#it's to allow people who have a nuanced relationship with their gender both in binary and nonbinary terms to live comfortably | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

through-a-critical-lens · 10 months ago

Text

Lack of Non-Binary Representation in Media

Despite 2SLGBTQIA+ representation being lightyears ahead of what it once was, there is one area which is still lacking – non-binary representation. This is evident in the show Hacks which airs on HBO.

While Hacks may be one of my favourite shows for it's biting sense of humour with a gooey heart hidden beneath the bickering, it is a perfect example of a piece of media that include plenty of representation for different sexualities, yet the non-binary community is forgotten.

Take a look at this video, where the cast and creators talk about an important scene between Deborah and Ava – the show's two main characters.

youtube

In this scene, Ava discusses her bisexuality and the nuance that comes along with that. She asks Deborah (who is presumed straight up to this point), "Have you ever considered, like, why you like men?" (Max, 2022, 1:56). Deborah responds by saying, "I don't understand that question. In my day, there were two options. You liked one or you liked the other" (Max, 2022, 2:00).

Not only is this comment erasing bisexuality, as Deborah is stating that you must choose one gender to stick with, but it is also blatant erasure of the non-binary community. By saying you need to pick one or the other, she is implying that there are two genders: men, and women. While I understand that this is Deborah's point of view and she is discussing her lived experience growing up in a different time – where being non-binary wasn't outwardly discussed – I believe that it was up to Ava's character to right this wrong. Ava shares her point of view on sexuality and explains to Deborah how it is a nuanced thing – there are more options than just gay or straight. But yet, even though Ava is immersed in queer culture and clearly identifies as a member of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, she is doing a major disservice to all the genderqueer members of this very community.

I find this very surprising for a show that includes a lot of representation of different sexualities. We have Ava, a bisexual woman, and Marcus, a gay man, both as a part of the ensemble cast and both having queer relationships in the show. The actor who plays Marcus, Carl Clemons-Hopkins, is actually non-binary in real life. As an actor I understand that the writing of the show is not their responsibility, and non-binary people do not have the onus on them to correct other people when it comes to their labels – it can get quite exhausting when your very identity is politicized, and perhaps you are the only non-binary person someone knows so they come to you for all the answers. But I do expect more from the writers, I expect them to be considerate of the actors they employ, and I certainly expect more from a show that already boasts so much representation.

I look to other shows that seamlessly integrate non-binary representation into their scripts, and I hope that in the future Hacks can do the same.

Take One Day at a Time for example. This show features a lesbian as one of the main characters, Elena, and her significant other, Syd. Syd uses they/them pronouns and identifies as non-binary. The show has never made this a big deal, yet turns it in to fun moments like the one below.

youtube

Elena and Syd try to find a non-gendered term to use, as Syd identifies as non-binary, and they eventually come to the conclusion that Syd is Elena's "syd-nificant other". This is a very cute moment that subtlely teaches people that are watching, hey, not everyone falls under the gender binary and identifies as either a man or a woman.

I believe shows like One Day at a Time are helping to change the world, in a good way. Shows like these can positively impact the people watching them, and I think about this particularly when it comes to my students. Having taught in a small town, I think that watching a show like this would help my students broaden their horizons, allowing them to appreciate people from diverse backgrounds. It may also help a student who identifies as non-binary, but may not be comfortable saying it aloud yet, feel seen.

When "many students’ pronouns (are) neither acknowledged nor used by classmates or educators" (Shatila et al., 2021, p. 4) students can feel disheartened. This is why I always start my year off with a student survey, where there is a voluntary space for pronouns. I want to ensure each student feels welcome and comfortable in my class, but I also don't want them to feel forced to share their pronouns if they aren't comfortable.

As Adelman et al. (2022) state, "Gen Z is...proving to readily embrace identities outside of fixed gender binaries" (p. 194). I believe shows like One Day at a Time are proving that my generation are ready for a change, and we aren't going to sit around while certain media ignore the non-binary community.

References

Adelman, M., Nonnenmacher, S., Borman, B., Kosciw, J. G. (2022). Gen Z GSAs: Trans-Affirming and Racially Inclusive Gender-Sexuality Alliances in Secondary Schools. Teachers College Record, 124(8), pp.192-219.

Shatila, A. L., Kneedler, S. J., Chen, F. Y. (2021). Promoting Inclusive Practice for Trans and Nonbinary Students. Communiqué, 49(6), pp. 4-9.

#one day at a time #hacks #gender #non binary #Youtube

1 note · View note

cowboyjen68 · 3 years ago

Note

Hi Jen, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on transmasc butch lesbians? I’m a lesbian and I take testosterone, have top surgery, and use he/him pronouns because it makes me feel more comfortable in my body not to be perceived as a cis woman, and rather somewhere in between instead. I’m definitely not a man but sometimes I question if I’m allowed in butch spaces. Do you know of any older butches like this?

My experience with lesbians who use or decided to use trans masc either interchangeably or in conjunction with butch in real life are younger, under 30 and usually early 20's. On line I have a few "friends" (lesbians who I have formed a connection with only via DM's and messages on tiktok or instagram) who are older, most late 30's to late 40's who are now using trans masc and on some type of transitional path, either T or surgery. The older ones are all sort of newly on the path, perhaps the last 4 years. And all but a scant few use trans masc but do not seem to view it as much different than butch or masc. I can’t say for sure, I don’t ask because I don’t really see it is my business since we aren’t close friends.

No one is my real life older friend circles uses anything but butch but some don't feel an attachment to the word so they don't use it at all. When I ask my older lesbian friends, butch or not, they seem to think trans masc is “butch with intervention or additives”. NOT my words. Several said similar things.

Younger butch friends seem a bit more able to see the nuance of trans masc vs butch or just masc but many of them come from a space where they used to ID as some flavor of trans or non binary and don’t any more so they have a better grasp.

In my lesbian circles, older, middle or younger, in real life, as in the friends I see, hang out with and have connections to, all are very connected to being a woman and loving the comradarie and friendships that sort of relatibilty affords. Not that they always were always comfortable with womanhood, that is not the case. Many, especially butches, struggled at some point with confiusion between their internal self, public and societal opinions and the perceptions of others. Most of us definitely share stories of lamenting the onset of being seen as a woman by men or even by other women because it felt weird to go from non gendered childhood or tomboy to woman. The segue was not smooth or easy.

A few of my younger friends share their lives, both romantically or friendshipwise, with trans masc who are either on T or plan to be. None that I know of having had any surgical intervention, but again.. not really something I would ask or be privy to.

I don’t think many of the lesbians I know would reject a trans masc lesbian from a friend circle because of that single thing. Personality, compatibilty, relateablity etc might be a factor but that holds true with any relationship between people.

I can tell you this. I know a few trans masc lesbians who are comfortable being perceived as a woman and referred to as such in closed circles of trusted women but no so in public or mixed company.

I can’t speak for all butch spaces. Obviously every group or event is allowed to set their own boundaries and purpose and some will only want those who are firmly women. Others will be quite open. But my advice is to build one on one trusted relationships with younger AND older lesbians who then form your circle of support. Pretty soon you find you are making your own space and they are there to love you just as you are.

Butch lesbians, of all ages, will understand you just a tad more than others. Seek that understanding and allow for questions of good intent. Older butches can lead the way to places you will find acceptance even if they aren’t quite sure about “trans masc” and what it means to you.

My DM’s are open. Always

#lesbian #butch #trans masc

56 notes · View notes

antiterf · 2 years ago

Text

I saw a terf upload a trans woman's tictoc to make fun of what they said, but what they commented was so oblivious to the struggle that plenty of women go through and the video itself can actually bring nuanced discussion so uh... separate post so the adults can speak.

So here's the tictoc, basically they talk about how putting on makeup, doing skincare, getting dressed, etc is both a pain and affirming. They ask if any other trans people in general go through this.

For me, not so much anymore. Before it was a bit of a process because I needed to hide my hips and my chest, figure out how long to wear a binder, when can I take it off, should I layer instead, should I pack, etc. Now after being on T for a while, a lot of gender affirmation I get is my deep yawn after I roll out of bed and the shirt that's curled up a bit and shows my body hair. Shaving my face is annoying but it's nothing compared to shaving my legs or body. I rarely bind even though I haven't had top surgery because while it bothers me a bit, binding sucks and men can have boobs. And I do take a bit long to get ready bit that's because of two skin conditions and isn't gender related.

But I'm a trans man that presents as masc or gender neutral. Men aren't as expected to take a long time to have the acceptable appearance as men. There's a certain type of masculinity in lazy appearance alone.

So while what they talk about is related to being trans, it's also related to our misogynistic culture. Women can be seen as masc simply for not spending hours doing those things.

And having something be gender affirming to us trans people is generally seen as positive, but I'm sure a lot of us notice that society has an influence on that. Being able to dress in a tuxedo for prom was gender affirming to me, but we can all recognize that's from the expectation of men to wear that. Wearing a dress or skirt would've been more upsetting, but I know that men should be allowed to do that without being seen as any less of a man.

As trans people we still take joy in these little things because they're not granted to us the way they're granted to gender conforming cis people. I can't say for sure with nb people, but us binary trans people want to be included in the boxes of man and woman, and its relieving to get that after being denied. We can learn the general lines of what to do and what not to do, and feel rewarded for following them (may be specific to allistics).

But those of us who know gender roles and know how society influences gender, know that its ultimately fucked up.

Basically, between the expectations for women being pushed hard in society, and trans peoples relationships to being denied gender identity, that's their pain in the ass gender affirmation.

#notaterftip #not sarcasm

44 notes · View notes

pridepages · 3 years ago

Text

Playing It Close: Aces Wild

I just finished Aces Wild by Amanda Dewitt. I have thoughts...

Here there be spoilers!

Ever thought a heist movie would be better without pesky, horny subplots? You’re absolutely right. Allow me to introduce you to Amanda Dewitt’s Aces Wild.

Aces features an ensemble of asexual internet friends--loosely dubbing themselves a support group--who have never met in real life. That is, until Jack Shannon invites them to join him in Las Vegas where the Shannon family’s criminal empire is falling to pieces. The greatest love in Jack’s life is his family legacy: The Golden Age casino. With a rival owner betraying Jack’s mother to the police, Jack faces the loss of both his family and his future. Determined to save his world, Jack recruits his aces to join him in a heist that will take them to the inner workings of the rival casino owner’s empire in the hopes of finding evidence that will turn the tables and put the Shannons back on top.

It’s wildly, hilariously improbable. And let’s be clear: Jack’s willingness to flout the law and endanger his friends casts him as an absolute antihero. But that’s always half the fun. The other half is watching the disaster that is the aces encountering each other IRL.

Internet friendships can be a lifesaving grace for queer people today. Jack recalls the process of discovering his own identity online: “It’s very easy to lie about who you are on the internet. But sometimes the people on the other side of the screen are who you need to figure out who you are in the first place.” Discovering the word ‘asexual’ on a forum, Jack realizes that there are people out there that understand what it is to feel “like a puzzle, mostly put together but with a piece missing, waiting to be filled..the word ‘asexual’ took the puzzle piece and turned it, letting it click into place where before it’d been better to just leave the space empty. I wasn’t broken. I wasn’t empty. I wasn’t nothing at all. Just a little differently shaped.”

The thing about asexuality that we learn through Jack and his crew is that it very much is its own spectrum. How we do or do not experience sexual attraction impacts how we relate to our own gender and other people’s. The complexity of relationships between gender and sexuality under the ace umbrella are seen here in variety: Gabe is aroace, and may not be cis. Remy is non-binary and ace. And we learn that just because someone’s sexuality is ‘nope’ doesn’t mean that coming out is any easier. “It took me a long time to figure out who I was. And way longer to be ok with it,” says Gabe who as an aroace feels “functionally invisible in a world where everything seemed built around settling down with a romantic partner.” It can be isolating, and that hurt, that frustration in being misunderstood can be misdirected into gatekeeping. Gabe runs afoul of fellow ace Lucky, accusing her of being too young to ‘know for sure’ that she is ace. Accusations like that can make baby queers want to play close to the vest. Why share if someday you may have to discard an identity that no longer suits? But as Jack himself helpfully reminds us: “Sexuality can be fluid, or at the very least a journey, not to mention personal. If someone said they were ace or gay or whatever, you believed them. Assuming that you were straight until you ‘knew for sure’ only implied that it was better to be straight until you had no other choice.”

As Jack builds a group of people who understand the challenges of navigating the world as ace, he builds his community. But operating only through screens allowed them all to build relationships on foundations of carefully curated information. Getting to know his friends without the barriers between each other leaves poor Jack feeling raw, vulnerable, and exposed. And it also forces him to confront some of the nuances of his particular experience of asexuality: “it was complicated in ways that I was just figuring out. Just because you didn’t experience sexual attraction didn’t mean you didn’t experience romantic feelings.” And, as it turns out, as close as Jack likes to hold his cards...it turns out he has no emotional pokerface. Gabe is quick to pick up--and call out--Jack’s “big, squishy crush” on Remy. (Jack’s absolute conviction that he is cool, aloof and unreadable when he is in fact an obvious disaster is an ongoing theme, bless him.)

