of other women. “Honorary men” women aren’t necessarily queer. I want to underscore that because the concrete example I’m about to give does happen to be queer.

I’ve talked before about Mary Renault’s problematic portrayal of women in her Greek novels (albeit her earlier hospital romances don’t show it as much). Her own recorded comments make it clear that she and her partner Julie Mullard didn’t want to be associated with other lesbians, or with women much at all. She was also born in 1905, living at a time when non-conforming women struggled. If extremely active in anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, Renault and Mullard were far less enthused by the Gay Rights Movement. Renault even criticized it, although she wrote back kindly to her gay fans.

The women in Renault’s Greek novels tend to be either bitches or helpless, reflecting popular male perceptions of women: both in ancient Greece and Renault’s own day. If we might argue she’s just being realistic, that ignores the fact one can write powerful women in historical novels and still keep it attitudinally accurate. June Rachuy Brindel, born in 1919, author of Ariadne and Phaedra, didn’t have the same problem, nor did Martha Rofheart, born in 1917, with My Name is Sappho. Brindel’s Ariadne is much more sympathetic than Renault’s (in The King Must Die).

Renault typically elevates (and identifies with) the “rational” male versus the “irrational” female. This isn’t just presenting how the Greeks viewed women; it reflects who she makes the heroes and villains in her books. Overall, “good” women are the compliant ones, and the compliant women are tertiary characters.

Women in earlier eras who were exceptional had to fight multiple layers of systemic misogyny. Some did feel they had to become honorary men in order to be taken seriously. I’d submit Renault bought into that, and it (unfortunately) shows in her fiction, as much as I admire other aspects of her novels.

So I think those are the three chief reasons we see women negatively portrayed in M/M Romance (or fiction more generally), despite being written by women authors.

------------------------------------

*Yeah, yeah, sometimes it’s such 2D, shallow, stereotypical presentation that I, as a reader, can conclude this author isn’t going to get any better. Also, the publication date might give me a clue. If I’m reading something published 50 years ago, casual misogyny or racism is probably not a surprise. If I don’t feel like dealing with that, I close the book and put it away.

But I do try to give the author a chance. I may skim ahead to see if things change, or at least suggest some sort of character development. This is even more the case with a series. Some series take a loooong view, and characters alter across several novels. Our instant-gratification world has made us impatient. Although by the same token, if one has to deal with racism or sexism constantly in the real world, one may not want to have to watch it unfold in a novel—even if it’s “fixed” later. If that’s you, put the book down and walk away. But I’d just suggest not writing a scathing review of a novel (or series) you haven’t finished. 😉

[drops-of-jupiter-on-a-ravenclaw]

Queer!Sam headcanon

So basically Sam always knew he was different from Dean in how he views people and relationships. In college, he learns about different labels and has a bit of a moment when he realizes that that's the thing he felt that made him different

He doesn't find the label that fits him best but he knows he is more than open to being in a relationship with a man. He's just content to have figured it out so he can feel more normal about it. Anyways, he has Jess and he loves her so it doesn't matter much.

Only that before he knows it, he doesn't have Jess anymore. She accepted and loved him and he doesn't think he'll ever be that happy again. So he's back on the road with his brother. His brother who doesn't know.

He still doesn't have a label and he is so caught up in his grief for Jess that saying anything to Dean would just be unnecessary and complicated. So he doesn't.

And they are on the road for a while. It's just easier for him to pick up women as it is, he tells himself. It doesn't help that he still doesn't have any experience with men and it feels kinda late to start now. (He knows Jess would call him a dumbass for thinking that way. He misses her.)

Anyways, he doesn't look stereotypically queer and only rarely gets a second look from some gay guys who must have outstanding gaydars. He always freezes before he can smile back.

Dean only notices on a subconscious level. He even makes fun of Sam by calling him gay for being too emotional. Sam almost laughs every time, he's not emotional cause he's gay. He's in touch with his emotions because he had to do a lot of soul-searching to figure out that he's gay. So yeah, Dean is spot on and oblivious at the same time because Sam doesn't fit his image of 'queer', he never really sees it.

This goes on for ages. Sam had already resigned himself to never saying anything about that part of himself when they get a case in the middle of nowhere and run into a guy Sam knows from College. Worse than that, a guy who was in the lgbt group he and Jess joined for a few meetings. A guy with dimples and a smile to die for who is smart enough to give Sam a run for his money.

