#there has been no indication that they're supportive of queer people

[aceoflights]

Cause I've seen some people say it. Colin has zero reason to think that coming out to the team would be safe for him.

[davidtennantgenderenvy]

Addressing The Tinhatters: A Statement in Solidarity With @dtmsrpfcringe And Others

I've been active in this fandom for a little over a year, and in my time here I've kept my slate pretty clean. I try not to involve myself in drama and discourse, and when I see something I don't agree with online, most of the time I keep it to myself. I've been aware of the blogs I refer to in this post basically from the onset, but I've stayed quiet, partially to not come across as disrespecting others' opinions and preferences and partially to protect my peace and my own life as a creator. But what started as mostly harmless, if a bit unhinged and delusional, behavior, has turned on some fronts into unimaginable cruelty the likes of which I never imagined this fandom to be capable of. As someone who it seems people in this fandom have come to respect, I think it would be unfair and selfish for me to stay neutral any longer.

Fanfiction has been a genuinely transformative force in my life. It has helped me discover so much about my own relationships to love and desire, and I would never want to tell anyone that it is wrong for any ship to be that source of inspiration for them, including RPF. Nor do I think, as I've said, that it's inherently wrong to have speculative thoughts about David and Michael's sexualities. As someone who has been lucky enough to interact with David several times now, and probably will again, I choose not to do so myself in a public forum out of respect, but curiosity doesn't have to be invasive, and David and Michael being in loving partnerships with women certainly doesn't mean they can't be attracted to other genders too. There's nothing wrong with liking the idea of a relationship between David Tennant and Michael Sheen, or even, really, with believing they might have feelings for each other. If that's all you're doing, this post isn't about you. What I absolutely cannot excuse is the proliferation of hypocritical, nonsensical, and nasty rumors about the women in their lives.

Nothing Georgia Tennant or Anna Lundberg seems to do is ever good enough. Every expression of positivity is curated and phony, anything that could be perceived as negative vile and mean. I see these women attacked on a daily basis as partners, as mothers, as actresses. Georgia is simultaneously presenting a false ideal of a perfect, happy family for her own gains, while somehow at the same time being too irresponsible and incompetent to be a proper parent. Anna, a still young and up and coming actress herself, is expected to perform the ideal of an affectionate partner on social media, is perceived as unsupportive of Michael when she doesn't, when in reality she may simply be trying to make a name for herself in the industry without people solely associating her with the man she loves. Both of these women share in David and Michael's advocacy for marginalized communities, sometimes in different, more or less obvious ways. David and Michael are always brave and sincere, while Anna and Georgia's actions are always self serving and performative, though no evidence is ever given to indicate that the things they post or charities they support are any sort of cover or deflection. Nor are there ever any reasons given for their perceived lack of onscreen talent, other than that they're "boring" or don't have as many jobs as their husbands- never mind that both of them are in an extremely competitive industry and get perfectly respectable amounts of work, especially for mothers of young children. Worst of all, I've seen them accused of things as awful as child abuse and rape, all for the crime of simply being married to the wrong men. It's all so horribly gendered too, David and Michael often referred to as the "men" while Georgia and Anna are reduced to negative stereotypes of nagging, shallow gold diggers. As a fandom populated with so many queer people, many of whom, myself included, have found freedom from gender roles with Michael and David's characters' help, I thought we knew better.

I've been lucky enough to meet both David and Georgia now, and have witnessed firsthand the easy, joyful affection they have for each other when no one of consequence is watching, the way they giddily hold hands on the street and make each other laugh while tenderly looking into each other's eyes even and especially after sixteen years together. Georgia when I met her was incredibly kind, down to earth, and approachable, and my partner, who's met her several times more than I have, gushes about her constantly- how funny, authentic, and intelligent she is, and of course, how much she and David love each other, how they look out for each other and adore each other's flaws and quirks. David of course still gushes about Georgia every chance he gets in speeches and interviews, her strength and brilliance as well as her beauty, and Georgia, while maybe not always as effusive, shows her love for David in plenty of ways, the beautiful candid photos she takes of him, for instance. There's such a soft, painterly tenderness and fondness in them, for the man, not just the dazzling star everyone else gets to see. Her David, gentle, devoted, goofy, aging, melancholy, imperfectly perfect David. Where would we be without Georgia giving us these little glimpses of him? I suspect the same people who deride Georgia's social media presence as try-hard, cringeworthy, artificial, would feel a bit differently if one day they stopped coming.

I can't speak as clearly on behalf of Anna and Michael, but the accounts I've gotten of her and Michael's relationship from eyewitnesses have presented it as no less loving than David and Georgia's, albeit in slightly different ways. Even then, why should I have to? She doesn't owe me anything. I doubt anyone who's made the posts accusing Anna and Georgia of being nasty baby trappers has ever had children. There's no such thing as a perfect mother, and even one child is a massive task. It's normal to not be a shining ray of affection all the time, and Georgia I know more than makes up for it with her fierce love and support for her children in all of their endeavors. Georgia is also a diagnosed neurodivergent woman, and so many of the remarks I see directed at her are clearly discriminatory and often directed at women with her diagnoses. Everyone coos over how charming David is when he shows signs of being AuDHD, but the second his wife does too, she's careless and cold. And don't even get me started on when photos of Michael and David looking anything less than beatifically happy get interpreted as them being miserable due to their wives treating them so poorly. THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS!!! NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSIONS EXIST!!! WOULD YOU BE A SPARKLING RAY OF SUNSHINE IF YOUR DISNEYLAND RIDE GOT STUCK!!!

I say all this now not even because I think I have any hope of stopping the people in question, but because one of the main fighters on the front of the opposition, @dtmsrpfcringe, has been both a wonderful online friend to me and dealt with even worse abuse than that which gets hurled at Anna and Georgia on the daily. When my blog was briefly overrun by TERFs in light of the Tennant/Badenoch/Sunak drama, Tori was the first person to stand up for me, and as she recieves more vitriol in one day than I've ever experienced in my entire life online, I think I've taken far too long to do the same for her. This woman has dealt with doxing threats, attacks on her character, and most horrific of all, wishes of death upon her and her baby. No one would blame her for stopping, but she has remained steadfast in her mission to call bs where she sees it, and she shouldn't have to do it alone. Tori, I think you are so brave, and I am proud to stand in solidarity with you against the misinformation, meanness, and misogyny that threaten to corrupt this fandom we call home.

Even after all we've been through over the past couple of months, I still believe the Good Omens fandom and David and Michael's individual fandoms to be places of kindness, empathy, and inclusivity. Which is why such cruel behavior (because there's no other word for it) is utterly disappointing and baffling to me. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. You're the exact kinds of people David and Michael speak out against on a weekly basis, and I guarantee that if you engage in the kinds of behavior I've highlighted here, they would be disgusted with you. Or maybe they'd simply pity you, because your lives are so empty that you've decided the only way to fill them is to sacrifice the reputations and peace of innocent women on the altar of a relationship that in all likelihood takes place solely in your own heads.

And if you read all this and find you still ship David and Michael, which even I do sometimes, well, there's always polyamory.

I'm sleepy! good night and kindly fuck off! - Lauren

[prettysweetprettysweet]

boy there is so much to unpack based on what Karan's sister said to her mom about how Karan was raised. its so crazy that his parents reinforced what they valued and what they didn't value by withholding reactions/not engaging with Karan if they didn't like or approve of what he was doing (and up until the present part of the story, didn't think this was harmful??). i don't know if the writers meant for it to be so profoundly sad, but the thought of a queer child who already felt deeply conflicted about his identity trying to express himself, find out who he is, and share his excitement about cool things he finds in the world only to get nothing from his caretakers to acknowledge it is heartbreaking. his flames burned out because he was doing it in a cold empty vacuum. she said he would pursue those things until it "got boring" but really what that means is he pursued those things/expressed himself in certain ways until the lack of interaction from his parents made him feel so insecure, self-conscious, and lonely that he phased it out. and then when he started getting engagement from his parents again, he would internalize that he shouldn't go where his instincts/pleasures/interests guide him because they're the makeup of an unacceptable person.

so Karan's historical self-deprecation in regards to his queerness and his uncontrollable, tear-filled reaction to hearing his mother indicate that she does want to support and engage with he and Achi, makes all the sense in the world. when he confessed his feelings to Achi he apologized multiple times essentially for letting the real Karan take over and control what his brain and heart were doing, ruining things between them. i love that Achi's immediate reaction to that was "you're sorry???" because its so bewildering that Karan would apologize for being himself, feeling his feelings, or thinking his thoughts. but he has been trained his whole life not to indulge or engage with his authentic self, so he feels like a failure when he does. he built his life around models of perfection and ways of carrying himself that were molded by other people.