What I appreciated most about Jack’s emotional arc and growth as a character was that he both learns how to be more honest with people without feeling the pressure of having to show his entire hand. His friendships with his fellow wild aces Gabe, Remy, Lucky, and Georgia all grow closer. He even learns how to let his sisters into his life. With one caveat: Jack never comes out.

While of course the fellow aces know and see each other, Jack ultimately makes the decision that now is not the time to be open about his identity with anyone else. When asked by Kerry how the gang knows each other, Jack concludes “it wasn’t my place to out them, even if I was reasonably sure Kerry wouldn’t care. For that matter, I wasn’t really interested in outing myself either. I had enough on my plate without having to break out the ‘asexuality spectrum and what it means’ presentation in the middle of the PizzaDome.”

Queer people can and do have honest and fulfilling relationships with people that don’t involve disclosing our identities. It’s not a lie. It’s not hiding. It’s just deciding that not everyone gets to see every card you hold. How you play the hand you’re dealt is up to you--as long as you promise not to fold.

#aces wild #amanda dewitt #aromantic #asexual #nonbinary #lgbt reads #queer lit

3 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 4 years ago

Note

What do you think about the possible excommunication of Natasha Helfer?

Before this week, the only thing I knew about Natasha Helfer is I’d read an article she’d written about masturbation being part of normal sexual development, and she doesn’t see it as sinful. I agree with her.

Because of the publicity surrounding her summons to a membership council, I now know much more about her.

She made a video about being summoned to a membership council scheduled for April 18th. For starters, a stake where she hasn’t lived since 2019 has decided to do this, which seems strange to me.

Here’s the things the summons letter cites as “misconduct”:

Support for same-sex marriage

Teaching that masturbation is part of a normative sexual-development journey and should not be seen as “sin” or as a reason to keep our youth from being considered worthy to serve or church activities

Her stances on sexually-explicit materials, aka pornography (she believes this is because she educates about using a values model vs an addiction model in the treatment of such concerns)

She’s been critical of Church leaders

Concerns she has encouraged people to leave the Church

—————————

I went to section 32.6 of the General Handbook which lists the things someone may face a membership council. Frankly, the things listed in the letter sent to Natasha Helfer are not found in the Handbook.

I suppose these could fit under the charge of “Apostasy,” because she publicly declares opinions different from the Church. Here’s what the Handbook says constitutes apostasy:

Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders

Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members

Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

—————————

Natasha Helfer is a well-known LDS marriage counselor and certified sex therapist in Utah. She’s written several articles that have been widely read. She’s been a recurring guest on the Mormon Mental Health podcast, Mormon Matters and appeared on many other podcasts.

She’s particularly sought out because of her training & expertise and her experiences in helping members of the Church overcome their sense of shame regarding sexuality.

As a marriage counselor, she helps couples where one or both goes through a faith crisis, she says she doesn’t encourage anyone to leave the Church but honors their choices and helps them work through their thoughts & feelings, and also the effect it has on their marriage.

Because of the news about her being summoned for a membership council, I’ve learned more about her positions. Here’s a list of some of the things I’ve seen in her writing:

Sex Ed in Utah public schools should be comprehensive and accurate

Sexual assault is a crime & should be talked about as such

The LDS Church should know how to address sexual misconduct and sexual assault much better than it currently does

We should embrace and minister to our trangender neighbors, not fear them and make church difficult for them

Excommunication is cruel and unusual punishment which often is a traumatic experience used by the Church to silence its critics

Service Missions should be setup to be meaningful and seen as equal to proselyting missions

LGBTQ+ members should be affirmed and included in their faith community

LDS teachings & messages to LGBTQ+ members is akin to bullying and has real-world consequences on their mental health & lives

Fear of the BYU Honor Code actually causes many to not seek repentance for fear of academic punishment

The Church teaching that only certain families that fit the mold will get to enjoy the afterlife together is harmful. Mormon Heaven = Sad Heaven. She lists many groups who are harmed by this teaching, including: mixed-faith families, LGBTQ+ individuals & their families, families where someone struggles with addiction, single-parent families, families trying to deal with abuse & trauma, families dealing with mental health conditions such as bi-polar or impulse-control, family survivors of someone who died by suicide

When the Church rescinded the policy of exclusion against gay couples and their children, it should have been accompanied by an apology, not just a brief statement of the announcement with no explanation for the change

Social media isn’t the problem, how we use it is. If we’re keeping in touch with family & friends with whom we otherwise wouldn’t because of distance, accessing support you wouldn’t find in your area, obtaining ideas & resources, these are good. Comparing ourselves to others’ “best selves”, debating others, writing mean comments and such are not helpful. Too often people behave differently online than they do in person

We should wish people well when they leave our church and faith community and wish them well on their spiritual journey. We do a good job at celebrating newcomers even though many of them had to say goodbye to something in order to say hello to us

We need to speak of abortion more than as if anyone who gets one is evil. Even the Church’s position makes room for abortion in certain circumstances and we should be more nuanced in how we speak of it

Biological sex and gender are not binary. This may be LDS doctrine but the sciences of Biology and Psychology say otherwise

She supported the law ending conversion therapy in Utah of LGBTQ+ people

Racism is a public health emergency in the USA, racism is more than hate, it’s in our systems. It’s in our scriptures, our folklore, our culture, our history

Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. It’s acceptance and moving forward

She also has many articles & podcasts about improving marriage relationships, how to talk with your child about sex, tips for a mixed-faith marriage and similar topics directly related to her job as a marriage counselor and sex therapist.

I’m very impressed, from what I see. She is a tremendous force for good in our LDS community. We need people willing to speak the truth.

—————————

Here’s two articles that especially impressed me.

First is one is about masturbation, how it’s a legitimate way to meet one’s needs and some of the many benefits associated with sexual release.

Second is one about pornography, the LDS culture gives pornography more power than it deserves with our blanket bans, secrecy & shaming, and calling virtually all porn viewing an addiction.

—————————

Frankly, based on what I post on my blog, I could be charged with all the same things that Natasha Helfer is being charged with.

Do I support same-sex marriage? Yes. Absolutely.

Do I think masturbation is a sin? No, and I think many Church websites, publications, and the General Handbook back up this view.

Is masturbation a normal part of sexual development? Yes. And it has many benefits for individuals, especially singles like me, and even within a marriage

Is porn always wrong? I definitely can think of ways porn can be included inside a healthy marriage, perhaps as a way to help a partner get “in the mood,” or for someone with a higher libido to use along with masturbation, as part of foreplay, or even getting some ideas to spice up their love life.

Have I been critical of Church leaders? You betcha. I think they’re wrong on LGBTQ+ topics and I say so.

Do I encourage people to leave the Church? I don’t view myself this way, although I wouldn’t say that I try to get them to stay, either. It’s their path to walk. I know most LGBTQ+ people leave the Church, it’s the way our journeys normally go. I feel God has told me it’s fine for me to leave this church, so in no way do I think poorly of people who leave. This church isn’t ready for queer people and I don’t think God requires us to remain some place that harms us.

My understanding is we’re allowed to have beliefs that differ from the Church, as long as we’re not recruiting people to our side. Simply sharing your opinion or some differences in how you view things shouldn’t be something we can be punished for.

I suppose the difference between her and me is she’s seen as a high-profile individual and she’s using her credentials to give weight to her opinions, and I’m just some rando gay guy who has a blog.

#natasha helfer #long post

87 notes · View notes

constablegoo · 4 years ago

Text

@astralglam filed a report .

mint: does your muse view themself as virtuous & moral? what do these words mean to them?

OHOHO. hey hi ily. this is, of course, one of odo’s deepest ongoing battles, and the moment he stops questioning it is the moment he becomes a founder.

the founders grant themselves god status. GOD! status. they just reach out and pluck it. Within their range of power, the founders become unquestionably Just and Virtuous and Moral, their Word becomes Law, it becomes “the way things are” and “fact” and they create their own reality stemming from thousands of years of intense xenophobia. they’re above it all. gods don’t make mistakes, right? sure, maybe changelings were hunted and feared ages ago but they still fear it, and that drive for Order and Control over the galaxy is now encoded into their genes and they place a companion structure into the genes of every other species they control, subjugating them to the founders’ own cozy position as Gods, or-- ‘gods’. the founder (i rly don’t like saying “female” founder so she’s THE Founder. she speaks for the link.) makes it quite clear on many occasions that the founders are not here to negotiate. they fully intend to control EVERYTHING at any cost. it is absolutely chilling when she cuts garak down with: “they’re dead. you’re dead. cardassia is dead.” and draws the line between the dominion and everyone else miles deep into the sand.

that same genetic coding is one of the first semi-concrete things odo comes to understand about himself and, horribly, he’s landed into conditions under the occupation that very easily could have taken advantage of a less meticulous or stubborn changeling. no, odo says initially (and incorrectly), i am not bajoran** and i am not cardassian and i stand apart from either side of this conflict and so i am bound to PURE Virtue and Morality because of it. he can’t be bribed or bought or won over, and he won’t allow for anything less than a kind of incorruptibility. this effectively wins him allies (and enemies) on both sides, however -- that’s just not how the universe works. the truth of it is that no matter how much he tells himself he is not a part of their regime, his working with the cardassians makes him a collaborator in that he has then recognized their authority and ultimately upheld their legitimacy, even if he never agreed with the cause, even if he was also on some level a casualty of it. at some point when he moves past ‘contract’ investigation and begins to work permanently, he falls into the trap of thinking Order is the same thing as Justice... huge yikes. in that moment he becomes a true and apathetic villain, but he’s subsequently haunted by the resulting execution of innocents. it shakes something up in him. years pass and he still wonders, what other mistakes has he made? what other less direct consequences of his ‘neutral’ arbitration exist? he (and everyone around him) has to live without really knowing, and it’s a constant reminder to him of the power he holds and it informs his understanding of what Real (and imperfect) Justice Means.

**sidenote but later in s7 he introduces himself as ‘from bajor’ and AAAAAA. its good. very good. yeah, you’re bajoran, odo. he gets it now.

Mirror odo is really the ultimate example of an odo having taken those instincts to extremes in an environment that rewarded him for them -- there is no guilt there, and even a sadistic kind of pleasure in it. i’d argue that gaia!odo is another, less extreme example of an odo who’s been alone too long and lost sight of things when he single-mindedly (and against kira’s wishes) chooses her (one person) over 8000. like holy shit? NOT ok? uhhuhhhhfff. anyway. very fortunately, neither of these are OUR odo, but act as great foils to reflect on the worst (bastard cop) qualities or potential qualities of our goo pushed to highly visible extremes, which star trek just loves to do all the time.

but regular/prime odo isnt exactly a rule-follower, either. throughout his life, he frequently takes things into his own hands, uses his abilities to his advantage, spies, wiretaps, eavesdrops, and yes, harasses [quark] sometimes -- he develops his own set of values and personal rules and follows them; even starfleet comes in wary of him and how he operates and hes on thin ice. but because of possibly his most redeeming quality, odo is able to adapt those self-ordained values toward something increasingly honest: for how rigid he can be in personality, he is HIGHLY influenced by the world around him, listens hard to what his friends and allies have to say and adapts that feedback; this allows him to evolve and grow and take important matters to heart. he becomes more flexible and better able to hold onto what’s really most important after locking into a decision, because above all else, he is passionately committed to doing the Right Thing. he PLEADS with himself in things past, “your job is to find the truth, not obtain convictions.” by his tendency to push back against what is laid down as ‘law’ (something he becomes more and more aware of and effective at doing) as not always being good or right, or necessarily even creating Order (the thing he’s driven genetically to want), he prepares himself to challenge the most deadly voice of authority -- that of his own people.

so... yes and no. odo’s role and persona as ‘your average security chief’ might dictate that he be virtuous and moral, but he so obviously can’t fit the same exact mold as others in his position -- he has these insane abilities and this mind-consuming nature and it requires he tread with extra care, but he also has a potential for more adaptive, more nuanced morality. he has to build up his own definitions to the words, constantly examine and tease and test them, or else he risks straying too far from what he really wants to achieve -- harmony, honest justice. he has to accept that he’s a part of the system he operates in (not, in fact, alone or isolated! something he actually wants), and know that he is not exempt from making the wrong choice, just like anybody else.

carnation: what is your muse’s relationship with their gender? how do they express or not express this relationship?