Naturally, Dean won't stop teasing him for freezing up when the guy talks to them while simultaneously thinking it's probably just because Sam is embarrassed that he never actually finished law school.

Meanwhile the guy, let's call him Sebastian, is just delighted to see Sam again and won't stop talking to him, no flirting with him, Sam realizes. Dean is having a field day just watching the whole interaction and Sam is praying to the universe itself that Sebastian won't accidentally out him.

Thankfully the guy wasn't in Stanford for nothing and gets the hint. He doesn't out Sam, but he keeps flirting to keep him on edge. At first, Sam kind of resents him for what he represents.

They keep working the case, Sam wants to skip town as quickly as possible but he also kind of doesn't which is objectively worse. Dean won't leave him the fuck alone and he is really not having a good time anymore. Everything about him he had buried a while ago threatens to rise. They just keep running into Sebastian who is working on their case but as a lawyer. He suspects something is up and keeps trying to follow them.

Sam is torn between wanting to see him and wanting him gone, flattered by the attention and uncomfortable with it. Once, Sebastian catches him alone and asks him why he doesn't want to come out to Dean. He assures Sam that living as one's true self is always better, even if it's complicated sometimes. And Sam believes it because he knows it's true. He doesn't get a chance to answer because Dean interrupts them but now Sebastian is firmly on his mind and won't leave.

The case turns a little heated, law enforcement figures out that they aren't actually cops. Sebastian is there as they get questioned. He suspects that something weird is going on and manages to request a minute alone with the brothers.

He wants to hear them out on a gut feeling, even though he doesn't really trust them anymore. He also still flirts with Sam despite not having gotten a response so far. Only that now there is a certain bite behind it rather than the usual charm because he does think that Sam might be guilty despite not wanting to believe it.

Only that then, Sam has officially had enough for the week. He sits up straight and holds eye contact, and he flirts back.

Dean's jaw is practically on the floor at this point. Sebastian just gets kinda pissed off that after all his chances Sam chooses to take him up on it now of all times. It's enough to make him listen to Sam who swears they are innocent and that they can prove it. The Cop hears the last part as he walks back into the room and is visibly not impressed.

Sebastian believes him enough to call in a couple of favors though, he gets them out temporarily and swears he'll lock them back up if they can't prove their innocence but Sam just genuinely thanks him and doesn't react to any show of emotion, again.

They drive to the crime scene. The entire time Sam hears Dean's comments from the police station ring through his head. 'The one time you are the one to flirt us out of a situation and its with a dude. Seriously don't you feel kinda dirty?' He had said it jokingly enough, mostly trying to stifle his awe at Sam's sheer audacity and the ridiculousness of their situation.

But it hadn't made Sam feel bad. Like at all. The fact that Sebastian trusted him enough to give them that chance left him feeling warm and fuzzy even though the man's expression at the moment was anything but.

It had felt good to answer rather than just permit what was happening to him, it had felt good to see Dean's smug expression knocked off his face, it had felt good to say what he'd been thinking since they first ran into Sebastian. And if Sebastian looked just the slightest bit flustered in his surprise then that was just another bonus.

"Handcuffs look good on you, Sam. It's a shame the circumstances aren't different or I'd appreciate the view a lot more."

"Well, I'd say let's have dinner first but as you can see, I'm a bit tied up at the moment. If you get us out of here, however, I think you could enjoy more than just the view."

He wasn't entirely sure what had possessed him but he didn't regret it. Dean seemed to have decided it was a purely tactical move on Sam's part and Sam was okay with that. Though obviously it just added fuel to Deans teasing. His suggestive comments reaching new heights, no matter how murderous a glare Sam shoots him.

Finally, they get back to the crime scene but the monster is there too. They are just done explaining their proof to a skeptical Sebastian when it attacks again. Obviously, a desperate and bloody fight ensues. The thing attacks Sam and Sebastian shoots it, which just makes it angry. It turns to attack him instead, Dean tries to stop it and gets thrown around. At the very last second, Sam figures out what to do and kills the thing (by, idk, stabbing it with the bone of a previous victim?)

Whatever happened in the blur of the fight, by the end of it they all are thoroughly shaken. Sebastian got hurt pretty badly and Sam ends up half carrying him outside. Dean got away with a sprained ankle, he and Sam were both covered in scratches and bruises though. Naturally, Dean jokes right away that Sam should start thinking of ways to make what happened up to Sebastian, Sam just shoots him a look.