Karan asking his mother "are you disappointed" that I'm gay/in love with a man really gets to the heart of it. like, if his mother had a choice, if his mother had the ability to change things about her son to fit her image of a better person, what parts of Karan would she remove or swap out? this is something he has had to consider, if not on a conscious level then definitely on a subconscious one, for his whole life: what parts of me are scraps, what parts of me are unwanted?

its such a relief that Achi stated that for him, caring for Karan means supporting him in doing the things that he likes and that bring him pleasure (like cooking and spending money on things that he and Achi can do together). Karan had asked Achi to "bear with" him but its clear that Achi isn't bearing anything. Achi takes pride in his charge of caring for Karan -- and helping him indulge his wants, abandon the constant grind for perfection, and reconnect with himself is a huge part of that.

[overleftdown]

this is going to be my somewhat-brief analysis (buckle in, it's not brief at all) of preluding scenes to farleigh and olivers... scene, lmao. because i can't read micro-expressions and social cues IRL, but i can for movies! also, i want to give my understanding of farleigh's character using the most substantial part of his arc. i disagree so much with a lot of people's takes on farleigh. i needed to talk extensively about it.

[0:58:46] farleigh makes eye contact with a footman. this is one of the footmen that farleigh mentions to felix in a later scene, which i'll also go into. what's interesting about this subtle interaction is how wildly differently you could consider it, depending on how you choose to view farleigh as a character. if you go the "mirror of oliver," route, then this eye contact could be the moment farleigh decides the route he's going to take to confront felix.

on the other hand, the hand that i believe makes more sense, farleigh is genuine in his confrontation with felix. the eye contact he shares with the footman is reciprocated; the footman holds it, even as his body pulls back and his head turns. this gives the idea that they are making a connection. the expression farleigh makes afterwards is also an indication that farleigh isn't plotting or scheming to earn pity points; he feels a connection and comradery with the only other black people at saltburn. when the footman turns away, unneeded anymore (this can be a parallel to farleigh), farleigh glances down, back up, then purses his lips. he looks dejected, in my opinion. this is immediately followed by farleigh's dig at oliver; "i think oliver looks like he'd rather throw himself out of a window.

food for thought.

[0:59:9] elsbeth: you can invite all your friends. farleigh: what friends?

this can obviously be a petty dig. and it is, in some ways. but i think a lot of these petty digs are because farleigh has been here before. he has watched his cousin drag home mediocre and tragic (presumably) white boys for perceived self-benefit. whether felix wants entertainment, wants to quell his guilty conscious (both of which are motivations for his mother), felix seems to have these fleeting possessive relationships with the friends he brings back to saltburn. he could also be queer and deeply repressed, lmfao.

i digress; farleigh is sick and tired. the first thing he says to oliver, before oliver even got to felix, was bitchy as all hell. after that, farleigh had more incentive to belittle oliver; yes, his comments about mannerisms, class, and overall character were petty. they were also all of the qualities that farleigh couldn't afford to have. farleigh is pointing out that oliver has no social life, yet still gets a 200-person party full of people that don't even know his name. this is tragically unfair, at least in farleigh's mind.

[1:01:25] felix: and fucking farleigh, what a little shit stirrer. oliver: well, someone has to entertain us all. felix: ...right. oliver: that's why we love him.

there's a clear disregard of humanity and depth, when felix concedes that farleigh is "entertainment." the sheer fact that felix would immediately believe oliver, a "stranger (as venetia so eloquently puts)" over a close family member, is odd on it's own. there are probably more reasons for distrust; everyone in saltburn is a shit stirrer, and farleigh does put on a particularly good show.

that's intentional, though. farleigh is very intentionally entertainment. otherwise, why would the cattons keep him around? they're welcoming people to their house as family, because they want a break from the reality of soul sucking wealth. because they want entertainment. elsbeth with her friend, who's only real personality traits are being pitiful and visibly different. felix, with his summer pet projects like oliver. farleigh can't be a temporary show; he needs to keep coming back. he needs sir james to support his mother.

[1:02:40] farleigh: i'm not saying my mother isn't completely idiotic when it comes to money. felix: you just have to be firm with her. farleigh: well i can't call her and tell her no! felix: i know, i know, you've said that. i know, i understand. farleigh: no, you don't know! you don't, it's humiliating. felix: it's very hard.

felix's approach to discussing other people's issues--that he does not relate to--makes me giggle sometimes. not that he's malicious or a fumbling idiot, but because of this scene specifically. in just this chunk of dialogue, you have the "i understand" and "you don't understand" conflict. an age old one. a common representation of someone who has never lived a specific struggle yet frames themselves as knowledgeable. felix seems to enjoy the "it's very hard" verbiage. the manner in which he speaks to oliver about his supposed impoverishment and struggles is very similar to the way he speaks to farleigh, in this scene.

i don't know what else to say about this. you can make your own inferences on felix's dialogue, i suppose.

[1:02:50] farleigh: i'm sorry, but it's a bit fucking shitty. you're all throwing oliver a party for 200 people while my mother lives in squalor. felix: well, she's hardly living in squalor, mate. farleigh: well she can't pay her bills so she will be! okay? at the rate she's going, she will be.

GAH. again, this dialogue can be considered in two different ways. farleigh could be hyperbolizing in order to play into the catton savior complex. or he could be completely genuine in his anxiety surrounding his mother's finances. it's very important that you recognize the fact that farleigh isn't arguing about himself, in this situation. he's talking about his mother. later in the conversation, he recenters himself as a person of color. but the original conflict is about whether or not his mom is living comfortably. this arguably affects him, but not entirely. he could continue to maintain his oxford-student-and-saltburn-resident character and continue to frolic around while his mom struggles to make responsible decisions.

[1:03:02] felix: right, well that's exactly why dads concerned about helping her. he doesn't want to enable her. he wants her to learn how to stand on her own two feet. farleigh: yeah, like he does?

and farleigh ate.

[1:03:09] farleigh: i mean, you know how this looks, right? making me come to you with a begging bowl. felix: what are you implying? farleigh: i think you know what i'm implying, felix. why don't you ask liam and joshua? felix: who... who the fuck are liam and joshua!? farleigh: ...your footmen.

farleigh's mannerisms in this portion of the scene GAG me. the easy confidence, the self-assured and confrontational attitude. the cocky wave of his shoulders and tilt of his head. he smirks, scoffs, makes and holds eye contact as emphasis to what he is accusing. the way he says "i think you know what i'm implying" even though i'm not quite sure if felix did. this really hammers in the implicit nature of the cattons' treatment of farleigh.

[1:03:33] felix: oh, oh. that is... that is low, farleigh. farleigh: okay. felix: jesus christ, mate! seriously, is that where you wanna take this!? farleigh: right. felix: make it a race thing!? what the fuck! i mean, we're your family, we hardly even notice that you're... different, or anything like that! farleigh: mmm. felix: i never know our footmen's names!