ODO AND GENDER!!! i love odo and gender. let’s take this one step at a time. he starts out as an amorphous glob -- he has no gender. there’s no basis for assignment, no culture of difference, and all the goos are goo. odo takes on the shape of the first living thing he sees / the thing he sees most frequently: dr mora. he adopts an image of masculinity from mora and he adopts the hair. that’s about it, and it’s pretty much arbitrary. (maybe the hair is simple enough for his skills, too?) the next people odo meets are also these very masculine, military, cardassian leaders, so again -- this is all he knows! this is neutrality. i imagine it takes him some time to work out what the differences in gender are, and sex, and orientation, romantic vs sexual stuff, all of that. it’s all got cultural baggage he knows nothing about and does not experience, and he’s also dealing with multiple, clashing cultures to boot. since he doesnt have any strong inherent leaning, he simply opts out. he/him becomes his default because thats where he started, thats what he’s been able to successfully present and how people know him, and, terrifyingly, under cardassian rule, it probably offered a bit of safety, too, which was obviously something he needed at the time.

way way way way way down the line in season seven, odo asks kira to (paraphrasing) look at me. what do you see? [i see you.] but this is NOT me, this is only a shape ive assumed in order to fit in. she says, yes, i know that. but this is who you have chosen to be. “a man. a good and honest man.” (i knowww shes not really talking abt gender here BUT) its hard as a trans person not to read the metaphor. he’s chosen to express SOMETHING. he’s chosen something other than what he was given (neutrality) and although he doesnt personally buy into what ‘masculinity’ “should be” (ie the ferengi, smh) / would certainly not argue he doesnt feel non-binary, this is how he has presented all his life, its how hes been treated, and it is what he has chosen to adhere to. there’s a choice in that, kira’s right, and now it reflects something about him.

parallel this, i’ll mention the “female” founder again bc of course there is no discernable reason for her to have a gender -- other than to appeal (im not talking sexually here although there’s,, obviously weird shit happening with the link... yike) to odo in the sense that until that point odo has lived with “gendered” individuals and, i think importantly, kira is with them when they first meet. i think its safe to say the founder saw her, figured she was a friend/ally to odo or at least familiar to him, and took her general representation to appeal as a friend/ally.

otherwise... why, honestly? the founder’s got NO love of humanoids lmao why would she bother.

anyway i’d like to see odo experiment a bit. because when hes safe, he can!! aside from his own doubts and insecurities about shapeshifting, at some point he really has no reason not to, at least a little bit. really, it should just be another thing to practice, much like becoming a convincing rock or a leaf, its just that there are other significances in the cultures around him. i’d just like to see him loosen up a little. have fun. grow ur hair out a bit, odo, why are u still looking like ur terrible dad.

#astralglam #geez ok anyone who reads these are gods #thanks for letting me let some frogs out of my brain #like a lot of frogs #⌀ EVERY SIXTEEN HOURS I TURN INTO A LIQUID! [ about. ]#⌀ YOU HAVE NO SECRETS FROM ME. [ asks. ]#long post /#long as hell post /#sorry hopefully everyones asleep i dont wanna do readmore bc im a nuisance asjdfa

5 notes · View notes

silverjirachi · 5 years ago

Note

Do u rly 100% believe ur not a woman? If u dont mind sharing how did u figure that out? How can u separate urself from ur body like that? We r our bodies! I cant wrap my mind around it even tho I have dysphoria. Also women are the most oppressed class of people 2 this day so it seems really really stupid 2 let our oppressors claim womanhood. We r all born from vaginas. How do people ignore history & reality? Is pretending ur not who u r a coping mechanism? Wouldnt accepting ur body b healthier?

Hi there! I considered not answering this because I don’t want to fan flames or stir discourse because I don’t want other people to get wrapped up into something that is 100% about me. I try really hard to cultivate a positive, lighthearted environment in all of my online presences. But honestly your ask isn’t worded hatefully, and I think what I have to say is important and might help someone else, so I’m going to answer it. But I probably won’t answer anything else and there better not be any funny business in these notes. If there is, I would like to politely ask people not to engage with it. Please leave me, and everyone else in these notes, alone. I am writing this for me, to answer your question about me, and I’m writing this in case there’s a baby enby out there who is exactly like me who who needs to read this today.

With that disclaimer aside...,

Yes, I really do 100% believe I am not a woman. I unfortunately cannot easily explain how without falling into the traps of words like masculinity and femininity. But it’s the same as any other identity. How do you know you are a woman? Is it something that you identify with, feel a personal relationship with? Or does it ultimately only come from your body alone, and you feel absolutely no connotations or connections to it whatsoever? Did it come to you through your body? I know people who 100% identify with their assigned gender, but can’t really articulate how or why without falling into these same binaries. And I know people who 100% DON’T identify with their assigned gender and cannot truly articulate how or why. It doesn’t even have a lot to do with masculinity or femininity. A lot of our language just doesn’t have the words to describe such an internal experience.

It is true that there is a very specific type of oppression that comes with being born in a female body- or a body that would otherwise assign you female at birth. From what I can tell, that’s what a lot of this really relies on. I don’t think anyone who is AFAB and nonbinary or ftm is really denying that, at least not from my experience. I’m sure they’re out there. But we, by and large, HAVE had the experience of discrimination in some way or another because of our “femaleness-” our ASSIGNED femaleness. (Something that got thrown at me was the idea of female socialization- it’s true, I was socialized as a female bc that’s what my body “looked” like and that’s just what our society assumes). But just as there is a very specific kind of oppression that goes along with being AFAB, there is also a very specific kind of oppression that goes along with being mtf, and there is a very specific type of oppression that goes along with being a poc and any of those other categories. That’s at the core of intersectionality. Different parts of our identities interact with each other in different ways. People experience oppression and privilege in different ways and at different times depending on where they fall in this mix of race/class/gender/ability etc.

I also have body dysphoria, and it’s true our bodies can define a lot of our human experience (after all if I didn’t have a body I wouldn’t have dysphoria, right?? Godddd what a life). But also because I have dysphoria, I do not think that our bodies should be the defining characteristic of our identities. Bodies and presentation can cause a lot of our social interactions- including oppression- but I think to say woman and woman’s experience = female body is quite a limited summary of the issue with little nuance, and it’s also quite limiting with the way our society is changing. This is why I heavily prefer terms like assigned female at birth. This can imply that such a person may have had a socially female experience (like me) in part due to their body, and thus was socially assigned to be a female, but just... also isnt a woman for some reason or another.

I also think that what we strive to do is not to ignore history (I think very few people are denying the way women have been treated in history, and are still treated to this day) but we hope to build from it. I think that’s why feminism and gender studies get lumped together. A lot of feminist activists/scholars (many were both at the same time) led our current strides into gender constructivism. I studied a lot of gender essentialism when I started my thesis, and to be honest, I saw the point behind it in the context of the time, but we’ve shifted in understanding and context since then.

And, in full disclosure, at the start of this whole adventure, (and i am SURE this will be used against me) I really did identify with being a woman. I thought it was awesome to have the body I had and when I started witchcraft I did actually fall into that really easy trap of tying the female experience to magic. (Honestly because I HATED my body and looking back that was probably a way to cope with DYSPHORIA and not the other way around). And isn’t inherently harmful to have a working magical relationship with your body like that, but it is harmful when you think and say that’s the only way people can exist and the only way people can be magical. But over time, I just started to change. Nothing traumatic happened, I’ve been incredibly fortunate and privileged my entire life, it’s not a coping mechanism, I just started to identify with womanhood less and less, for no real particular reason- nothing about me personality or preference-wise changed. Just my own internal view of myself.

I also got the words for gender euphoria. And I noticed more and more that, if I was being honest with myself, that that was always how I had truly felt. While it’s true gender roles shouldn’t exist, just like any other role or label, it’s different when someone chooses that role for themselves versus when they have it thrust upon them. As a child, like many other AFAB children, I had the idea of womanhood thrust upon me, with all the roles and stereotypes that went along with it. It’s fucked up in the first place, don’t get me wrong, but I knew people who embraced these fullheartedly, I knew people who didn’t. But some people who didn’t still identified with womanhood, others became ftm, others became mtf. I had “woman” thrust upon me, didn’t identify with it, rebelled against it, tried to rationalize it by accepting that I could be a “woman” without falling into gender stereotypes because there is no ONE correct way to be a woman (which there ISN’T), still didn’t feel right, did a full 180 and started buying pink lingerie and worshipped Aphrodite, that worked for a while and was overall a positive experience that helped me hate myself a little less, but at the end of the day, no matter what I did, I still did not identify as a woman. What does happen to me, however? I get a burst of euphoria when I am called a boy. That makes me feel like I’m being really seen. I actually resonate with that after years of not resonating at all with womanhood no matter how I sliced it, and that’s why it feels so fucking good. I tried to identify as a woman. Believe me, I tried like all fucking hell. Even though my presentation is still read as mostly female (I would disagree strongly with it but alas society and their fucking gender roles), I am quite the feminine boy-something to me, and I don’t have to justify that to anyone.

So TL;DR no it’s not a coping mechanism, I have lived a life full of very accepting, open-minded people and I won’t deny that I have that privilege, but in spite of that i STILL did not view myself as a woman, no matter how hard I tried. I’ve actually generally accepted my body except on the days my dysphoria makes me want to throw my boobs across the room, I don’t think it’s denying history if we’re building from it, gender roles are fucked up. I recognize that my experience being AFAB- and others who are AFAB- comes along with a particular type of oppression, but that’s why I prefer the term AFAB because it indicates the experience you’re talking about while also leaving it open to considering other experiences like my own and the experiences of other trans and nb folks. In a few years AFAB might be outdated as a term and then we’ll find more terms to help figure this whole mess out.

TL;DR;DR no it’s not a coping mechanism and anyone is welcome to think that this is simply part of the horrible fallout of female socialization, and anyone is welcome to think that i’m mentally ill for identifying like this. people can think or say all they want about me but it won’t change the fact that I’m a boy-something and it won’t change all the years I struggled trying to figure that out.

Thank you for allowing me to write this all out, I think I really needed to. This is something that had been floating in my brain forever, and explaining it all to you actually made my thoughts that much clearer.

Now everyone who sees this- please respect my wishes and please don’t clown in these notes if it spreads. I’m tired enough about this as it is today. I’m tired enough about fucking gender as it is. We’re all fucking tired. What I’ve shared today is about me and me alone and I want to keep it that way.

#gender stuff #discourse #seriously i know people are gonna comment on this but i wanted to share it bc i thought it was important to say #but i REALLY don't want other people wrapped up in MY OWN issues and identity #anon #asks

29 notes · View notes

recentanimenews · 5 years ago

Text

Sympathy for the Devilman: The Legacy of Go Nagai's Magnum Opus

I've always had a thing for villains. Unlike my brothers, as a kid I'd always choose the "bad guy" action figures. If they went for the ninja turtle Leonardo, then I'd go for the uber-buff Super Shredder. I personally identified with villainy because of how it connected to the idea of "evil." I personally see evil as a generalized concept that expresses antagonism toward violent and dominant societal structures. Due to a coercive religious upbringing, I now see how my younger self unconsciously found ideologically-oppositional comfort in "evil" art. This eventually led me to one of my most cherished pieces of fiction: Devilman.

Devilman has left an indelible mark on manga and anime creators over the last few decades, inspiring major industry heavyweights such as Hideaki Anno, Kentaro Miura, and Kazuki Nakashima. The series was created by Go Nagai, a manga auteur also responsible for Mazinger Z, Cutie Honey, and Violence Jack (which is a Devilman sequel). Although Devilman retains much of the explicitness native to Go Nagai's usual fare, it uses these graphic elements uniquely to deliver a haunting, unforgettable, and compassionate message.

Let's explore the surprisingly relevant political and social significance of Devilman, along with a few of its animated offshoots. Read on but be forewarned, this article contains major spoilers!

Devilman (original manga, 1972)

via Seven Seas Entertainment

The Devilman manga is a dark antiwar narrative in deep contrast to the standard monster-of-the-day, "evil fights evil" set-up of the anime (which ran at the same time as the manga). Ryo Asuka — who turns out to be Satan, the leader of all demons — helps convince the world that anyone dissatisfied with the status quo could turn into a demon and needs to be killed. Every nation starts a war with each other, and Japan creates the "Demon Busters" to murder anyone suspected of being a demon. This plot twist is the most explicitly political angle in Devilman and a clear critique against the genocide of marginalized peoples. One page features a taste of the global hate brewing around the world: a collective white desire to murder Black communities, the renewal of German anti-Semitism, and hatred for any protestor. There are also many moments that display the horrors of historical genocide when Akira and Ryo travel through time.

Devilman builds additional nuance around this theme with Ryo's character. In the manga's final scene, Ryo describes how demons were once oppressed by God, and that they in turn preyed upon humans in the same way that God preyed upon demons. Ryo recognizes that he continued the same cycle of genocidal hate and marginalization he once suffered. This is a striking moment that functions as a cautionary warning against abusing imbalanced power dynamics, and how even once marginalized groups are still capable of enacting horrors against those with less power.

via Seven Seas Entertainment

Ryo's character also made a groundbreaking stride in the representation of marginalized gender and sexual identities. His true form as Satan is easy to interpret as trans, possessing emotional, mental, and physical traits that defy the standard gender binary. The manga also makes it clear that Ryo considers Akira more than a friend, and is actually in love with him. Amazingly, Go Nagai does not use Ryo's trans-coded self or his queer love for Akira as fodder for insulting or disrespectful commentary from other characters. Ryo's gender-variant form is certainly mentioned, but it's never negatively framed or conflated with his murderous attitude toward humanity. Additionally, the manga never suggests Ryo is evil because of his romantic feelings for Akira (a simple, yet important distinction). It feels all the more impressive when you remember that this was made in 1972. Devilman's subversive portrayal of non-normative gender and sexual identity could still be considered groundbreaking even by today's standards.