Once they had brought a safe distance between them and the chaos, Sebastian had started to feel better. He thanks them but he also demands further explanations, this time they give him full truth. He is also still clinging to Sam, going for more physical contact than necessary even though he stopped with the flirting. Sam just lets him and quietly figures that the guy won't be interested in him anymore after what happened. He lets himself enjoy the closeness while it lasts.

Dean is watching them with an unreadable expression but he doesn't call Sam out on it. After a while of just sitting in his car with them in the backseat, he starts to get uncomfortable with all of their staring. He asks Sebastian where they should drop him off and quickly makes it clear that he intends to skip town early the next morning. Sam feels dread settle over him.

They reach Sebastian's place and watch him get out. The car door had just closed behind him when Dean made one last joke, telling Sam to kiss his damsel in distress goodnight before they move on. Similar to how he felt in the police station, Sam has had enough. His jaw tenses and the last of his resolve melts away. Dean will just have to deal, he decides.

With one last glare at his brother, he gets out of the car in a split second and decides to do just that. He stops Sebastian just a few steps further down the sidewalk. His brain hasn't really caught up to what he is about to do just yet, stuck again on what Sebastian had said about being true to oneself and on how pretty the man's sharp features look under the streetlight as he glances up at Sam, eyes wide with surprise.

"I don't want to hide anymore," Sam blurts out. Quickly followed by, "I'm sorry I didn't flirt back sooner, for what it's worth, I really really wanted to." That earns him the biggest smile he could have hoped for and before he knows what's going on, he is being kissed by soft lips and his hands are pulling somebody elses' suit jacket closer to him. It's soft and desperate at the same time, they both still have blood on their faces and fear in their bones and it's perfect.

Just as Sam finds himself thinking how well worth the wait this was and how he never wants it to end, somebody presses down on their car's horn. Hard. He sighs and pulls away, already knowing it's Dean who is having his world view flipped. Sam refuses to feel bad.

Foreheads resting against one another, Sebastian asks him to come inside with him. Sam agrees.

Fighting the urge to flip off his brother as they approach the house, he shoots him a self-satisfied smirk over his shoulder instead. There's still time to face the consequences in the morning, he decides.

It's more than just a momentary attraction though, this man is somebody who understands Sam, who knew Jess. Weirdly enough, he thinks Jess would have approved.

He thinks about how Jess always swore bookclub was boring and went every week anyways. He thinks about how Sebastian did the same, up until Jess died he knows now, insisting that it was no fun without her sarcastic commentary. Sebastian didn't mention how he still can't pick up a copy of pride and prejudice without tearing up.

He thinks about how they had so much in common back at Stanford and how much his life has changed since then, but he hasn't changed. Not in the ways that had made them connect in the first place at least.

That's probably another reason for him to go with Sebastian. Had it just been anybody, he would have let it all slide in favor of not coming out to Dean but it's been too long since he felt a connection with anybody. Something tells him Sebastian feels the same and he wonders how the other mans life has changed, if he too sometimes felt like nobody knew him.

When you fight one apocalypse after the next, there is no need to discuss whether you prefer reading Hemmingway or Wilde. But that was what Sam has always wanted, the privilege and freedom of having genuine discussions about trivial things and essentially the time to care about them.

Of course Dean knew him, they knew each other, they'd go to the end of the world for each other. They just don't have particularly much in common beyond that. If he attempts to discuss books with Dean, he will get smacked over the head with the book he's talking about. And really he can't even blame Dean for not having the energy it takes to pretend to care. It's just how their lives are but Sam can still want something more.

He texts Dean to pick him up in the morning and quickly loses his jacket, eager to get his hands back on everything he knows he can't have.

It wasn't until almost fifteen minutes later as Sebastian was pushing him down on his mattress (with the lights on and in perfect view of the window, he realized the next morning) that he heard the rumble of the Impalas engine as it left the driveway behind. Then and there, he really didn't give a damn.

________________________________________

(Part two coming soon)

Part two will focus on Deans reaction and the morning after btw

I know there is only a really small fanbase for this kind of ficlet but damn I had fun writing it. No wonder it's much longer than it was supposed to be *sigh*. Feedback is more than welcome!

[normal-thoughts-official]

When/how do you think Ragnor and Catrina realized camille was being abusive towards Magnus?