GAGGED. i eat up this scene and lick my fingers. "wohohoho, i don't see color! i can't believe you'd make it a race thing!" i know i should cut felix some slack, but this is just a little too real. although i've cut farleigh some slack for his classism.

the complete change in farleigh's mannerisms from the previous timestamp to this one is EDIBLE. i can't cope with it. his smile as felix says "that is low" is so painfully real. it says "i've been here before and maybe i was expecting this." for a second, felix is almost entertainingly cliche. then the exasperation hits. farleigh just looks tired. he blinks rapidly, smooths over his eyebrow with his hand, vocalizes his disbelief in felix's denial. "we hardly even notice you're different," to which farleigh crosses his arms (defensive), raises his eyebrows, nods along.

i won't include the final few lines of this conversation cuz i'm blabbing FAR too much, but farleigh's expressions of absolutely exhaustion and disappointment as felix says they've "been more generous then most"... i'm so sick. it doesn't matter what other families would do, because this family passes out charity like it's their favorite pastime. farleigh is your best american girl.

oliver, overhearing this conversation, immediately knows what his next plan of action is. compare himself to farleigh. and really, it's funny, because oliver misses the obvious differences between him and farleigh. just like everyone else. he will never feel different, not in the same way farleigh does. not with farleigh's relationship to the cattons, the legacy of his parents, and his blackness.

[1:06:32] (godfather's karaoke scene, AKA apple bottom jeans. he's a disgusting manchild and he throws his jacket at his wife.) is it odd to point out that another one of the only visible black characters is being degraded/mistreated/disregarded? not crazy, right? especially following the conversation about bias two scenes ago.

[1:07:02] farleigh: y'know, i think i'd fuck richard the III. he's so insecure, so you'd know he'd put in the work, right? oliver: or you could just fuck me, right?

here, i think there's a level of projection that farleigh is using in his line about insecurity. not only is it made known that farleigh uses sex as a tool (with teachers, specifically), but it's also made known that farleigh believes/knows that he is treated differently due to his race and/or family history. oliver seems to have clocked this, considering he relates himself to richard the III, then tells farleigh they have similar experiences.

[1:07:34] oliver: y'know, if you ever wanna talk to anyone, you can talk to me, farleigh. farleigh: ...what do you mean? oliver: well, i know you're going through a hard time at home. i know how that feels, when things are so precarious. it's terrifying... and lonely. and it must be so fucking weird, having to ask them for everything. and i know you fucking hate me. farleigh: i... i don't hate you. oliver: but... if you ever wanted me to talk to them, to see if there's... if i can help in any way... just ask. farleigh: ...okay.

i love this movie. have i said that yet? i bet you definitely couldn't tell by this post. this conversation is so... there's so much to talk about.

i'll start with some of my favorite of farleigh's mannerisms/expressions. when oliver first cuts their... tensions with "you can talk to me," farleigh pulls back slightly, sits up slightly, looks across oliver's face. there's a level of shock to it, but. farleigh was comfortable with oliver, his sworn enemy, flirting with him. yet, he pulled back at a genuine offer of support. some see this as farleigh always wanting oliver sexually, but i think it's more nuanced than that. when oliver says "terrifying... and lonely" that's when the camera cuts back to farleigh. he previously wore a half-smile that is now dropping; "lonely" was the hardest word to swallow. his lip is quivering. he looks up in an almost-eye roll when he says, "i don't hate you." he's laughing when oliver finishes, like he finds it all funny, yet the way he says "okay" makes him seem genuine. however... clearly not, considering the next portion of this scene!

even though oliver is lying out of his ass, everything he's saying is a description of farleigh. people grossly misunderstand farleigh's character, even when it's laid onto a banquette sized table through this portion of the movie. he's insecure, desperate, terrified, unsure, and lonely. farleigh, with so many friends and so many scandalous choices, is so fucking lonely. he knows he doesn't belong here, so he jams his ill-fitting puzzle piece into the saltburn jigsaw and crosses his fingers.

he tells oliver he doesn't hate him, and he looks like he's struggling to spit it out. he looks up towards the ceiling, closes his eyes like he's gathering himself. again, people take this as a bonding moment. the next portion of the scene contradicts this. honestly, i'm not completely sure, either. i think he's honest when he says he doesn't hate oliver. so, what? he's jealous, definitely. he wants to hold the same power as oliver, a foreign entity with somehow so much more privilege than farleigh. maybe that bred a certain kind of infatuation; the need to emulate what you'll never be. of course, he sees himself in the boys felix brings home; they, just like farleigh, need or want something from the cattons (although i object to the idea that farleigh is somehow "a mirror" of oliver). do what you will with this word vomit, i don't know where i'm going here.

and OH MY GOD "if you ever wanted me to talk to them, to see if there's... if i can help in any way," is diabolical. so terribly diabolical. the sheer idea that oliver knows, is pummeling it into farleigh's face, that he has authority over farleigh's life like that? that he knew felix for six months and he can somehow "talk to" farleigh's family about treating farleigh better... vomit inducing. farleigh is actually your best american girl.

[1:09:39] (karaoke scene) elsbeth, so uncomfortable with the idea that oliver is using them. i suppose that's the manner of wealthy people; they don't want to believe that they're only good for their money. but... they did that to themselves, in a way. they enjoy the pet projects, the charity work, the ego boost that comes with inviting the "lesser" to saltburn. hanjob on a haybale, golden big boy summer, right? everyone in the room is scandalized. farleigh is having the time of his fucking life. yet, here's the kicker,

[1:10:10] oliver: this is your song too, farleigh. come finish it. farleigh: only if you insist!

and then farleigh gives the performance of his life, by the way. people died. but... nobody is uncomfortable. literally no one. no one shudders or gasps at the scandal of oliver saying "this is your song, too" over the karaoke microphone; everyone heard. nobody cares. they all know. they start clapping farleigh on, cheering. elsbeth relaxes back onto her bed of cushions, because farleigh is entertaining. the change in mood is soooo... interesting.

[1:10:45] curse this scene, i don't even want to talk about it. it was hot, oliver and farleigh are so homoerotic, whatever yadayada. just like every other sexual scene in this movie, it is riddled with a suffocating kind of uncomfortable tension. we are made intimate third-party witnesses to carnal, sinful, emotionally ambiguous scenes. when i pointed out farleigh seemed more comfortable with flirting then comfort, when i said farleigh uses sex as a tool, when i said farleigh was projecting with "he's so insecure, so you know he'd put in the work." i just overthink. but any person that has sexual relationships with teachers needs intensive therapy and that cannot be denied. however, it's oliver, that uses sex as a tool throughout this movie. another uncomfortable parallel between the two characters.

something about farleigh's expression throughout this scene is... kind of hurtful. the way the moonlight just barely illuminates the light in his eyes, whereas any detail of oliver's face is shrouded in darkness. it make's farleigh look young, innocent, real. (sidenote, as i'm watching, i have to mention this. the way farleigh says that second "no" is so funny. "...no...?" LMFAO). man, i don't even know what to say, past this. the whole dominant dynamic, farleigh saying "i'm going to behave" is a little too painful considering the context leading up to this scene. it's freaky. it's so very oliver.

this is way too long but i could make so many more connections with their final confrontation at oliver's birthday party. i'm drowning in thoughts. what i really wanted to highlight was how ambiguous farleigh's character is, and how differently a lot of his scenes can be perceived. i've decided that farleigh is a sympathetic character, similar to oliver but so much less powerful. some people hate farleigh! so. there's that. the end! thanks to anyone who read this whole thing!

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

I'm new to a fandom's tumblr. I draw sometimes. After joining and posting my art I realised there wasn't much of a community here despite the fandom being fairly big. I'm basically unknown, still I got anons asking if I shipped others things and one persistent anon trying to know why I'm into a certain unpopular dynamic. Not my first rodeo, I blocked the anon and turned off asks for the time being.

Then I made a couple friends and joined a few discords from tumblr and twitter where I learned about some inner politics. Turns out there's a very popular artist (late twenties) who is one of those situationally leftist, functionally conservative types. They selectively highlight marginalized voices they themselves agree with, speak over the rest, harass people over fandom wankery, is an Asian but is known to hate Asians in mainland because we're all fetishizers or wrong kind of queers (for example they don't follow a single native Asian artist in a manga fandom because we're all gross "proshitters"), very big into cyberbullying people over fiction and idpol etc. They're trans too.