Devilman OVAs

The first OVA, The Birth, covers Ryo and Akira's discovery of demon existence, with a very brutal early sequence that shows the bloody survival-of-the-fittest origins of life on Earth (which beautifully expands upon and mirrors the same sequence from the manga). It concludes with a gore-soaked finale where we see Akira's fateful transformation into Devilman. The sequence is filled with face stabs, top-notch body horror, and decapitations galore as Devilman rips apart demon after demon in a nightclub setting.

The second OVA, The Demon Bird, had the same crew that worked on the first OVA and contains a very similar feel. This OVA is more action-oriented than the first since it doesn't spend time on the build-up and exposition leading to Devilman's initial appearance. The animation and art design is probably even better than the first episode, which is most notable during the fight with Sirene. On a side note, the Manga Entertainment dubs for these first two OVAs are absolutely essential if you're seeking a fun evening with fellow anime nerds with a decent sense of humor. Their typically sleazy dubs — where Manga Entertainment excessively hyped up the seedier, more "adult" side of anime in order to market their products as wildly different from cartoons for kids — contain an assortment of unnecessary profanity and generally crude dialogue compared to the Japanese source material, to great comedic effect.

The third OVA, Amon: The Apocalypse of Devilman, is based on Amon: The Darkside of Devilman manga, an alternate-universe offshoot by Yu Kinutani. This OVA contains a reworked version of the end of Devilman and has a much darker edge compared to the first two OVAs. This entry in the series has an ugly, grim quality to it – such as the horrific depiction of Miki and her brother getting slaughtered by an angry mob — that initially felt off-putting to me. I started to enjoy it more on subsequent viewings however, when I remembered that, well, the entire Devilman mythos is pretty damned bleak in general. I think the desolate mood would have been more bearable had Akira felt like the compassionate, tragic hero of the manga.

Actually, overall I'd say that Akira's portrayal is one of my biggest complaints about these OVAs. He displays a cold lack of care for human life — like in the Demon Bird when he unconcernedly tears through an airplane while fighting Sirene and allows its passengers to presumably plummet to their deaths — that for me, offsets one of the biggest strengths of Devilman's core: that although Akira has the body of a demon, he never loses the tender heart of a human. With that in mind, let's explore Devilman Crybaby.

Devilman Crybaby

Devilman Crybaby is my favorite animated incarnation of Devilman, period. I might be in the minority with that opinion, but I think there's a lot to love. Masaaki Yuasa is already one of my favorite recent anime directors — Kaiba, Mind Game, and Lu Over the Wall are highlights — so it's no surprise I'd be head over heels for his take on a classic Go Nagai story.

Yuasa impressively shifts the '70s setting of the original into modern-day Japan: The group of surly highschoolers from the manga are replaced with rappers and smartphones are everywhere. In the hands of a lesser writer, a modern setting would be no more than a cosmetic, surface-level change of scenery to an already-written narrative. In contrast, Yuasa avoids this trap by using the modern setting to make incisive social commentary relevant to our times: social media is the means for both horrendous and beautiful moments in the show. It leads to Miki's murder when she posts on Instagram to defend Akira, but also serves as the online catalyst that unites Devilmen across the globe (in contrast to the original manga, where a set of demon-possessed psychic monks unite the Devilmen). Yuasa explained this in a 2018 Japan Times article:

"Today's situation is a lot closer to 'Devilman' than it was when Nagai wrote it in the '70s," he says. "The popularity of social media means people are a lot more connected, for good and bad – like someone getting shot over a video game. We learn about unarmed black people being killed by police, people being tortured and the rise of nationalism in politics. In Japan, too, where a lot of problems are openly blamed on foreigners.

"But it can also help spread good that we wouldn't otherwise know about. We see people coming out as gay or trans on social media, and there's a greater opening up and acceptance of different opinions and lifestyles."

Another beautiful aspect of the show is how Yuasa amplifies the queer elements present in the manga. Ryo and Akira's relationship feels even more loaded with romantic undertones, and Yuasa also introduces two queer characters unseen in the original manga. One of the characters is named Miki Kuroda, initially portrayed as a jealous antagonistic foil to the Miki we all know and love. Miki Kuroda changes as the episodes progress and she becomes a Devilman, and we eventually see her sacrifice herself in an attempt to save Miki Makimura, who she confesses her love to before dying. It's refreshing to see a queer woman represented in a story that previously had none, and incorporated in a way that feels organic and thoughtfully integrated within the larger narrative.

In contrast to the Akira of the OVAs, I absolutely adore this incarnation. Yuasa did a stellar job showing not only Akira's horny goth-jock side but also his compassionate traits. As the name implies, there's a lot of crying in Devilman Crybaby, and Akira is responsible for at least half the tears throughout the brief 10-episode series. Akira evokes such intense compassion and cares for people around him, which is a noticeable deviation from his cold demeanor in the OVAs. The human heart at the core of Devilman is on full display here, taking the emotional elements from the original and turning the volume up to 11. Though the art style and setting might be drastically different from what you'd typically expect of a Devilman remake, Yuasa did a masterful job honoring the source material while injecting it with fresh life and even fresher modern resonance.

What other aspects of Devilman — or its many incarnations — did you find important or interesting? Let me know in the comments below!

Do you love anime? Do you love writing? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: [email protected]

#Anime #News #Latest in Anime News by Crunchyroll!

6 notes · View notes

pass-the-bechdel · 6 years ago

Text

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

No.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Six (31.57% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Thirteen.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

Entertaining, but overrated.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Though Nebula and Gamora trade a couple of lines on a few occasions, they invariably speak about either Thanos, or Ronan.

Female characters:

Meredith Quill.

Bereet.

Nebula.

Gamora.

Carina.

Nova Prime.

Male characters:

Mr Quill.

Peter Quill.

Yondu Udonta.

Ronan.

Korath.

Rocket.

Groot.

The Broker.

Drax.

Thanos.

The Collector.

Denarian Saal.

Denarian Dey.

OTHER NOTES:

Seatbelts on spaceships should really be mandatory.

Aahahahaha Peter has a woman on his ship whose name he can’t remember and whom he forgot was even there! Oh, it’s so funny and charming! What a classic misogynistic cliche intro! Garbage.

Rocket chastises Groot to ‘learn genders’, and I don’t think the irony of a raccoon (a species with almost no visually-evident sexual dimorphism) saying that to a tree-person (whose species - if sexually dimorphic at all - certainly has no reason to adhere to the humanoid/mammalian model) is deliberate. The other alien higher-life-forms they encounter in the film are pretty uniformly human in appearance (not much effort going on in the ‘alien’ department besides just painting people in bright colours), but lack of imagination from the creative team doesn’t mean that the binary gender system we’re accustomed to on Earth has any broad bearing on the galaxy at large.

Aaahh, and now Peter is explaining his scars to Drax, with lovely stories of women he cheated on in the past because he’s ~such a stud~.

Thanos tells Ronan off for his dull political raging and whiny behaviour, but he’s sitting on a shiny floating throne himself, so I’m not sure he’s earned the right to criticise what other people have got going on.

Rocket suggests that Gamora trade sexual favours to get things from other prisoners, because we’re being Like That with this movie.

The Collector keeps female slave ‘assistants’, whom he evidently treats so nicely that Carina commits suicide by infinity stone at the first opportunity in order to escape him. We’re just doing so well for the ladies in this film.

As a great comedic beat, Drax calls Gamora a “green whore”. It’s both a shitty line, and nonsensical, since Drax isn’t supposed to comprehend metaphors and he has no reason to believe Gamora is a literal ‘whore’ (nor is he likely to use such a colloquial term, considering the calibre of his standard vocabulary). Basically, it’s a rubbish line from every angle, and all in service of a misogynistic joke.

This film is a terrible waste of Djimon Hounsou.

Ronan is very theatrically over-the-top in his pronouncements, but Lee Pace does his damnedest to make it work on delivery.

Why does Ronan’s flashy purple infinity stone weapon not kill people when he shoots them with its energy blast? Obviously it would be terribly inconvenient to the story if he just casually killed all the good guys, but honestly. It doesn’t make much sense. They coulda at least pretended there was a reason.

The part of me that is susceptible to acts of heroism is affected by the guardians all joining hands to share the stone’s power. Not enough to feel that the film or the character relationships actually connected on an emotional level, but enough that this ending doesn’t feel totally unearned.

Drax patting Rocket’s head while he’s crying over Groot is a lovely touch. THAT is the strongest character interaction of the film.

So. I’ll be honest: I don’t like this movie. I don’t think it works. I think it’s essentially just a string of gimmicks, loosely attached, entertaining enough on the surface but with no meaningful depth to hold in the mind or keep the audience engaged once the credits kick in (it’s also much heavier on the sexist tropes than any other MCU film previous). I don’t hate it, but it doesn’t give me anything that I value in a viewing experience, it just happens and then ends and that’s it. And the reason it doesn’t work is, frankly, the writing is lazy as shit. It makes a sub-par effort at establishing character and thus relies heavily on cliches, it rarely bothers to incorporate relevant plot and motivations and such into the story at early points in order to generate narrative pay-off, and the world-building is hazy at best and, like the characterisation, trades predominantly on expectation of stereotypes rather than actually creating anything original.

Let’s start in the obvious place: with our lead character. I’m tempted to just say ‘Peter Quill is garbage’ and then move on, because it’s true and also, he’s just not complex or interesting at all, which is ridiculous because he’s got that whole ‘alien abduction’ origin story and there should be like, literally any layers at all to his story instead of him just being an obnoxious Lothario who makes pop culture references like that counts as having a personality. But, here we are. I’m not familiar with the comics so I don’t know if this is a common complaint from fans who can’t believe their boy got all his nuances deleted in favour of such an inane cliche, but if this is exactly what Quill is like in the comics too? That’s no excuse. Part of the magic of adaptation is the opportunity to improve upon things the source material did wrongly or badly. The Quill we’ve got here in this movie is such a bland template he’s almost functionally useless; he barely impacts the story at all, especially in any way that is relevant to his personality or skills and necessitates his presence (the dance-off distraction is the only good Quill moment, and it’s also one of the few inspired choices in the whole film). At the end of the day, Quill exists so that the story has a Main Guy, being a straight white American male (and making sure we all, excessively, know about it), because God forbid we be expected to identify with anyone else. I have heard people sing the praises of the film for ‘subverting cliche’ by not having Quill and Gamora actively hook up by the end, as if that somehow makes it better that every single other aspect of that tedious forced romance plot is still squarely in place and set to play out in future films (pro tip: if the main guy still ‘gets the girl’, only it doesn’t happen in the first film, that’s not subversive. That’s still playing the trope dead-straight). Quill not immediately being shown to be rewarded with sex is not some incredible feat of original storytelling, and it certainly doesn’t absolve him of being a dime-a-dozen pig of a character. If that’s the most ‘unexpected’ character element you can cite, you’re in dire straits.

Now, I’m not gonna talk about every character individually, because in most cases there’s not much to talk about; Drax is the big warrior guy with the Fridged Family backstory we’ve seen so many times before it elicits zero (0) emotions now; Groot - though an interesting idea on paper - is basically just a Deus Ex Machina of whatever ability is most useful at any given moment, too ill-defined to have boundaries to his powers and conveniently not using his full potential whenever it would allow the characters to win too easily; and Rocket, well, Rocket is actually the only one of the leads who manages any meaningful nuance, which is unfortunate because most of the time he’s just used for sarcastic comic relief. The other character I am going to talk about is Gamora, and it’s because she’s a prime example of how this movie fails to establish things so that they feel like they actually matter or the character’s motivations are understandable, etc. We are introduced to Gamora when she overrides Ronan’s order for Nebula to retrieve the orb from Xandar; as it turns out, Gamora’s introductory moment (literally the first time we see her or hear her speak) is also her act of rebellion when she puts into action her plan to escape Thanos’ clutches and go her own way. The problem, obviously, is this is her introduction. We’ve never seen this character before, we’ve only just met Ronan and Nebula as well, Thanos is barely more than a concept, as is the planet Xandar and the politics around it. Nothing has been established yet about the life that Gamora occupies, so her ploy to escape it? Meaningless. We don’t even find out that Gamora was not planning to retrieve the orb for Ronan until she tells us so after she’s been arrested, and we have literally no reason to believe her because we don’t know her yet because her character has not been established at all. The traditional way to do this would be to show her in her old life, doing as she’s told and/or witnessing terrible things being done by her compatriots, and showing the audience that she has clear misgivings so that when she turns, we understand the context and can believe that’s a logical character decision based on established personality and morals (think of Finn’s introduction in The Force Awakens for a textbook example). Because no time or effort is ever invested in establishing who or how Gamora is, everything we know is delivered to us directly in dialogue, all tell, no show, and what could easily have been the film’s most dynamic character is instead hampered by having her development choked off to avoid spending time on letting her origins matter (despite the fact that those origins are essential to the plot).