Btw, I love u❤

fantastic question anon, i love YOU! i think that depends on a couple of factors. i think people who have already been or know people who have been in an abusive relationship are more likely to notice the warning signs, and/or to interpret stuff like the person pulling away as a sign of abuse. whereas people who haven't lived through it and aren't informed on it might not even realize what's going on until before it's over, and even be angry

so because we live in a hell world and catarina is a black woman, i think she is more likely to notice the warning signs than ragnor is, because black women are more likely to be in abusive relationships than white men. i'm not saying catarina herself has been in an abusive relationship necessarily but presumably her family has plenty of black women and she's also more likely to also be friends with other woc and marginalized ppl than ragnor is because again, hell world. so she has a higher chance of having been in a similar position before, although of course that's no set in stone rule and ragnor's circle of friends does seem to have a lot of marginalized ppl (and i hc him as aroace which makes him queer which puts him in an entirely different position than a straight white man and probably means something about the relationships he builds, but anyway) BUT my point is, i think catarina is more likely to notice earlier

i think ragnor is pretty perceptive tho, and also that they are pretty close and talk a lot, so i think once catarina noticed she would have talked to ragnor, and it wouldn't take ragnor long to realize that she was right

so okay when would they notice? i think that's always a slow process but i'm pretty sure their suspicions would first arise when magnus started to ditch them and stuff like parties and outings because of camille. first of all, i don't think that's like magnus at all, and second of all, there is an obvious difference between "i'm in the honeymoon phase" and "sorry, i don't think it's a good idea, my partner might not like it" or even "yeah! that sounds great!... just let me ask my partner about it". big difference

so that already has catarina in particular very wary of her because magnus is not the kind to ditch his friends because of a partner and the way he's acting about this is weird. so, she decides to keep an eye and maybe even put this to the test by making a surprise visit and invite him to a party like, right then doijadiosaj and she takes him out and she notices that magnus is Out Of It and he seems even a little... tense and scared and almost paranoid. and like, this is relatively at the beginning of their relationship so she wouldn't have been Horrible about it yet but at the beginning the person expresses enough control and discomfort with these things for you to be kind of uncomfortable even if you don't really realize that it's because you're Scared Of Hurting Your Parner

so THAT gets catarina really worried, because if magnus can't relax because he's afraid of camille's reaction, and worse, if he doesn't REALIZE that's why, that's the reddest a flag can get in such an early stage of their relationship. she tries to talk to magnus about it but magnus is the king of deflecting and basically waves her worries off. which just makes her more worried, but what is she supposed to do? she knows that pushing will only makes things worse and make it easier for camille to turn magnus against her and cut their ties. so, she lets it go and pretends that she buys his excuses. that's probably when she also talks to ragnor. ragnor probably had noticed that something was off but he hadn't really thought that it would be something super bad, and i think he'd still have his doubts about it, but well, he has that on the back of his mind now. and besides, he trusts catarina's judgement and he can admit when she is more qualified than him to assess something. it's why their relationship works

the first time they say anything is probably when magnus tells him about some fight they've had. probably because magnus told camille that he was upset about something she did - like idk, making fun of him in public about a topic that's sensitive to him. and like magnus wasn't even mad at her, he had never mentioned that whatever joke she made was off limits or related to a sensitive topic, he just wanted to communicate and let her know that it had hurt him, and she pretty much Exploded at him. and somehow turned it all around so it was magnus' fault for accusing her of trying to hurt him on purpose when that's not what magnus did, and now magnus pretty much wanted advice on how to apologize and let her know that he loves her

so catarina and ragnor try to subtly poke holes in her logic and show him that he has nothing to apologize for, without straight up being like "she's manipulating you" because Kids, That Does Not Go Well. and it makes magnus... heartbreakingly confused in that way abused people get when the logic they have been being shoved under shows cracks that would mean something too awful to even imagine

and catarina is a fucking wreck because at this point, she is sure of it and it makes her relive... so much trauma of other people she's seen go through that and lost and/or her own relationships if you want to go with that. and she doesn't want to lose magnus or have magnus go through that but she doesn't know what to do and she KNOWS that next step is magnus pulling away from her and ragnor no matter how careful she is

she probably gets the rare Comforting Hug from ragnor once magnus leaves and she also talks to dot and maybe elias? you know, their other friends. and they have a Catarina Comforting Day and hear her stories and cuddle and you know, try to make her feel better. and eventually they try to devise some kind of game plan so they can try to help magnus get out of this