I've been to 10+ fandoms before and this is most puritanical one. This place is fractured and miserable. The community is built around hating people and characters.

This artist who is a fandom leader of sorts, with over 40k followers on twitter and of course a large following on tumblr, has a lot of fans who got popular by mimicing their style and that's a way to get endorsed by them. You're either a fan of them and in their community or you're a rogue fan who will not see one millionth of the notes they get, they'll actively avoid you if you indicate you're into things they explicitly hate, worse of all they'll flood you with anon hate on all platforms. Many of their fans are young adults or teens who keep secret accounts to view said gross things and secretly support said gross artists while harassing those artists and some writers in the name of this leadar. They say they're scared to disagree.

The more I learn (with proof) about what sort of community they have the more I want to leave this fandom wholly, which they'd like so I'm not gonna do that technically.

Instead I'm thinking about doing something I saw another anon here do, which is to make an image of myself as all the things this person hates, maybe make arts of ships and dynamics they hate and that way get all their friends and their two faced coattail rider fans to leave me alone, potentially gain likeminded friends in the process.

WIBTA if I did that because that'd be lying to the masses?

What are these acronyms?

[pinchinschlimbah]

On "Coming Out" and Noel Fielding

I mentioned forever ago that I had this post in mind and then never got around to it, but now with the new interview quote I was yelling about recently it feels like a particularly good time to get it out of my brain and onto the page! tl;dr: musings on the concept of "coming out" as it has evolved over time, whether it's something that should continue to be necessary or expected of queer people, and why Noel is particularly inspirational to me in that regard since this is, after all, my brainrot blog. This may be extremely long and a bit disjointed but I hope some of y'all will enjoy it!

So a while ago myself and several friends were discussing the concept of coming out. All of us are some flavor of queer both in gender and orientation, but each is in a different place along their self discovery and identity journey, with some being long since out and proud, and others just starting to dip their toes into exploration past the expected cishet.

This discussion actually was prompted by a different discussion about Noel, spurred by comments we'd come across slamming him as being homophobic/transphobic on Bakeoff for making comments suggesting he has romantic or sexual attraction towards Paul, referring to himself with female-centric terms, playing female characters in the skits, and a particular moment where he brings up Old Gregg while talking to KimJoy and says "he was a sea transsexual....quite a demanding role for me" while laughing to indicate that that last part was said in jest. Hey fellas, is it homophobic/transphobic to be a little bit gay and trans? This got us talking about how the current culture of queer identity has evolved to the point where "coming out" feels more like something the public feels they're owed in order for them to view one's expression as valid, rather than its original purpose as something one does for themself in order to live most authentically. I don't think I need to go into detail about how many artists have been harassed by their "fans" into coming out before they were ready because people wouldn't accept the validity of that person's work without knowing exactly how that person identified, there've been plenty of articles and video essays and better written tumblr posts about that, but it's definitely a concerning trend. It can be particularly dangerous when it comes to people who aren't feeling confident or safe enough to come out, who end up being criticized and shunned by the queer community as being somehow problematic for not being able to fully articulate to a group of strangers the ways in which they're experiencing their identity. In this situation, the people who are struggling the most end up with the least support. Forcing people to either declare an identity or get out just leads to more people staying closeted out of fear of doing it "wrong" and never getting the chance to explore the most authentic and joyful versions of themselves, or even worse, feeling the need to out themselves before they're in a safe place to do so and suffering the resulting consequences. Questioning or cautious people deserve space in the community to experiment even if they haven't yet or maybe never will come out! My high school's Gay Straight Alliance was comprised entirely of "straight allies" when I was there. There was not a single "out" person in the school at the time. Nearly all of us in the GSA ended up being some flavor of queer or trans years later after graduation. But whether it was intentional closeting or just feeling an innate affinity towards something we couldn't quite pinpoint at the time, we all knew we belonged there and made that space for ourselves and others like us. Back when "coming out" first became a concept in the public consciousness, it was during a time where cishet identity was not just considered the default, but the only option. By coming out, queer people were giving genuinely revolutionary representation for themselves and others like them by telling the world that, as the old saying goes, we're here, we're queer, get used to it! Nowadays, we're lucky to live in a culture that is much more cognizant of queer identities being a thing, so in many cases coming out has become less about having to explain to those around you the basic concept of queerness existing, and moreso about which specific identity you fall under, and that's where things get messy.

My friends and I shared our own thoughts and experiences. One is currently identifying as "unlabeled" because they haven't found a term that feels correct yet, and therefore hasn't come out because they wouldn't know what to say. One spoke about how when they first came out they were much more insistent on what terms or pronouns people used for them but as time has gone on they've grown to find joy in being inscrutable and letting others wonder what they're perceiving. One expressed that given the state of the world they've been retreating somewhat back into the closet for safety reasons rather than being super outward with their queerness like they used to and is working on learning to embrace those parts of themself again. One said they felt like they'd already been existing as queer and expressing that queerness "before I even had the terms to come out to myself" and is now working on catching up on the conscious end of figuring out what's what. I myself never really had an official "coming out", I just became increasingly visually/socially/vocally queer as I became more and more confident in who I was and what I wanted to be and who I had on some level always been, and decided if people didn't get the hint that's their own problem. I came into consciousness of my queerness during the early 2010s original tumblr MOGAI microlabel boom, where there was a ton of focus on figuring out the hyper specific identity labels that exactly described what you were experiencing. I did a lot of digging and soul searching and experienced a lot of unnecessary stress trying and failing to find my perfect labels and landed on clumsy terms like "full time drag queen" because it was the closest I could get to what I was feeling about my gender, only to be told it was problematic for me to call myself that as an AFAB person because drag "belongs to cis gay men" (don't get me started on that statement, that's a whole other essay lol) It was a real wake up call once I distanced from these aggressively labeled and segmented online spaces and made my way into real world queer communities where I was relieved to find that in fact no one there asks to check your membership card before letting you in, if you feel like you belong there you're welcome no questions asked.

I had other people in these communities referring to me as "queer" and "fag" and "gay" and "queen" before I felt comfortable doing so myself based on online Discourse I'd experienced over who is Allowed to use certain terms, and having these community leaders I respected recognizing those things in me and welcoming me in like that gave me the confidence to really find my own footing in ways that attempting to find my exact correct identity label so that I could officially proclaim it never did. Once I could answer the question of what I was with a shrug and "queer I guess!" things became so much easier. Microlabels can be incredibly helpful and liberating for some, don't get me wrong if it works for you that's great, but let's not pretend that everyone is going to have the same experiences.

So anyway, back to Noel. Noel has never, to my knowledge, ever had any sort of official “coming out” or explicitly referred to himself as queer. So I know there are people out there who will disagree with me considering him to be queer. But so much of what he’s said and done throughout his several decades long career has indicated to me that this is clearly someone of queer experience navigating the world as such, and just as the queers in my local community welcomed me as one of them before I knew to do it myself, I extend that welcome forward. 