On which note, lets talk bad guys. Thanos first, because there’s not much to say, and that’s not a good thing: Thanos is actually pointless to this film, the only reason he’s there is so that the MCU can use him to actual purpose in later films and his relation to Gamora and Nebula and the hunt for the Infinity Stones needs to be established first, but as with everything else this movie is terrible at establishing things effectively. Consequently, Thanos...just floats around on a chair, and then Ronan tells him to piss off and we don’t see or hear from him again in the rest of the film, and there’s no real effort made to integrate Thanos into the story so that he seems like anything other than a dead-end subplot cluttering up the movie for no reason. The closest Thanos gets to anything notable is when he chides Ronan for his boring politics, but even that is symptomatic of the wider problem with this movie’s lazy writing: Ronan’s whole character is essentially just another dull archetype - in this case, the extremist villain - and a solid nothing at all is done to establish his politics or what they mean, other than death for the people we’re told are the innocents. This is a problem with the world-building of the film as a whole, because none of the galaxy’s politics is fleshed out, there’s no context to why the Kree have a problem with Xandar or why we should care, and Xandar kinda gets treated like the centre of the universe but it also seems that’s just for convenience sake so that the plot can return to a previous location for the final act. Hell, I haven’t the faintest fucking idea where Earth is supposed to fit in to all of this, other characters talk about it so it’s clearly a known quantity to the rest of the galaxy, and yet no one knows any details about it and Quill never bothered to go back there for reasons which really SHOULD be explored and yet are not even mentioned (that would seem like some of that characterisation he doesn’t have), so I don’t know what we’re supposed to interpret from that. I’m not confident that the creative powers bothered to think about it, considering how much they didn’t think about anything else. This is a movie where ‘human, but painted’ passes for ‘alien’ and society apparently functions exactly like Earth, tedious misogyny and all, despite the absence of cultural sharing to explain the Earthlike similarities (and boy oh boy do I HATE the laziness of science fiction where everything being identical to Western culture on Earth is treated like it’s ‘just the natural order’ that should be expected to develop in any sentient species, instead of a complex system shaped by unique and varied influences over thousands of years and dependent upon environment, religion, philosophy, and a myriad of other factors not replicated in these poorly-drawn ‘alien’ cultures. I get that you’ve gotta employ at least some shorthand in order to get on and tell your story within time constraints, but come on. If you’re not gonna think about world-building at all, don’t set the story on an alien planet). Above all else, we know that Ronan is the villain because he’s painted (literally) as one; he’s the bad guy through visually-indicated othering, because we all know good guys don’t look like that (whereas most of Ronan’s enemies on Xandar are just regular-looking white folks. Curious...). Sure, Ronan is also introduced spouting rhetoric and then smashing a dude with a hammer, and that seems like villain behaviour, but that only reinforces the point: Ronan’s role is made unmistakable through age-old tropes, and it’s never explored or subverted or made dynamic from there. Like Quill as the ‘hero’, Ronan is a dime-a-dozen cliche.

So anyway. Lets talk plot. This one goes like so: Quill collects the orb from Morag, where he coincidentally runs into Korath and company who just-so-happen to be after the orb at the same time (how it is that multiple interested parties only just found out that one of the most powerful destructive forces in the universe is just chillin’ on this abandoned planet, they don’t bother to explain). Quill runs into both Gamora, and Rocket and Groot, the other parties happening to be after him for different reasons and coincidentally converging on Xandar at the same point. Everyone gets arrested and sent to prison, where they meet Drax and promptly escape and fly to Knowhere so that The Collector can exposition-dump about Infinity Stones. Drax calls Ronan up, just literally straight-up calls the bad guy to come and find them because I guess figuring out a normal plot reason for the villain to catch up with the good guys was too hard, so we had to go for extreme stupidity instead. Ronan gets the orb and goes back to Xandar to destroy it, and our main characters figure they should stop that, so they do. Roll credits. Now, you can make pretty much any story sound basic and stupid by breaking it down into its component pieces, but the important thing to note about this layout is how many convenient or just plain stupid aspects there are. There are almost no character meetings or story developments that come about logically through the sensible development of plot driven by character’s motivations springing from established narrative, etc, and part of that problem is absolutely because there’s so little established character/world-building to begin with, but it’s also because whatever there is tends to apparate when it is needed without any sign of existing beforehand; that is, very little of the story is seeded early on so that it can come to fruition later in a narratively satisfying fashion. The Nova Corps sentence the characters to the Kyln prison as if it’s a big scary concept, but we’ve never heard of it before so we have no reason to consider it trouble. Drax appears and other characters literally tell us why we should pay attention to him, instead of him being, say, pre-established (SUCH AS by having his family tragedy shown on screen as a dual-establishing event for him and Ronan, or something to which Gamora was privy in some way in order to intro her misgivings as discussed above, or even just having someone reference the legend of Drax the Destroyer BEFORE getting to the Kyln (you could also, y’know, establish the Kyln itself in talking about how Drax was sent there. Just saying)). Intro the idea of Knowhere and/or The Collector BEFORE heading there so that it’s less convenient for Gamora to just-happen to have a buyer already set up for the item we didn’t even know she had planned to steal as part of the escape plot we didn’t know she was hatching. For the love of everything, establish some actual REASON for Ronan to follow our characters to Knowhere, instead of just ‘Drax got drunk and called him’. Link the pieces of your story together with concepts and developments that build upon each other in a narrative progression. That’s the difference between having a plot, and having a string of chronological set pieces (some of which - like Morag and the Kyln - don’t even have a purpose anyway beyond providing some action-scene opportunities).

Before I close this out, I just want to run through a little exercise to demonstrate something that you never, ever want to happen in a story. You never want to have a lead character who can be deleted from the plot without leaving a hole too big to be easily filled by the rest of the cast. But what happens if Peter Quill is removed from this story? Well, pretty much all of the misogyny disappears, so that’s a plus. Someone else is gonna have to retrieve the orb from Morag, but we could easily send Rocket and Groot to do that. Gamora can still fight with them on Xandar exactly as it happens in the actual movie, only this time it’s not just pure coincidence that they conflict. We saved vital time that the film spent on Quill’s inconsequential childhood abduction (and we could save more on trimming the pointless action on Morag), which is time that could be better spent on all that other establishing crap I was talking about earlier, tightening up the narrative. Quill doesn’t serve any important purpose in the Kyln, so we can remove him from that no problem, nor does he matter on Knowhere other than a frankly stupid and ultimately pointless moment when he saves Gamora (definitely unnecessary when we’re removing the romantic subplot bullshit along with Quill). And then what? The characters agree that not letting Ronan destroy the galaxy is probably a good call (not Quill-relevant), they head back to Xandar, fight some bad guys, hold hands, win the day. We lose Quill’s only good moment in the form of the dance-off, but it’s an acceptable loss in order to strengthen the entire rest of the film by deleting the most meaningless character: the lead. We also arguably lose the Ravagers in the process, but as much fun as Yondu is, the plot can also survive completely intact without him (the only time the Ravagers matter is for the previously-identified useless damsel contrivance with Quill saving Gamora, and then they do help out on Xandar in the end, but they aren’t necessary for that - the Nova Corps could have been expanded just a smidge and taken care of everything). On the other hand, if you remove Gamora, you lose the connection to Ronan/Thanos as well as the moral compass of the Guardians; some other character would have to be significantly altered to fill the gap. You lose major Deus Ex Machina skills without Groot, and without Rocket someone else’s narrative has to change in order for Groot to have a buddy (plus you need a new mastermind for various plans, though that’s an easier hole to fill). You skip Drax and you do lose a major plot development in the form of him drunk-dialling Ronan, but admittedly that’s one of the worst things in this whole dumb waste of a movie, so maybe it’s not such a loss. You could ditch Drax. But, that’s not important, because Drax isn’t packaged as the leading man: Quill is. If you delete Drax, you don’t really streamline or improve the story (you could fix the one big flaw in his character very easily, he doesn’t have to disappear for that). You delete Quill...I know, comic book adaptation, dropping the main character is not considered an acceptable alteration when you’re improving the story for the screen. But come on. The least they could do is make him actually matter, not just be a perfunctory inclusion for the sake of sticking this ‘weird sci-fi’ as firmly in the centre of over-done cliche as a lazy gimmick story ever could be. There are a few chuckles to be had with this film, and it’s not entirely boring, but it’s not half as endearing nor even an eighth as inspired as it thinks it is. I’m not impressed by any of it.

#Guardians of the Galaxy #Bechdel Test #female representation #Marvel Cinematic Universe #MCU

11 notes · View notes

theremharths · 6 years ago

Text

This is just more thoughts on The Left Hand of Darkness, but it’s under a cut bc it’s a huge incomprehensible ramble. Sorry if you’re on mobile

I was worried that Genly finally understanding and accepting that Estraven is just as much a woman as a man, which comes at the moment that he also acknowledges the sexual tension between them, would essentially frame their relationship as “well it’s okay that I’m attracted to this person who is a man, because they are also a woman so I can ignore the man aspect” but it didn’t do that at all--that this scene is the first time where Genly doesn’t switch to she/her pronouns for someone in the “female” kemmer state (like he does with Faxe during the ritual or the orgota in the prison truck with him) seems partially designed to specifically defy that interpretation as much as it’s meant to show how Genly’s developed

The question of Genly’s sexual orientation isn’t really brought up at all, really. I expected a bit of homophobic (internalized or otherwise) waffling on his part (while there are of course plenty of gay men who are misogynists, Genly’s particular brand of casual, unquestioning misogyny tends to go hand in hand w/ a certain similar kind of casual, unquestioning homophobia) along the lines of, say, categorizing any gethenian who he finds attractive as “female” or something similar, but that never occurs. The part where Genly notes that he can’t help but pay attention to Gaum bc of his attractiveness has him describe Gaum as being attractive “as either sex” without placing any more emphasis on femaleness being connected to that attractiveness than maleness

Similarly, his attraction to Estraven, while unrealized or ignored by Genly for most of the book, is fairly plain to the reader as early on as the first chapter. Every other person Genly encounters is described only by their most prominent feature. Even Faxe and Gaum’s attractiveness is largely undescribed--we don’t know what it is about them that makes them beautiful, just that they are

Estraven is described every time Genly looks at him, in great detail, to the point where he’s the only character the reader is really given a full picture of. Even Genly’s appearance is vague; we know that he’s a dark skinned Black man, that he has a wide nose, that he’s probably around six feet tall, that he’s fairly physically strong, and that’s about it. Estraven is a head shorter than Genly, his hair is long and black, his eyes are also black, his skin is dark brown but lighter than Genly’s, he has small hands, he has wide hips, he has single eyelids and heavy eyebrows, he is fairly solidly built and has a “sleek” layer of fat to him, etc etc etc. We always know what he’s wearing, we know how he looks in the light of whatever room he and Genly are in, we know how he looks when he sleeps. All of this makes the revelation of the attraction between them more meaningful to the reader than describing him in the same terms as, say, Faxe was, would have, and almost all of it is from before Genly’s Moment Of Understanding, from when he was still trying to frame Estraven as entirely a man in his mind

While Genly assigns various and frequently contradicting and almost always (to him) negative traits to femaleness--Estraven’s directness is “feminine” but so, according to Genly, is his perceived mysteriousness and manipulative nature--he distinctly never associates sexual attractiveness with women. Even in the scene where he tries (and fails) to explain what a woman is to Estraven and why, to Genly, they are so different from men, he never attempts to use language related to beauty or any sort of physical attractiveness at all

Obviously the main reason why the gethenians are all referred to using he/him pronouns is “it was 1969 and they/them wasn’t widely recognized as a non-plural pronoun and ‘he�� is considered ‘more neutral’ than ‘she’ is” but it also forces the reader to acknowledge that while you can’t describe Genly and Estraven’s relationship as a gay one, you also certainly can’t describe it as a heterosexual one. There is, undeniably, a homoerotic nature to it and to the whole of the novel and to deny that, based on the fact that Estraven isn’t just a man, is to deny that Estraven also isn’t just a woman or just neither one. To use only she/her pronouns for Estraven would be to allow the homophobic reader to do what I was relieved that Genly (and Le Guin) didn’t do--to go “well, sure, it’s telling me that this person is a man and a woman and both and neither, but I don’t want this story to be about a man falling in love with a man-woman-both-neither, so I will pretend this person is solely a woman”

(And, frankly, the need to read between the lines to grasp the attraction between two characters--the subtlety of the whole thing, pre-(and even post-)Moment Of Understanding--is homoerotic in itself. Straightness and cisness don’t generally concern themselves with with subtlety or nuance)

I’m not saying that the choice to use only he/him pronouns for the gethenians was the correct one. I’m following the example set by canon because at the end of the day, using the “wrong” pronouns for even a fictional character makes me uncomfortable--it feels like misgendering, even if it really isn’t, if I use pronouns that the character isn’t shown to use themself. I’m saying that with the options that Le Guin knew of in the 1960s--she/her or he/him--it was probably better to use he/him, at least for specifically Estraven. I genuinely don’t know how one would modernize the way pronouns are used here for a movie or series adaptation. I suppose the best thing I can think of would be to use he/him and she/her and they/them for every gethenian, which is both 1. how plenty of people use pronouns in real life and 2. a lot less confusing/chaotic in a visual medium than it would be in a written one. The issue with switching to solely they/them pronouns in an adaptation is that it could still allow for a separation from that homoeroticism, and, more importantly, that it perpetuates the novel’s fixation on "physical sex” as ruling gender identity, and that being non-binary is something for aliens and not for regular humans. Yes, they/them pronouns would be the neatest option but it wouldn’t work as a solution to the novel’s cissexism

Kosh, the babylon 5 character, is a being without “biological sex”. He is also a male character. To reboot babylon 5 and have all vorlons use they/them pronouns would be to reinforce the notion of gender being decided by sex organs and chromosomes and, in this case, whether or not you’re a sentient ball of light. It would still be adhering to the character’s assigned gender, it’s just that the assigned gender would be “none”. Kosh, as a male character who is not “””biologically male”””, is already trans. If you want to have non-binary characters in babylon 5, you would do better to look at G’Kar or Delenn or literally anyone other than a vorlon

(Of course, satisfyingly and accurately modernizing and adapting The Left Hand of Darkness in other ways would also be difficult. Keeping the themes and messages and plot while removing the implication that there are no trans and/or non-binary and/or intersex people on earth or in the whole of the Ekumen. The simple fact that I just don’t have faith in most prominent producers/directors/casting agents/etc to adhere to the novel’s complete lack of white characters, and especially to actually cast an indigenous actor as Estraven. The other simple fact that Estraven’s death at the end is something I can accept in a book from 1969, but absolutely not in a modern work)

#words tag #.#..#...#....#long post #uklg tag

3 notes · View notes

snowstories · 6 years ago

Note

I don't recognize the flag in your current icon (the black, reds, orange, and yellow on) but I'm really curious! What does it represent?