it all goes to shit of course when they have the rare outing with camille, and camille is Obviously Refusing To Interact With Them If She Can Avoid It which is classic abuse thing - sure, i'll go see your friends, but you have to choose between interacting with them and me, so really you don't actually get to see with your friends because you'll feel bad that i'm isolated and eventually seeing your friends will feel either pointless or nervewracking cuz it feels like juggling your relationships. and if you want to see them without me i am going to act like you have something to hide and i'm a victim

anyway! so they notice that and they try to undermine that tactic by, you know, interacting with her a lot. so camille switches it up and tries to pick up a fight, and lo and behold, she succeeds - i know ragnor doesn't look like the kind of guy who loses his temper easily but i think when you push his buttons he is VERY bad at hiding it and half a snappy comment is all camille needs to lash out at him and play the victim. she's good

so that's when their plan gets fucked and everything goes to hell because then it's just too easy for camille to isolate magnus from his friends with really just a few tweaks to the previous tactic i mentioned - "are you really picking them over me, magnus? you're gonna keep hanging out with them when they are so rude to me, probably tell you all sorts of things about me, try to get you to break up with me? can't you see how manipulative they are? how they're trying to turn you against me? why do you insist so much on seeing them when you know how much that hurts me?"

and done

catarina and ragnor probably fight after that because god DAMN it, she fucking tOLD him that they had to be careful! and she's been swallowing all kinds of shitty comments from her but ragnor just had to fucking lose it at the first provocation, didn't he? and god knows how long it'd take for them to reach him after that, because camille is already preemptively making him think that they are trying to manipulate him to break up with her out of jealousy so he won't listen to anything they say directly. and she's right, of course, and ragnor is out of his depth and doesn't UNDERSTAND how these things go and how much this slip up will affect them in the future

i like to think that ragnor apologizes to her and catarina probably... has a breakdown because fuck she is worried and she is reliving way too many nightmares here. and ragnor is actually very tender and hugs her and apologizes and kisses her forehead and tells her that he's going to fix it. and he actually swallows his pride and apologizes to camille just to try and turn this thing around, but, well. the damage is done. and really, there is only so much friends can do when dealing with something like this. at the end of the day, they did all they could

and from then on they try their best to be there for him and pull magnus out of the camille-created isolation, but there's only so much they can do, and it's up to magnus to notice and get help to get rid with her. they'll always try to be his support system, but well. it's hard

and of course eventually magnus does get rid of her claws and catarina, ragnor, dot, elias etc., are all there for him when he does. and he probably feels guilty because he pushed them away but really they are just so RELIEVED that he's finally free of her. and him and catarina probably get a teary hug full of apologies for things that aren't their fault, and they try to make up for lost time by spending as much time as possible together now. especially because i think that it also hurts catarina to have her friends pull away - she obviously yearns for family, for closeness, i don't think she does well with people pulling away from her, she wants the kind of closeness that comes from routine and she used to have that with magnus and the rest of the immortal squad, you know? and magnus knows that, so, he tries to compensate

and eventually they start to heal their relationships, but magnus still has a long way to heal himself, but well. he'll get there. they are together and all

[comrade-meow]

A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?

People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.

Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.

How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.

So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?

Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.

The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.

The report is called 'Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth'. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. 'We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,' says the foreword.

As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and 'advocacy' across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares 'best practice' in 'lobbying' to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.

In the words of the report:

“'It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.'

You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to 'restrict' the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report.

Indeed, it suggests that 'states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.'

In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.

And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?

I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.

Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:

“'While cultural and political factors play a key role in the approach to be taken, there are certain techniques that emerge as being effective in progressing trans rights in the "good practice" countries.'

Among those techniques: 'Get ahead of the Government agenda.'

What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:

“'In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposal before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal than if they intervene after the government has already started to develop its own proposals.'

That will sound familiar to anyone who knows how a Commons select committee report in 2016, which adopted several positions from trans groups, was followed in 2017 by a UK government plan to adopt self-identification of legal gender. To a lot of people, that proposal, which emerged from Whitehall looking quite well-developed, came out of the blue.

Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: 'Tie your campaign to more popular reform.'

For example:

'In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.'

I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is 'difficult to win public support for' and best hidden behind the 'veil of protection' provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.

Another recommendation is even more revealing: 'Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.'

According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more 'exposure' this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:

'Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.

In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.' (Emphasis added).

Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.

I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.

A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a 'veil' and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.

I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a 'veil' and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.

I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.