Let’s take a look at some of the facts. In the public span of his career, Noel has.....(in no particular order, also if anyone wants to add additional instances of note in the reblogs or comments please feel free, this is by no means a fully comprehensive list) -repeatedly called himself "the woman of the Boosh" or Julian's/Howard's "wife" in ways that suggest that's how he actually felt about it rather than it just being a punchline that he was mistaken for female in the show [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] -referred to himself at the GQ "Man of the Year" awards as "never been a man" and "a sort of girl, he/she" -been referred to by Sandi Toksvig as being "on the cusp" in regards to gender, to which he reacts with amusement and acceptance -consistently expressed excitement and appreciation when others refer to him with feminine terms or say he looks like a girl [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] -said "I love being a man-woman, it's much more interesting than being one or the other" and expressed that the loved shooting the Boosh Electro episode for this reason -referred to Vince Noir (a character who he's been pretty open about being based on himself) as "wasn't seemingly one gender or the other" -expressed that he felt most free and happy when presenting femininely [2] -had Julian, one of the people closest to him, express that Noel and Sandi (an out lesbian) may have "real sexual chemistry" because Noel is "all over the shop, he's a different sex" -used the "Confuser" line of "Is it a boy? Is it a girl? I'm not sure I mind" to refer to himself rather than Vince, and express that he's had to work to find new ways to feel as androgynous as he'd like now that he's older -referred to himself as a lesbian [2] -said that he "sometimes looks in the mirror and sees a woman", in the same interview that Julian implies that Noel is in fact a girl -referred to himself as a "girl/boy" -consistently referred to himself with feminine terms on panel shows and bakeoff -made a joke on bakeoff about not being a testosterone-based person -responded positively when asked about the ways Boosh had influenced queer and nonbinary youth -has said he's "quite obsessed with the man/woman mixup thing" -has said if he was an animal he'd want to be a seahorse because the males get pregnant -Had Lee Mack, who Noel used to live with, refer to him as "the little transsexual one, yeah I think she's fantastic" in a Boosh documentary and "a young lady who came out here happy to be herself" in response to Noel's Wuthering Heights drag performance -had his own mother refer to him as "the daughter I always wanted" -described his own appearance as that of a "transsexual witch" and when an interviewer attempted to make fun of him for calling himself "a transgender witch" by showing Noel a drawing the interviewer clearly found repulsive, Noel responded that the interviewer was "holding up a mirror" and called the image his passport photo

And I'm not even going to bother citing sources on the countless times he's made comments suggesting romantic or sexual attraction towards men. Literally just watch any non-character appearance he's ever done, it's kind of his whole thing??? Not to mention his penchant for picking up explicitly queer and gnc character roles, and also just [gestures vaguely to everything Noel and Julian have said about each other suggesting romantic and sexual tension between them and how they used their characters as an excuse to explore those feelings in a less scary way, again that could be a whole other essay on its own but ooh boy] I also think there's something interesting to explore in the idea of Noel repeatedly referring to his appearance as transgender or transsexual rather than identifying himself as such- at what point does the appearance of something become reality?

It all begs the question- is it even a joke anymore if it's that consistent? Either it's not a joke and it's an authentic expression of his real feelings and experiences, or he for some reason really really wants everyone to believe that he's queer when he's not, with this behavior spanning back to a time before the concept of queerbaiting was on anyone's minds and when being publicly queer could mean the end of your career. Which scenario do you think is more likely? And, does someone who’s been conducting themself like this for their entire career really NEED to come out? Honestly, I find this level of simultaneous authenticity and inscrutability aspirational.

In this Velvet Onion interview from 2012, Noel compares his penchant for dresses to both Grayson Perry and Eddie Izzard. This is interesting because those two people represent pretty opposite intentions behind their presentation- Grayson identifies solidly as cis male, and for him the shock value of crossdressing is the point, saying “I signed up for a gender and I want them to be very clearly delineated so I know I’m dressing up in the wrong clothes.” This doesn't seem particularly in line with where Noel is coming from given him famously referring to himself as "the Confuser" and stating in that same Velvet Onion interview that he "never even bothered giving it a label, I never went oh I'm a transvestite, I just went yeah if I fancy wearing a dress I do, never really thought about it really" Eddie on the other hand has famously said "They're not women's clothes. They're my clothes, I bought them." indicating that they were a genuine part of her authentic expression rather than a crossdressing costume, and has subsequently over the years identified more and more solidly as transfemme. I find Eddie's trajectory particularly fascinating because it's been so non-linear. In the 90s when the language for transness was much less public knowledge, she referred to herself consistently as a transvestite- a cishet man who enjoyed dressing as a woman, as well as using terms like "male tomboy" and "male lesbian" and "a full boy plus extra girl". Despite doing most of her standup shows in femme looks, most of her acting jobs were male-presenting, and there was a period of time in the 2010s where she dropped the femme presentation entirely in an attempt to be taken more seriously as the "crossdressing" was seen by many as a gimmick. Swinging back around more recently, Eddie has been explicitly identifying as genderfluid and transfemme, and in recent years has made the decision to "be based in girl mode from now on", and use primarily she/her pronouns. Since this announcement, in her trans advocacy work Eddie has described herself as being "out" as trans since the 1980s despite all of the above. She always knew who she was, it's just she's gotten access to more accurate terms over time to describe what she was experiencing, as well as feeling more safe to do so the more that transness became a known and accepted concept in the public eye.

The interview I mentioned at the very start of this post isn't really a coming out from Noel. And I don't think we'll ever really get one from him. In my opinion Noel has spent the past several decades conducting himself as someone who is in fact already out- it’s pretty clear Noel knows and is proud of who he is regardless of how he chooses to describe that identity. At this point, making some sort of official statement would just be for the benefit of others looking for clarification on their own perception of him and people who want to be able to put him in one box or another, and that’s not what coming out should be. The statement in the new interview is not "I am genderfluid", its "I've always been genderfluid", simply putting an accurate name to what's always been publicly visibly true now that he's got the terms to do so.

[lemotmo]

Okay, I basically stalked that blog, sorry not sorry. The other answers you shared were nice but this is the answer. EVERYONE READ THIS ANSWER. You won't need a question synopsis, it will be very clear what they were asked. Also I got the sense from their blog that they're more of a fan of the show as a whole than a hard core shipper. They do clearly like Tommy but they're a Buck lover through and through if you scroll their blog. READ THIS ANSWER!

A. Hi anon, I have been very clear from the beginning that I will support whatever ship the show decides to go with. I have worked very hard at trying to maintain realistic expectations. The problem with your argument is that the show hasn't shown us anything you presented in your ask. The show hasn't indicated in any way that this is a long-term serious relationship for either of them. In fact I would argue that most of the dialogue Tommy has been given would actually indicate the opposite, at least where he's concerned. He has been given very little actual dialogue so I promise you they're being particular with the dialogue they are giving him. And I'm sorry, but no, the show absolutely did not tell us or insinuate in any way that Buck told Tommy to only call him Evan. Lou himself said in one of his cameos that the show won't 'allow' him to call him Buck. If you've been around for longer than season 7 not calling him Buck is usually a bad sign. All his previous partners called him Evan. It's an established pattern of indicating they don't really know him. So far, from the little we've been shown, they're sticking to that pattern. We do however have numerous canon scenes of Buck explaining why he doesn't associate with the name Evan. Going by Buck is a well established CHOICE for him. At this point, Tommy is being written as a plot device. The show hasn't given us anything more than that. Can that change? Sure, but I don't think it will change much. Tim himself said it was a nice introductory relationship for Buck and he didn't want anything heavy (I'm paraphrasing). Oliver said Buck was going to have to work for his next relationship. He said this having already filmed the beginning of Buck and Tommy (and at that point Tommy was only supposed to last 4 episodes but they got renewed and the storyline was slowed down) so I don't think Tommy is the relationship Oliver was referring to. I will once again stress, that's okay. Tommy can be important without being his forever. It doesn't make Tommy meaningless. But it is why, in the end, the cameo videos were a mistake. It's lovely that Lou wanted to talk with people, and I understand why he wanted to do them, but many of those fans have taken those headcanon conversations and tried to argue them as canon fact, like your ask did, and they simply aren't based on anything canon. I hope that doesn't sound mean because I get wanting them to be canon, but, at present time, they're not.