It’s the singularian pride flag! ‘Singularian’ (somtimes called ‘voidic’) is an identity created alongside the galactian alignment system; since it’s not technically a galactian alignment, but still has a relationship to that system, it sometimes gets called the ‘galactian anomaly’. A singularian nonbinary person is someone who rejects any and all ties to the binary without exception, which is how I identify, and it’s extremely important to me.

It also has an alternate flag created by @system-lgbt that you can find here but I honestly kind of highkey hate it since it was created to fit better with the ‘rest’ of the galactian alignment system, but since the entire point of singularian is that it’s not actually part of the alignment system, since rejecting the binary (generally) also means rejecting the alignment system, and like… if it was created through discussion with singularians or if the creator is a singularian I’ll shut up about it, but otherwise, it feels very presumptuous, imo. I’m not gonna knock anyone for using it, I just highkey hate it personally, so I’ll be using the old one. Also I just like the old flag’s colour scheme better.

Under the cut is a full explanation of the galactian alignment system (in case you aren’t familiar with it), and some personal feelings regarding the term ‘singularian’, because I’m a sentimental dipshit at times and it’s extremely important to me and I never get a chance to talk about it, so I’m jumping on the slightest excuse, which is you, anon.

The galaxian alignment system is a replacement for the male-aligned/female-aligned terminology, created by various nonbinary people in an attempt to make alignment terminology less binarist. I personally am a big fan of it, both because well, fuck yeah space names, and also because I really like the nuances the system creates for people who do not fall into the neat ‘binary’ of man- and women-aligned.

Quick rundown of the main terminology:

Lunarian: woman-aligned.

Solarian: man-aligned.

Stellarian: unaligned.

Solstellarian/novarian: both unaligned and man-aligned.

Stellunarian/nebularian: both unaligned and women-aligned.

Sollunarian/ecclipsian : both man- and woman-aligned.

Solstellunarian/gaxian: unaligned, man- and woman-aligned.

Stellarian and singularian often get lumped into the same category, and although I can understand why and, sometimes, it’s even prudent to do so, usually it’s exceedingly unnecessary, highly annoying, and extremely uncomfortable to me. The post where it was originally coined has a very good explanation of how a singularian nonbinary person is different from a stellarian nonbinary person, but it’s also important to keep in mind that, as far as I know, it’s an identity still under construction. The entire galactian system is still pretty new, and singularian especially can be a fairly complicated identity; combine that with the fact that there’s essentially no community around it, and I think I can say with some amount of certainty that there isn’t really an established way to be singularian. I want to stress, as I always do when discussing labels, that if anyone feels like the label of singularian is right for them, they are allowed to use it, even if they do not strictly follow all the criteria for it; at least, as far as I’m concerned.

For me, being a singularian is specifically about actively rejecting any and all ties to the binary; this includes, but is not limited to, not using any alignment terms at all to describe myself (not even ‘unaligned’/’stellarian’, and I’m in fact deeply uncomfortable with being grouped among them), not describing my own appearance as either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ if I can help it (I’m uncomfortable doing it, but unfortunately we live in a binarist world and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do), not partially being a binary gender, etc. It’s really important to me because it helped me get out of a rut when I was questioning my identity; I really felt like I had to (partially) be a binary gender, or at least aligned to one, because otherwise I felt like I didn’t have any future whatsoever, since there really is no place for nonbinary people in Western society. At some point I realized that this was mostly internalized exorsexism, but I didn’t feel inherently ‘neutral’ either in the way that the term stellarian/unaligned implies - I honestly still don’t fucking know what my gender is, only that it exists and is annoying while doing it.

The term ‘singularian’ allowed me to reject ties to the binary without necessarily implying an inherently natural neutrality the way stellarian does (in my mind, at least); singularian, to me, is about actively rejecting any and all ties to the binary, and actively working to dismantle the ones you have. It allowed me to stop defining my gender and my nonbinary identity in terms of how it relates to the binary, which has been a massive relief for me and allowed me to work though quite a bit of internalized exorsexism, although I still have a long way to go. I consider it my primary nonbinary label, alongside autigender.

So yeah I guess you could say it’s pretty important to me lol

#singularian #my posts #ask #Anonymous #nonbinary stuff

16 notes · View notes

xeno-aligned · 7 years ago

Link

copy & pasted under the read more in order to have a local copy.

A Brief His and Herstory of Butch And Femme

BY: JEM ZERO 16 DEC 2017

When America’s LGBTQ+ folk started coming out of the closet in the 1950s, the underground scene was dominated by working class people who had less to lose if they were outed. Butch/femme presentation arose as a way for lesbians to identify each other, also serving as a security measure when undercover cops tried to infiltrate the local scenes. Butch women exhibited dapper and dandy aesthetics, and came to be known for being aggressive because they took protective roles during raids and other examples of homophobic violence. The image of the butch lesbian became a negative stereotypes for lesbians as a whole, leaving out femme lesbians, who are (pretty insultingly) considered undetectable as lesbians due to their feminine presentation.

In modern times there’s less need for strict adherence to these roles; instead, they become heritage. A great deal of political rebellion is wrapped up in each individual aesthetic. Butch obviously involves rejecting classically feminine gender expectations, while femme fights against their derogatory connotations.

But while butch/femme has been a part of lesbian culture, these terms and identities are not exclusive to queer women. Many others in the LGBTQ community utilize these signifiers for themselves, including “butch queen” or “femme daddy.” Butch and femme have different meanings within queer subcultures, and it’s important to understand the reasons they were created and established.

The Etymology

The term “lesbian” derives from the island on which Sappho lived—if you didn’t already guess, she was a poet who wrote extensively about lady-lovin’. Before Lesbos lent its name to lesbians, the 1880s described attraction between women as Sapphism. In 1925, “lesbian” was officially recorded as the word for a female sodomite. (Ick.) Ten years before that, “bisexual” was defined as "attraction to both sexes."

In upcoming decades, Sapphic women would start tearing down the shrouds that obscured the lives of queer women for much of recorded history. Come the ‘40s and ‘50s, butch and femme were coined, putting names to the visual and behavioral expression that could be seen in pictures as early as 1903. So, yeah—Western Sapphic women popularized these terms, but the conversation doesn’t end there, nor did it start there.

Before femme emerged as its own entity, multiple etymological predecessors were used to describe gender nonconforming people. Femminiello was a non-derogatory Italian term that referred to a feminine person who was assigned male—this could be a trans woman, an effeminate gay man, or the general queering of binarist norms. En femme derives from French, and was used to describe cross-dressers.

Butch, first used in 1902 to mean "tough youth," has less recorded history. Considering how “fem” derivatives were popularized for assigned male folks, one might attribute this inequality to the holes in history where gender-defying assigned female folks ought to be.

The first time these concepts were used to specifically indicate women was the emergence of Sapphic visibility in twentieth century. This is the ground upon which Lesbian Exclusivism builds its tower, and the historical and scientific erasure of bisexual women is where it crumbles. Seriously, did we forget that was a thing?

The assumption that any woman who defies gender norms is automatically a lesbian relies on the perpetuation of misogynist, patriarchal stereotypes against bisexual women. A bisexual woman is just as likely to suffer in a marriage with a man, or else be mocked as an unlovable spinster. A woman who might potentially enjoy a man is not precluded from nonconformist gender expression. Many famous gender nonconforming women were bisexual—La Maupin (Julie d'Aubigny), for example.

Most records describing sexual and romantic attraction between women were written by men, and uphold male biases. What happens, then, when a woman is not as openly lascivious as the ones too undeniably bisexual to silence? Historically, if text or art depicts something the dominant culture at the time disagrees with, the evidence is destroyed. Without voices of the Sapphists themselves, it’s impossible to definitively draw a line between lesbians and bisexuals within Sapphic history.

Beyond White Identities

Another massive hole in the Lesbian Exclusivist’s defenses lies in the creeping plague that is the Mainstream White Gay; it lurks insidiously, hauling along the mangled tatters of culture that was stolen from Queer and Trans People of Colour (QTPOC). In many documents, examples provided of Sapphic intimacy are almost always offered from the perspective of white cis women, leaving huge gaps where women of color, whether trans or cis, and nonbinary people were concerned. This is the case despite the fact that some of the themes we still celebrate as integral to queer culture were developed by Black and Latinx LGBTQ+ folk during the Harlem Renaissance, which spanned approximately from 1920 to 1935.

A question I can’t help but ask is: Where do queer Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color fit into the primarily white butch/femme narrative? Does it mean anything that the crackdown on Black queer folk seemed to coincide with the time period when mainstream lesbianism adopted butch and femme as identifiers?

Similar concepts to butch/femme exist throughout the modern Sapphic scene. Black women often identify as WLW (Women-Loving-Women), and use terms like “stud” and “aggressive femme.” Some Asian queer women use “tomboy” instead of butch. Derivatives and subcategories abound, sometimes intersecting with asexual and trans identities. “Stone butch” for dominant lesbians who don’t want to receive sexual stimulation; “hard femme” as a gender-inclusive, fat-positive, QTPOC-dominated political aesthetic; “futch” for the in-betweenies who embody both butch and femme vibes. These all center women and nonbinary Sapphics, but there’s still more.

Paris is Burning, a documentary filmed about New York City ball culture in the 1980s, describes butch queens among the colourful range of identities prevalent in that haven of QTPOC queerness. Despite having a traditionally masculine physique, the gay male butch queen did not stick to gender expectations from straight society or gay culture. Instead, he expertly twisted up his manly features with women’s clothing and accessories, creating a persona that was neither explicitly masculine nor feminine.

Butch Queens Up in Pumps, a book by Marlon M. Bailey, expounds upon their presence within inner city Detroit’s Ballroom scene, its cover featuring a muscular gay man in a business casual shirt paired with high heels. Despite this nuance, butch remains statically defined as a masculine queer woman, leaving men of color out of the conversation.

For many QTPOC, especially those who transcend binary gender roles, embracing the spirit of butch and femme is inextricable with their racial identity. Many dark-skinned people are negatively portrayed as aggressive and hypermasculine, which makes it critical to celebrate the radical softness that can accompany femme expressions. Similarly, the intrinsic queerness of butch allows some nonbinary people to embrace the values and aesthetics that make them feel empowered without identifying themselves as men.

Butch, Femme, and Gender

It’s pretty clear to me that the voices leading the Lesbian Exclusive argument consistently fail to account for where butch and femme have always, in some form, represented diverse gender expression for all identities.

‘Butch’ and ‘femme’ began to die out in the 1970s when Second Wave Feminism and Lesbian Separatism came together to form a beautiful baby, whom they named “Gender Is Dead.” White, middle class cis women wrestled working class QTWOC out of the limelight, claiming that masculine gender expression was a perversion of lesbian identity. The assassination attempt was largely unsuccessful, however: use of these identifiers surged back to life in the ‘80s and ‘90s, now popularized outside of class and race barriers.

Looking at all this put together, I have to say that it’s a mystery to me why so many lesbians, primarily white, believe that their history should take precedence over… everyone else that makes up the spectrum of LGBTQ+ experiences, even bi/pan Sapphics in same-gender relationships. If someone truly believes that owning butch/femme is more important than uniting and protecting all members of the Sapphic community from the horrors of homophobic and gendered oppression, maybe they’re the one who shouldn’t be invited to the party.

As a nonbinary lesbian, I have experienced my share of time on the flogging-block. I empathize strongly with the queer folks being told that these cherished identities are not theirs to claim. Faced with this brutal, unnecessary battle, I value unity above all else. There’s no reason for poor trans women, nonbinary Black femmes, bisexual Asian toms, gay Latino drag queens, or any other marginalized and hurting person to be left out of the dialogue that is butch and femme, with all its wonderful deconstructions of mainstream heteronormative culture.

It is my Christmas wish that the Lesbian Exclusivist Tower is torn down before we open the new chapter in history that is 2018. Out of everything the LGBTQ+ community has to worry about already, petty infighting shouldn’t be entertained—especially when its historical foundation is so flimsy. Queering gender norms has always been the heart of butch/femme expression, and that belongs to all of us.

#lesbian #butch #femme #bi-#queer history #fenpost #wlw #sapphic #also #nlw #cause the author is a nb lesbian

395 notes · View notes

robinsoncenter · 6 years ago

Text

[Qsc_asuw] Week 6 Newsletter

Welcome to Week Six! <3 We hope you have stayed safe and warm these past few days and continue to enjoy the days to come. REMINDER THAT THERE IS NO SCHOOL TOMORROW DUE TO CONTINUED DANGEROUS CONDITIONS, PLEASE STAY SAFE, take care of yourselves and each other. We hope you might find time to spend warmly with friends and community this week and engage in some necessary self-care. QTBIPOC Artist Spotlight of the Week: Amir Khadar Amir Khadar is a Non-binary West African multidisciplinary artist, whose main mediums are poetry, fibers, and digital art. For them, art is a space to rationalize their feelings as a marginalized individual, resist oppressive structures, and ultimately facilitate healing. Afrofuturism, black beauty, bitterness, hair, and spirituality are running themes in their work. Currently, Amir is a Sophomore at the Maryland Institute College of Art, where they are pursuing a B.F.A in Fibers and Humanistic studies.

The Queer & Trans People of Color Alliance (QTPOCA) will be meeting this Friday (Location TBD!)

REMINDER: Disability is an Asset: An Evening with Haben Girma this Wednesday, February 13th has been canceled and will be rescheduled.

Liberated Love: Growing a Healing Practice:

(Thursday, February 14) 6 PM - 8 PM @ The Rainier Arts Center

3515 S Alaska St, Seattle, WA 98118-1633

Experiencing hate is nothing new for us as LGBTQ+ people, particularly those of us LGBTQ folks that are also people of color. While national and local numbers of hate violence incidents’ are rising, we have known this hate to be true long before the numbers began to catch up. One of the most powerful ways we continue to resist hate and survive throughout the violence is by coming together; growing and sustaining deep, celebratory, and liberated communities rooted in love. Existing in community can be difficult though if we forget to tend to ourselves as well. Join the Northwest Network to learn and practice self-healing techniques. We hope for these techniques to serve as groundwork to engage and be fully present in communities, relationships, and families, of liberated love.

* More information about workshops and facilitators will be posted soon! Thank you for your patience.

This event is open to LGBTQ+ folks and their loved ones who have been affected by hate and hate violence.

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

Getting Here: The Rainier Arts Center is a 5-minute walk from the Columbia City Light Rail Station. Bus routes 7, 50, and 9 also stop within a block of the Rainier Arts Center.

The event space is the lower level of the Rainier Arts Building. The entrance for the space is on the northeast corner of the building. At the main entrance, there are both stairs and a ramp which lead into the basement of the building. The space has both ADA accessible and all gender restrooms. *Feel free to reach out with any other accessibility questions.

Winter Quarter Social Justice Film Series

(Wednesday, February 13, 2019) 6:30 PM

The Kelly ECC is back with another social justice film series for winter quarter!

Each Wednesday evening at 6:30, we'll be screening a film in the main lobby! We hope to see you there!

February's Focus: Black History Month

March's Focus: Women's History Month

------

FILM LINE-UP:

• February 13: American Promise

• February 20: The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

• February 27: Dark Girls

• March 6: Ladies First

• March 13: Neerja

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

The Samuel E. Kelly Ethnic Cultural Center is near landmarks such as Alder Hall and Lander Hall.

For a map, search HUB on the campus maps: www.washington.edu/maps

The ECC’s front entrance is wheelchair accessible. There is an elevator in the building.

There are universal, all-gender bathrooms in the building, as well as gender binary bathrooms with multiple stalls.

The ECC is not kept scent-free, but we ask that you do not wear scented/fragranced products (e.g. perfume, hair products) or essential oils to/in the event in order to make the space accessible to those with chemical injury or multiple chemical sensitivity.

University District Metro Bus Routes can be found here:

metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/neighborhoods/university_district.html

A Certain Type of Brilliance

(Thursday, February 14, 2019) 7 PM - 9 PM @

Gay City: Seattle's LGBTQ Center

517 E Pike St, Seattle, Washington 98122

Femmes possess an alchemy that can’t be quantified, but which draws us together and enables us to be bold, ingenious, and capable of a magic that fortifies our own hearts and the soul of the community around us. A Certain Type of Brilliance is a celebration of femmes’ ability to pull amazing things out of thin air, to create on a dime, to use our vulnerability and creativity as our greatest assets in resistance to oppression.

The production features a unique cast each night; performers will create a new piece of work in the 24 hours prior to the show in response to one of a series of prompts, drawing on themes of resistance, resilience, femme identity & power.

Other Dates Offered:

FRIDAY FEB. 15 (7:00 PM - 9:00 PM)

SATURDAY FEB. 16 (7:00 PM - 9:00 PM)

SUNDAY FEB. 17 (7:00 PM - 9:00 PM)

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

https://www.gaycity.org/accessibility/

All restrooms are gender-neutral.

Smoking & Fragrances are prohibited on Gay City premises. Do not wear scented/fragranced products (e.g. perfume, hair products) or essential oils to/in the event in order to make the space accessible to those with chemical injury or multiple chemical sensitivity.

All spaces, doors, and corridors are at least 32 inches wide and ADA compliant.

All doors in the building open manually.

There are two steps from the auditorium/library hallway to Kaladi Bros Coffee and to go to the restrooms. In order to go between the coffee shop/restrooms and the auditorium/library without using any steps, you will need to go outside and enter through the other external door.

Playfulness as Resistance! 25th Anniversary Party

(Saturday, February 16, 2019) 7 PM - 11 PM @ Jacob Lawrence Gallery

University of Washington Art Building 1915 Chelan Lane Seattle, WA 98195

Tickets: $15 General admission/$5 students

With DJ sets by:

SassyBlack

Felisha Ledesma (S1 Portland)

dos leches + Eve Defy (TUF Collective, Seattle)

Dive into a ball pit by Colleen Louise Barry, sip a cocktail crafted by our celebrity bartender Timothy Rysdyke, get a copy of the brand new MONDAY (Vol. 3), dance under an installation by Disco Nap, snack on a donut from General Porpoise, and leave wearing a temporary tattoo by Claire Cowie!

FOOD + DRINK + FUN!

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

The gallery is wheelchair accessible.

The Gallery is smoking-free but not kept scent-free, we ask that you do not wear scented/fragranced products (e.g. perfume, hair products) or essential oils to/in the event in order to make the space accessible to those with chemical injury or multiple chemical sensitivity.

There are no dogs allowed in the gallery.

Generifus • Flying Fish Cove • Izumi

(Wednesday, February 20, 2019) 7:30 PM - 10:30 PM @

Timbre Room

1809 Minor Avenue #10, Seattle, Washington 98101

$8 • Doors at 7:30 • Music begins at 8pm sharp

Generifus •

Intricate and magnificent legendary rock pop from Olympia, WA

https://generifus.bandcamp.com

Flying Fish Cove •

Mythical melodies and dreamy moods, and they bop

Izumi •

Modern folk that is pure heart and magic spun into song

https://izumi.bandcamp.com

How The Body Hold's It's Stories

(Thursday, February 28, 2019) 7 PM - 9 PM

Hugo House

1634 11th Ave, Seattle, Washington 98122

How do our bodies hold onto experiences? How do generations of people of color, queer and trans people, and others who have experienced marginalization carry those stories over generations? Join writers Jordan Alam and Tessa Zeng for a reading and conversation on feeling a story in your bones and translating it to the page. Musician Lex Gavin will also perform. ABOUT THE PERFORMERS: Jordan Alam is a queer Bangladeshi-American writer, performer, and social change educator based out of Seattle. Her work engages with moments of rupture and transformation in the lives of people on the margins. Jordan’s work is heavily engaged in community, and she is a current Kundiman Pacific Northwest co-chair and 4Culture Artist Grant recipient. Her short stories and articles have appeared in The Atlantic, CultureStrike Magazine, The Rumpus, and AAWW’s The Margins; she has spoken at events including the Aspen Ideas Festival and the Eyes on Bangladesh exhibition. She is also the founder of the Asian American social justice publication, Project As [I] Am (http://www.project-as-i-am.com). Most recently, she has completed a fellowship with Town Hall Seattle to create collaborative performance pieces about stories of the body and been editing a draft of her debut novel. Lex Gavin is a multidisciplinary artist living in Seattle. Their brain (and thus their work) grapples with paradox, perception, nuance, and the failures of identity. They are interested in magic, neuroscience/somatics/epigenetics, and human systems. When they are not neglecting their creative pursuits, they work in the youth development field and play in the kitchen. Tessa Zeng is a writer, systems change advocate, and co-creative maker. She has been published in various poetry anthologies and journals, and received an Individualized BA from Goddard College for her work on social misrecognition. With their work, they hope to create beautiful experiences of interconnection and recognition that can heal traumas caused by oppressive structures.

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

The new Hugo House is fully ADA-compliant. If you require specific accommodations, please contact us so that we may assist you.

There are gender-neutral bathrooms.

Public transportation: The new Hugo House is a short walk from the Capitol Hill light rail station and the First Hill streetcar (Broadway & Pike-Pine stop) and within a half-mile of many buses, including routes 8, 10, 11, 43, 49, and 60.

Parking: A pay parking lot is available nearby at the Greek Orthodox Church at 13th and Howell, or at Seattle Central College’s Harvard Garage at 1609 Harvard Avenue. Street parking is also available but not guaranteed. The garage beneath Hugo House is for tenants only.

Free, rapid HIV Testing and PrEP counseling provided by Lifelong.

First come, first serve, walk-in appointments available on the last Monday of every month during Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters!

Other Times Offered (All times at Q-Center from 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM) :

Monday, February 25th

Monday, March 25

Monday, April 29

Monday, May 27

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

The Husky Union Building is near landmarks such as Allen Library, Padelford and Sieg. For a map, search HUB on the campus maps: http://www.washington.edu/maps/.The HUB’s front entrance is wheelchair accessible and the common area is to the right of the main desk.

An all-genders restroom can be found at the 3rd floor, down the hallway from the Q Center. Gender binary bathrooms with multiple stalls can be found on each floor of the HUB.

The HUB IS not kept scent-free but we ask that you do not wear scented/fragranced products (e.g. perfume, hair products) or essential oils to/in the Q Center in order to make the space accessible to those with chemical injury or multiple chemical sensitivity. To request disability accommodation, contact the Disability Services Office at 206-543-6450 (voice), 206-543-6452 (TTY), 206-685-7264 (fax), or [email protected] 10 days in advance.

Let’s Talk is a free program that connects UW students with support from experienced counselors from the Counseling Center and Hall Health Center without an appointment. Counselors hold drop-in hours at four sites on campus:

Mondays, 2-4 PM, Odegaard Library Room 222

Tuesdays, 2-4 PM, Ethnic Cultural Center Room 306

Wednesdays, 2-4 PM, Q Center (HUB 315)

Thursdays, 2-4 PM, Mary Gates Hall Room 134E

Let’s Talk offers informal consultation – it is not a substitute for regular therapy, counseling, or psychiatric care. To learn more, visit

letstalk.washington.edu.

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION:

The HUB’s front entrance is wheelchair accessible and the common area is to the right of the main desk.

An all-genders restroom can be found at the 3rd floor, down the hallway from the Q Center. Gender binary bathrooms with multiple stalls can be found on each floor of the HUB.

The ECC has single-stall gender-neutral bathrooms on each floor, near the gender-binary bathrooms to which signs are indicated.

Odegaard Library is not ADA accessible nor scent free.

All rooms in Mary Gates Hall are wheelchair accessible. Please contact the Disability Services Office at 206.543.6450 or [email protected]. MGH is not scent free.

Thank you for being a part of our community <3 We are so glad that you are here, and we are so glad to get to know you! Have questions about the QSC? Just want to get involved? Find our office hours online at hours.asuw.org. To hear more from the QSC be sure to like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter & instagram to stay up to date with all queer and trans related happenings on campus and in Seattle! With love, Mehria Ibrahimi, Outreach & Engagement Intern.

#events #qsc #qpoca #film #Hugo House

1 note · View note

s-cornelius · 7 years ago

Text

Congratulations, You Played Yourself

OR Why we shouldn’t be having this conversation about Adam

I’ve seen a lot written in the past few days about Voltron not deserving the hype it got for revealing that Shiro is queer, both on this platform and Twitter, and on geek news/opinion sites. Most arguments revolve around Shiro’s ex-boyfriend, Adam--both Adam’s brief screentime and his death--or the conversation between Shiro and Adam in the flashback in 7x01, and it not being explicit enough.

I am of the opinion that the conversation between Shiro and Adam was explicit confirmation of Shiro’s sexuality, and I treat it as such in this meta. I also won’t deal with the widely circulating idea that because Adam and Shiro don’t reconcile, the representation is bad. This just reinforces the idea that queer people are defined by their relationships (and sexual activity), rather than all of the other parts of their personality. As a queer person, seeing these criticisms is very frustrating.