The last part of your ask is confusing to me, I won't lie. You just said yourself that making Eddie canonically queer wouldn't necessarily be a leap, but then you said, in the same sentence, that Ryan shouldn't refer to Eddie as ambiguous. Both of those things cannot be true at the same time. And I'm sorry but at no point, ever has Buck and Eddie's relationship been written as traditionally bro, as you put it. There are countless, professional articles as well as interviews by the actors and creators themselves stating how unique and special their relationship is. The audience knows that as well. It's why they're popular. You can't watch the show and honestly describe them as bros. If they make Eddie canon queer it is not a matter of if they'll put him with Buck. At that point it simply becomes a matter of when. And no, Josh will not be a realistic option. I adore Josh, lots of people do, but a romance between Josh and Eddie is not what anyone wants. Also I'm pretty sure Oliver would commit a crime if they gave Eddie to Josh instead of Buck, lol.

Love, love, love.

Another thoughtful and insightful answer from the anonymous blog.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Nonny! :)

Once again I ask everyone to stay civil in comments or reblogs. No hate towards this person please. Thank you.

[twopoppies]

I usually don't comment on stuff like this, because I don't make a habit of pissing on people's parades, but some of the recent things people are using as "proof" (of bbg ending, of Larry communicating with us, etc) are really wild stretches.

And, I usually wouldn't let it bother me; I understand that people (especially newer larries) are just having fun. But, as someone who's been here for a long time and who was part of the fandom when "proof" really meant concrete, vetted, and consistent evidence, I think people are unaware of how creating, spreading, and encouraging these unsubstantiated stretches and theories only support the extremely damaging stereotype that larries are unhinged and that we can (and will) make a connection out of anything, if it suits our narrative. (Which is, literally, what hets and shippers do, so yeah, forgive me if I don't want to be lumped in with that crowd.)

When we talk about Larry signaling (through clothing, warnings, selfies, the bears, etc), I think it's really, really important to remember the context in which those things happened.

They were both banging on the glass closet and seemingly seeding a potential coming out. They were at the height of their 'enemies' narrative and banned from being seen interacting, even while they were living out of each other's pockets. They were restricted by extremely abusive public identities (homophobe and serial womanizer) and contract clauses. They were making music and money for oppressive management and labels, none of which was directly contributing to or even hinting at potential personal career growth outside One Direction. They were signaling not only because it's all they had in terms of connecting with their community, but as an act of extreme rebellion and as a means of winning over even an inch of personal freedom and self-expression. (Remember, Niall wasn't even allowed to keep his natural hair color.)

And, while yes, Harry and Louis are still heavily closeted and being made to participate in (especially in Louis' case) extremely vile and abusive stunts, the context, in terms of their need to be seen (whether it be as their own people, queer people, or as a couple), has actually changed. In terms of self-expression, they're both making music that resonates with their creative identities, that they have some level of control over, and that contribute to them, personally, as individual artists. This means they actually have a personal stake in whether or not their projects do well because its a direct indicator of whether they get to continue making music that they love. Taking that into consideration, its unlikely that they want to overshadow the soul of those projects by slipping in all these little clues about their relationship into their promo. They’ve also (thanks mostly to the fans) found other ways of connecting to the queer community (which is an entirely different objective from wanting people to know about their relationship, specifically.)

To be really honest, I think they’ve actually made a collective decision to work harder to protect the privacy of their relationship, even behind the scenes, for many reasons. (Harris Reed’s recent interview, where he mentioned not really knowing Harry all that well, but alluded to leaving space for his queerness is what swayed me the most.) Being older, and having a lot more at stake (personally and professionally), makes me think they’re now (maybe in the last four or so years) very, very selective about who they share this part of their life with, one, because they each have a lot more to lose now if they’re outed, but also because their relationship is their top priority, and as Harry has said (and no doubt learned), a relationship has never benefitted from being made public (and we have to remember that even “within the confines of the industry” is still very, very “public”).

But, I digress. My point is, they've been together for twelve years, they've written hundreds upon hundreds of love songs to each other, they have their love story tattooed all over their skin. I get if you, individually, need to read into every little clue to prove to yourself they're still together, but don’t confuse that with them needing us to know it.

Again, I'm not saying this to piss on anyone's parade. I love a Larry proof to death and god knows I believe in the real ones with my whole chest (Still the One still gives me chills, Princess Park is fucking perfection, ‘waiting to wrap your legs around me' and ‘tired eyes are the death of me’ are tattooed on my heart). What I'm saying is people need to take context into consideration to keep from devaluing and trivializing actual, solid, vetted Larry proof and signaling because the only people and reputations these stretches and theories are hurting are Larries’.

Anon, if I wasn’t already married, I would marry you. THANK YOU.

[theoretically-questionable]

Moderation is a Sucker's Game

Longpost time - tl;dr: the concept of moderation is totally beefed on a fundamental level everywhere and recent anti-trans bans indicate Tumblr has only made the problem harder for itself by making bad staff choices. No solution, not absolving Tumblr of responsibility, but also I think it's an interesting systemic issue on top of genuine incompetence.

Tumblr has a running history of screwing up moderation hard enough to either drive entire communities off the site or allow rule-breaking harassment to persist and drive them off.

As such, I think Tumblr will definitely cease at some point, because it is handling the problem of moderation much worse than most other big platforms and this is a major barrier to its financial sustainability - they cannot say "we put our users first and refuse to use relatively profitable Unethical Data-Harvesting Tricks" and expect to pivot to a user-supported financing model if they're widely perceived as repeatedly spurning said userbase.

The prior 'Porn Ban' (and subsequent smug tone of Staff communications) and the 'we had a moderator on staff accepting payments for making anti-trans moderation decisions' reveal stand out, as well as the (iirc) 2016-era peak of racist harassment (not that it ever *stopped*) which went largely unmoderated; instead, black users responding to, pointing out, or sometimes literally just screenshotting the deluge of harassment were permabanned.

There has also, of course, been the whole "over-moderation of queer- and specifically trans-related tags and terms in Search" - something that has also, repeatedly, affected Palestinian and pro-Palestine blogs.

Right now, of course, we have the current wave of anti-transfem "everything you do, selfies and textposts alike, can and will be marked as mature", compounded by instant permabans handed out without notice or appeal, all based on automod decisions from bad-faith reports and bizzarely cursory/biased human reviews.

This is all contrasted by semi-regular waves of fresh kinds of porn-related advertisements and spam blogs, which often go entirely unmoderated, automated or otherwise, for months upon months. Also the explicitly ToS-breaking harassment that gets reported and returned as "fine, actually".

Why is this happening? Beyond the inherent problem of "many Tumblr staff have had and currently have biases and open bigotry" (@photomatt springs to mind), you'd think that boring business sense would come first - diversity is Tumblr's brand, fandom is Tumblr's brand, so "not specifically driving off those groups" should have been an *essential* part of monetization efforts. Right?

Trouble is, even a lawsuit settled not-in-Tumblr's-favour can't solve the core problem, which seems to be the same one every user-generated-content platform faces: reasonable moderation isn't feasible for real-time, user-generated content at scale.

Straight-up, that is the largest problem Tumblr faces. Nobody knows how to do it fairly or reasonably. Content moderation has long been the writhing tar-pit horror sitting at the core of all large-scale social media. Increasingly, this unsolvable problem looks like it might be the reason the entire format is structurally doomed - or at least, doomed to a cycle of new platform -> rise in popularity -> failures in moderation and financing -> user exodus and platform collapse.

Meta (Facebook and Instagram) tackle moderation by being totally opaque and overzealous - often you won't even be told your reach has been limited. Or, if you're told, you might not know *what* post triggered it, or why. If you do, you won't be told what effect being 'limited' has, or how long it will last. There is no reliable appeal process, but that doesn't matter. They are too big to be affected by people being unhappy about moderation on an individual or community level.

Twitter 'solved' the problem by leaning more and more on pure automation - which wasn't working great, sure, but once it was bought and most of those measures scrapped for 'limiting free speech', Twitter got *much, much worse*. It is now a cesspool of unavoidable spams and spam-for-scams. Also, harassment.

Tiktok also does a lot of automated moderation - not as much as people seem to think, but also not as efficiently as other platforms, given that it's video content. They also make heavier use of de-prioritizing content algorithmically rather than just banning or deleting videos. Twitch and YouTube follow along in this bucket, being very willing to use automated systems to suspend, de-rank, and de-monetize hard, early, and arbitrarily.