So, I’m not going to focus on those things, because I think that they are more subjective. Instead, I am going to talk about the major complaints I’ve seen regarding Adam’s brief appearances in the show, as well as Adam’s role in the wider story Voltron is telling.

The major complaints I’ve seen are that Adam is an example of queerbaiting, and/or the Bury Your Gays trope (see #VoltronLegendaryQueerbait on Twitter, for example). These complaints seem to stem from an expectation that after 7x01, Adam would play a larger role in the story, and even might be the endgame romantic partner for Shiro. Then, when that expectation was not met (because Adam barely appears in the season), the complaints of bad representation began.

In this meta, I discuss queerbaiting and the Bury Your Gays trope, and show that Adam is not a good example of either of these issues, through examining his character and his role in the story. Also, this is my take (after long conversations with @messier51) as a bisexual woman and as someone who thinks a lot about how stories are structured/executed.

What is ‘queerbaiting’?

Queerbaiting, as I’ve always understood it, is the practice of ‘promising’ LGBT+ content, but not following through on that promise. The ‘promising’ part is usually nods and winks from the show, but then the characters end up in relationships with members of the opposite gender, etc. The important assumption behind the idea of queerbaiting is that showrunners and production companies want to cash in on LGBT viewership, but don’t want to alienate the majority straight audience. Therefore, the showrunners get as close as possible to a same gender relationship, but never intend to follow through.

I’ve always been skeptical of the whole notion of queerbaiting, to be honest. I think in order to make an argument about queerbaiting, you have to know the motivations and intentions by the showrunners/writers/directors/cast. You also have to assume bad faith; the showrunners are thinking more about ‘tricking’ their fanbase, than trying to tell a coherent story. (sidenote: I think the bigger issue at hand is that queerness is still not normalized in fiction, and consequently, characters are straight until proven otherwise. Therefore, close same gender relationships that never become romantic are more of an issue of lack of imagination, than an willing attempt to hurt people.)

So, let’s think logically for a moment: If queerbaiting is hinting at a relationship between same gender characters, but never intending to follow through, Voltron does not qualify as queerbaiting. If the showrunners of Voltron intended to queerbait, they would not have fought for the dialogue between Shiro and Adam that makes their romantic relationship explicit. Similarly, Bex Taylor-Klaus, a queer person themself, championed explicit, in-text confirmation that Shiro was in said relationship, and then was proud of the fact that that confirmation was included. Are those things not the opposite of queerbaiting?

Voltron promised, metatexually (i.e. showrunners in interviews, at conventions, etc.), to include LGBT+ representation. In 7x01, Shiro was revealed to be mlm, and had a mlm boyfriend. Therefore, Voltron is not an example of queerbaiting.

What about ‘Bury Your Gays’?

Bury Your Gays is a trope in fiction where queer characters are not allowed to have happy endings. Historically, this trope has referred to the practice of killing of wlw (which is why it was called Dean Lesbian Syndrome before Bury Your Gays gained prominence) going back to pulp wlw novels in the mid-twentieth century. Bury Your Gays was a staple of stories about queer people because homosexuality was (and still is by some) considered to be immoral; characters cannot be rewarded with a happy ending, because in doing so, queerness is being rewarded.

This trope has been in the zeitgeist in recent years, following the death of the wlw character Lexa on the show The 100. The anger and frustration in 2016 stemmed from the deaths of queer female characters. GLAAD notes in its annual Where We Are on TV Report:

“Since the beginning of 2016, more than 25 queer female characters have died on scripted television and streaming series. Most of these deaths served no other purpose than to further the narrative of a more central (and often straight, cisgender) character.”

This is not to say that the death of queer male character can’t be an example of Bury Your Gays, but that this trope historically refers to dead wlw in books and film, and in recent years, outrage with the this trope has concerned dead wlw on television.

So, where does Adam from Voltron fit in? Well, he is a dead queer character, but whether or not he qualifies as an example of Bury Your Gays is questionable. He didn’t die to further the narrative of a more central cis, straight character. He also wasn’t a well-established character, and he died in a scene where many other characters also died. For these reasons, I’m hesitant to claim that Adam is an instance of Bury Your Gays.

Just because a queer character dies does not mean that it is an example of Bury Your Gays. In an article from SYFYwire, the author argues that: “as the criticism moves forward, consistently reducing our stories into binary tallies of whether we live or die does a complete disservice to the potential for three-dimensional, nuanced characters within genre storytelling that we yearn to see more of ourselves in. “

I understand that the death of any queer character on TV is upsetting to some fans, because there are so few queer characters overall. However, as we get more queer characters (and GLAAD has shown increasing numbers of queer characters in the past few years--up to 6.4% of regular characters in 2017), it’s important to question whether good representation is just a matter of a living or dead character, and if the death of an LGBT+ character is just that character’s demise, or part of a bigger trend (see 2016 and wlw deaths).

Therefore, I think we have to evaluate whether or not the trope is in effect depends on the context of the death. I think to really decide whether or not a death of a queer character is Bury Your Gays or not, it’s important to answer the following questions: What is the purpose of this character’s death? What are the genre conventions? Are there other queer characters and what happens to them? Are queer characters dying on other shows in large numbers?

In the next section, I will discuss Adam’s role in the story, and try to answer these questions.

Adam, the character?

Before addressing these questions, I think it’s important to discuss who Adam is as a character, and his role in the overall story.

All told, Adam appears in two short scenes, totaling no more than a few minutes of screentime. While on screen, we learn that a) he was Shiro’s boyfriend, b) he broke up with Shiro due to a culmination of issues in their relationship, c) he was a pilot, and d) he died in a Galra attack. As far as characterizations go, it’s pretty skimpy, but ultimately who he was as a character is unimportant. Adam does not exist on the show to explore any big ideas about gender and sexuality; Adam is a plot device, and he serves two purposes:

Adam confirms that Shiro is mlm. By showing Adam and Shiro’s breakup in a flashback, the show is telling us that Shiro is mlm, without having Shiro say “I am gay.” (sidenote: This is called good storytelling, by the way. Shiro’s story is not a coming out story, so if everyone in canon knows that he’s gay, why would Shiro tell anyone his orientation? Since we have no reason to think that other characters don’t know he’s gay, introducing Adam does the work of confirming Shiro’s sexuality to the audience in lieu of Shiro stating his orientation in dialogue.)

Adam puts a face on the casualties of war during the first attack by the Galra. By killing off Adam in this scene, the stakes have been raised. Volton (both the show and the robot) kills faceless, nameless characters in space battles. I know that the paladins mow down robots all the time, but when Voltron destroys a Galra cruiser or the like, I find it hard to believe that there are only robots on board. But since we, the audience, and they, the paladins of Voltron, don’t know who those people are on board those ships, it’s hard to get emotionally attached to their deaths. The same is true when we see the Galra attack Earth: there is no emotional attachment when the Galra raze major cities, but there is narrative weight to Adam’s death. Now, it’s not just the case that the Galra have killed humans, but that they have specifically killed a human that was important to one of the main characters. The same effect is achieved with Hunk’s family in the work camp.

Ok, so back to those questions: What is the purpose of this character’s death? What are the genre conventions? Are there other queer characters and what happens to them? Are queer characters dying on other shows in large numbers?

To answer the first question: Adam’s death is representative of the end of an era. Adam represents the past: both Shiro’s past with the end of a relationship, and the Garrison’s past with his death as the result of old Garrison defense tactics. His death marks the end of that time in Shiro’s life, and for Earth pre-Galra attack. As mentioned above, Adam’s death also raises the stakes of the Galra attack. Once a character the audience knows dies, that signals that other characters could die too. After Veronica doesn’t get back on the train, the audience genuinely thinks she died. This doesn’t work if the only characters who have died so far are faces on a screen or in background explosions.

To address the second question: Voltron’s genre is part action-adventure comedy, and part war story. The second half of this season feels more like a war story than any part of the previous seasons, despite the fact that Voltron (and the Coalition) has been at war against the Galra since the first episode. In a war story, anyone can die, so it’s not terribly surprising that characters we know end up dying. For example, the Blades of Marmora have had four named characters die (before the timeskip): Ulaz, Thace, Antok, and Regris.

As for the third question: Adam was not the only queer character on Voltron. In explicit text, we have Shiro, one of the main characters, is an Asian mlm with mental and physical disabilities. In less explicit text, we have Pidge, who at the very least could be considered gender non-conforming, and Zethrid and Ezor, who’s relationship appeared to lean romantic.

And the fourth question: LGBT+ representation is really making strides in shows aimed at children and teens. However, there is definitely still a place for questioning whether TV more broadly has a Bury Your Gays problem. In this respect alone--that deaths of queer characters is a trend--could Adam’s death be considered problematic. It’s unfortunate that a queer character was killed in a general media landscape full of dead queer characters, but in the next section, I discuss why I am not so upset by his death.

So what?

What conclusions can be drawn from the context of Adam’s role and his death? Adam is a emotional connection to the toll of the war, both for the audience, and for our mlm main character, Shiro. I do not consider Adam’s death an example of Bury Your Gays, and I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if a heterosexual character had filled Adam’s role in the story. Ultimately, Adam is not the LGBT+ representation fans have been clamoring for, and the showrunners promised to provide--Shiro is.

So, why doesn’t Adam get a happy ending? Because it does not matter if he gets a happy ending or not; it has no impact on main characters or overall storyline. The showrunners could have introduced a different character from the Garrison that we (the audience) cared about, and then kill them in that first battle, but using Adam streamlines this process.

I know a lot of people wanted Adam and Shiro to reunite, and they’d be each other’s happy ending, but this would be Bad Storytelling. Shiro and Adam’s break up is at least 2 years in the past for Shiro. During those years, he has not pined for Adam, regretted his decision, etc. that would indicate that their relationship is not 100% over. In the lead up to season 7, Lauren Montgomery said: “until Shiro made the unfortunate decision [to leave], and they drifted apart and that was the end … for their relationship.”

As I mentioned before, Adam represents the past for Shiro. Shiro has been through so much since their break up, and we have no idea how Adam would have even reacted to the Shiro that makes it back to Earth. If Shiro does get a happy ending in the form of a romantic relationship, it does not make any narrative sense that he would go back to his old boyfriend. Shiro has grown and changed and matured, so a satisfying end to that arc is not going back to where he came from, but forging ahead with a partner who has witnessed that growth and change (if Shiro does get a love interest).

At the end of the show, it will matter if Shiro lives or dies, and whether his ending is happy or not, because he is our explicit LGBT+ representation, the one that was promised to us. But I honestly have complete faith in Voltron. Time and time again, the showrunners, writers, directors, VAs, etc. have shown their commitment to a diverse cast of characters, and representing diverse experiences. There has never been any indication of bad faith on the part of TPTB; they want to make the best possible show for us, and give us representation not found in other television shows.

So, Who Should We be Talking About?

Shiro.

I do think it is important to discuss how harmful tropes manifest in media and why queer characters keep ending up dead. However, I don’t think the solution to this problem is immortal, flawless gay characters who get happy endings just because they’re gay. The best thing we can do is normalize queer characters, and normalizing means creating characters who show the full gamut human experiences. Queer characters can be good and bad people, and have good and bad relationships, so (as long as we don’t get one version of queer people), I think there’s room for a wide variety of queer characters, who have a wide variety of ends to their stories.

So, then there’s Shiro, a heroic leading character the likes of which we haven’t seen before. Shiro is a main character on a non-queer-focused show Asian mlm with mental and physical disabilities, and his presence is normalizing queer characters for a whole new generation of fans.

Shiro is groundbreaking representation, and not just on a show aimed at younger audiences. As GLAAD notes in their report:

“The LGBTQ characters who make it to TV screens tend to be white gay men, who outnumber all other parts of our community in representation on screen ... It’s long past time for television to introduce more diverse LGBTQ characters on multiple levels: more queer people of color (who have long been and remain underrepresented), characters living with disabilities, stories of lesbians and bisexual women, trans characters, characters of various religious backgrounds, and characters who are shaped by existing at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.”

Shiro is that intersection of multiple marginalized identities, and a main character. By showing experiences of queerness and disability and the intersection of the two, and not relegating him to a supporting role, Voltron is telling Shiro’s story, not someone else’s story with Shiro along for the ride.

We should be asking of our media “whose stories get to be told?” On most shows, the answer is white cis-men and women, and maybe a token minority, if you’re lucky. Voltron is telling the stories of people who usually don’t get their stories told--women of all kinds, people of different ethnic backgrounds, queer characters, and intersections of these categories. Voltron has not settled for tokenization, but rather given us multi-faceted representation, crossing these intersecting issues.

#voltron #vld #voltron meta #voltron adam #shiro #voltron spoilers #gender and sexuality #media representation #yooo i finished my dissertation draft and i decided i needed to write some more #this is not to invalidate anyone's feelings #because those are complicated #but i am frustrated by the use of queerbaiting and byg without thinking critically about it #or ignoring the fact that shiro is still gay #still a main character #and still awesome

13 notes · View notes