Mastodon and similar 'decentralised' networks offload the problem onto whoever runs each local server/instance. You set up social.horse.mastodon or whatever? Great - moderation of posts on there is your problem. Some instances are great! Some instances are full of petty tyrants over-moderating their little fiefdoms. Some instances are godawful. Usually, nobody is being paid, which isn't great.

Unfortunately, instance-to-instance communication sometimes means that you can be harassed by a group of people from those godawful servers who are functionally unreportable and who cannot be stopped from spinning up dozens of sockpuppets on said servers to evade your blocks of individual accounts. This is also a problem with the concept of "email", so, you know, not strictly a new problem.

Google can't moderate its search results, and is overtaken by SEO spam and generative misinformation (even prior to their "AI answers" integration).

Amazon, as a storefront, is overrun by scams. Some of them are, functionally, directly run and facilitated by Amazon's own staff, facilities, and even manufacturing processes.

We seethe at Adobe insisting they have the right to moderate (automated or otherwise) the content we put on their cloud services, but chances are they would largely *rather not* - but legal obligations, advertiser/partner dollars, payment processors, and technical requirements are involved, so they're screwed and so are users.

Nobody can "do" content moderation of any kind at scale without being too lax or too overzealous, and probably both at the same time. If the billions of dollars of these corporate giants can't hack the problem, the rinkydink tens of millions of Automattic ain't gonna cut it.

None of this is "working" or "fair" or even "reasonable".

And that's fine by these companies! Their main moderation concern is "not being found liable for horrific and illegal shit users do", followed by "being pleasant *enough* to be used profitably, regardless of actual user experience or sentiment".

Good moderation is hard. Think about the obscenely small teacher–student ratio you need for a good, safe, productive classroom experience. You're not going to push more than a hundred students to one or two lecturers before you lose the ability to meaningfully grade their exams and give feedback, let alone have insight into their real-time behaviour for a dozen hours a week.

Now, imagine that but 24/7. A perpetual whorl of short-form essays being handed in at random times of day, wildly multimedia projects of totally inconsistent sizes from dozens of countries. What sort of ratio of moderators to users would even *plausibly* keep things under control? How do you *pay* for that? How do you have meaningful *oversight* over the mods? Fuck, how do you even *begin* to compensate for the fact that they'll be inevitably be exposed to a subset of your users posting criminally heinous content for laughs?

The answer is that you don't manage to balance it reasonably. You use keywords to auto-filter certain posts so they'll be seen less, lowering the chance of anyone reporting them. You use basic network models to auto-approve or auto-deny some reported content based on what's *probably* in the images or text, and call a 70% success rate an exemplary success, because that's 70% of those reported posts your human moderators will correctly never see and a further 25% fewer posts that are incorrectly ruled on but never get appealed! Huge reduction in workload - fantastic news!

You try your damndest to make sure that advertisers feel like their content is never posted next to or in association with "bad" content, even if it's not ToS-breaking, because that's where the dollars are and without those all you've got are good intentions and that's not a currency you can pay your moderators in. You hope to hell that you fall on the side of "overzealous", because right-wing single-issue ideologues have the ears of payment processors and lawmakers the world over, and they'll cut you the hell off if you get a reputation, fair or otherwise, for being the sort of platform that might "facilitate harm" to kids, or women, or Jesus. Mostly Jesus.

Hence, the uncomfortable tension stretching taut the façade of every major platform - on the one hand, 'shifting moderation burdens to your users' is universally regarded as a shitty and unethical cost-cutting move ripe for exploitation by bad actors. On the other, despite having a surplus of capital and benefitting from the efficiencies of scale (and, arguably, having an unshiftable responsibility to moderate their own platforms), companies aren't managing to wield moderation in a way that works for their users.

In Tumblr's case, it's not profitable. In *Twitter's* case, it's not even profitable.

Obviously, I don't have a solution to this. Tumblr has chosen to fight the dual battles of "moderation is hard" and *ALSO* "some of our staff, including moderators, are inarguably biased/bigoted against core user groups". That's on them. Not going to pretend it isn't, not going to make excuses for it.

The best answer I have is to archive your shit and hop onto smaller networks with staff, communities, and rules that you can vibe with, and hope you will be in a position to help directly and monetarily contribute to their continued existence in a sustainable way.

We're here for the community and a broad set of fairly straightforward features (and lack of other, worse features). Those can, will, and often *do* exist elsewhere. If you stick around and one of these 'elsewhere' platforms finds a size that's sustainable and a moderation approach that actually works for the vast majority of users, then you've hit the jackpot.

If not? Well, archive everything you can and hop ships to new networks. These aren't public institutions designed to last lifetimes - these are passion projects (or cash grabs) bloated beyond initial scope and inevitably riddled with the biases, oversights, and straight-up skill issues of their creators. They were never going to last, and their insistence on pretending they're immortal and behaving in accordance is part of the problem.

Also, you should support laws that would mandate user access to their own data in an exportable and preferably cross-platform-compatible format. Part of what keeps people on networks is lock-in and effort. Making it legally mandatory to make those transitions between networks easy is probably one of the only bits of social media-related law that would actually curb malfeasance (from users and platforms themselves).

[a-queer-seminarian]

Hey Avery, I love this blog and the binary-breakers blog. They’ve both been a great help to me as I reconstruct my faith. But I’m struggling with something: my fiancé and I are scheduled to light an advent candle during the Sunday morning service at his church. Initially I was really looking forward to it, but by chance I was curious about how old Mary was when she bore Jesus, and when I looked it up I learned she could have been anywhere from 13-16. Moreover, some traditions put Joseph as being much, much older. It’s just hard not to think in a very . . . sinister direction when considering that context, especially as far as God’s role in this is concerned. What did you learn about this topic in seminary, if anything? Is there any hope that my “problematic” interpretation is unnecessary/invalid?

Hi there! I think it's lovely y'all are going to light an advent candle tomorrow, and I hope it's a meaningful experience! I also totally get your dismay about Mary's age at Jesus's birth.

To start with the facts: yes, Mary was almost certainly a teenager when betrothed to Joseph. The Bible doesn't give any confirmation of her age, but in both ancient Jewish culture and Roman culture, girls were usually married off not too many years after they started menstruating.

When it comes to Joseph's age, I do have some slightly relieving news — he's unlikely to have been the old man he's often depicted as in medieval art. (I actually had a fascinating conversation on this topic with queer Catholic art historian Amy Neville on my podcast that you can read or listen to here!) He almost certainly would have been older than Mary, but it's uncertain how much older.

In ancient Jewish culture, the "ideal" marriage was actually one between a man and a woman who were both in their teens, with an expectation that a man marry by age 20. Being able to support a wife & kids was a key indicator of manhood, so men were expected to get married as young as they could. But in practice, it was more common for men to marry in their late 20s / by age 30, which does mean that their wives would often be a good ten or fifteen years younger than they were.

The Bible doesn't tell us what age Joseph was when he and Mary were betrothed, but it's unlikely he was older than 30, just as it's unlikely she was older than 18.

So maybe that's not quite as discomfiting as the image of a much older Joseph, but by our modern standards, it's still pedophilia. So what do we make of that? And what did God think of that??

__

I believe it is an act of faith to be troubled by elements of scripture that should be troubling, rather than shrugging them off as being "God's will" just because they're in the Bible. I highly recommend Rachel Held Evans' book Inspired on this topic, which has a whole chapter on grappling with difficult biblical texts (you can read a long passage from it here).

While exploring our emotions and giving them holy space, it is also important to accept that biblical cultures are two thousand or more years old — the ancient world had completely different understandings of morality from us. That doesn't mean we shrug off displays of sexism or xenophobia in scripture — bigotry is bigotry, whether an ancient iteration or what we have today — but learning about biblical cultures enriches our understanding of why certain things, like slavery or women having little say in whom they marry, are present in the Bible (and often completely taken for granted by its human authors). It can help us distinguish between what is truly God-ordained, versus what the humans writing down their experience of God presume is God-ordained.

I appreciate how womanist theologian Wil Gafney explores the complexity of appreciating the Bible as an ancient human text while looking for Divine truth "between the lines":

“There is liberation in the gospel even though it is sometimes obscured by the structures of power that benefit from holding people captive. There is also a story in and between the lines of and behind the text we hold so dear that points to a liberation that not even the authors and editors of scripture were able to see clearly or, see their way to record.

Jesus was a rabbi, he would have never wanted us to cling to the letters and syntax of these texts as though they were his very body and blood but rather, his spirit and the Spirit of God, blow through them, ruffling and disturbing them and permitting us to read new truths in and out of them and, not lose sight of the ancient stories that are also part of our shared heritage."

___

When it comes to Mary's young age when betrothed to Joseph and approached by Gabriel to request her "yes" to carrying God's child, your question of God's "role" in that is a vital one to ask.

In Mary's world, a woman without a kyrios, a man to be her protector, was in a very precarious position. Mary has to be betrothed to someone in her teens. We don't know whether God "approves" of this cultural practice, but we can see how God works within this custom to ensure Mary's security throughout her life:

when Joseph plans to divorce her after she becomes pregnant with Jesus, God sends an angel to persuade him to stick by her;

when Jesus is dying on the cross, he ensures that his beloved will protect Mary after he's gone.

Throughout scripture, God largely seems to operate within a people's cultural expectations (with key exceptions, like how God insists Their people treat foreigners the same as members of the group, or when God warns against giving the people a king just because that's what all the other nations have). That's what I see here. Mary must have a husband to be secure in her culture, and I imagine God ensuring that that husband will be one who will treat her well.

__

Then there's the question of God espousing Mary — of the Holy Spirit "overshadowing" her so that she conceives Jesus. What exactly is this "overshadowing" act? Why is God getting a teen girl pregnant?

Again, Rev. Wil Gafney provides words that wrestle out the good news with this complexity. When reading Luke 1, she urges us to sit with our distress at the image of a powerful "male" figure (Gabriel) approaching a teen girl to tell her what's going to happen to her body:

"Sit with me in this moment, this uncomfortable moment, before rushing to find proof of her consent, or argue that contemporary notions of consent do not apply to ancient texts, or God knew she’d say yes so it was prophetic, or contend that (human) gender does not apply to divine beings, Gabriel or God, and the Holy Spirit is feminine anyway. Hold those thoughts and just sit in the moment with this young woman."

Our distress is holy; it shows our connection to a fellow human being, our thirst for justice. Honor what you feel, don't discard your emotions, even while you join them to sociohistorical understanding.

I highly recommend you read Gafney's whole article, but here's a little more from it that balances ancient culture with modern ethics:

"Yet in a world which did not necessarily recognize her sole ownership of her body and did not understand our notions of consent and rape, this very young woman had the dignity, courage, and temerity to question a messenger of the Living God about what would happen to her body before giving her consent. That is important. That gets lost when we rush to her capitulation. Before Mary said, “yes,” she said, “wait a minute, explain this to me.” ... Did the Ever-Blessed Virgin Mary say, “me too?” Perhaps not. A close reading shows her presumably powerless in every way but sufficiently empowered to talk back to the emissary of God, determine for herself, and grant what consent she could no matter the power of the One asking. And yet in that moment after being told by someone else what would happen to her body, she became not just the Mother of God, but the holy sister to those of us who do say, “Me too.” "

Because Mary was a teen girl, an impoverished Palestinian Jew living under empire, she can extend solidarity to people across all time who experience similar oppression, whose bodily autonomy is equally precarious. Just as her son, God in human flesh, extends solidarity to all who have ever been arrested or executed under an unjust state through his crucifixion. Divine power is expressed in and through those whom the world denigrates and discards — that's why God chose Mary, and why Mary in turn chose God.

Sorry this got so long and has a lot of complex stuff to wrestle with. I honor your courage to ask the hard questions, and I hope you are able to take time throughout Advent to keep pondering! There are no easy answers, but wrestling can yield a blessing.

[outrunningthedark]

There's literally zero suggestion that Ryan is uncomfortable portraying a queer character compared to Oliver. IDK what your anon is talking about. Like you said he acknowledged the difficulty of getting a storyline like that out to the GA due to toxic masculinity and homophobia but those are just the facts on the ground not an indication that he's personally opposed. Oliver's good at giving diplomatic soundbites to the fandom and cultivating a persona online, Ryan's more blunt and he answered honestly that's the key difference here. Their chemistry has never been denied, Oliver didn't say anything particularly revolutionary, the question is whether there's a serious intent to act on that to create a romantic storyline and I would have to say I agree with Ryan I don't see it happening. There's really no need to be like oh we know Oliver's cool but who knows about Ryan because it's like based on what exactly? Him stating facts that none of this was planned and it's unlikely the writers/creators will pivot?

Honestly I get a little uncomfortable with the way some people ascribe certain views and attitudes to Ryan while simultaneously blowing smoke up Oliver's supposedly enlightened ass, it feels a little prejudiced and in bad faith.

(This isn't aimed at you, I think you're very fair and I agree with you almost all the time. It's just a comment at the language I see used and the implications when this is brought up)

Just want to thank you for reiterating my point because it's something I think is going to have to be repeated over time as each season passes without Eddie being Repressed or Buddie going canon. We don't know how Ryan feels about the Buddie as a legit ship, whether he wants the show to go for it or not, because he doesn't approach the subject the way the fandom wishes he would. He's matter-of-fact. He's realistic. He's seen enough within the industry and in his own life (upbringing and friends he may have made along the way) to understand the tough spot the show put itself in by making neither Buck nor Eddie queer from the start. TBH, R "vs." O is not unlike the way older members of our fandom try to interact with/educate the younger ones. So many here have grown up in a time when queer representation is becoming "the standard" even if TV shows aren't making it past the second season. But those of us who remember the *really* dark days aren't scared to talk about the ages of the folks running these networks or the demographic they're making the shows for impacting how they envision a story line and ensure it plays out. Oliver represents the younger fandom. He understands why fans he's interacted with love the ship and would say yes in a second. Ryan is the rest of us going "Do you hear yourself right now? Do you really think Buddie is as popular IRL as it is online?" There is value in Oliver publicly supporting Buddie, absolutely. But there is also value in having someone speak in a way that aims to prevent fans from getting their hopes up over a story line that may never come true. Ryan is not trying to discourage you. He's trying to protect you and your feelings.

[zoey-angel]

Why is it antisemitism and not antizionism? Because of how easy it was. A decent person would carry doubt, when told "this person is evil", they'd think oh, what? Why are they evil? What happened? Why is Israel killing Palestinians? And then they'd look into it, and think oh, so it's a religious war? A territorial war?

-And if they end up reading a pro-pal infographic, they'd ask, huh? So Israel is a colonizer? What are they looking for? Do they trade slaves? No. Do they mine the ore out of the land? There isn't much of anything there. Are they unjustly taxing the Palestinians? No, they just live in Israel? Why must they live there if it belongs to indigenous Palestinians?

Farther search would show Jews are in fact indigenous to Israel and that Zionists consider themselves landback... Okay, why are they so violent though? Why are they killing so many? These topics have been covered by so many people around the world already... There's a lot to read and learn.

A decent person would ask, and check, and read, because how could such a thing be happening? An entire nation ups and "commits genocide"? What beef do Jews and Muslims even have?

What actually happened, to countless people, is that they never made it there.

They never asked, never doubted, never even felt the shock, because as soon as they realized we're Jews, nothing needed explaining.

"Jews are killing for no reason"

"Jews are rejoicing in others' suffering"

"Of course they're committing crimes, they're Jews"

"What explanation do you need? I told you Zionist Jews are white colonizers, that's what colonizers do."

"Zionists killed kids? Of course they did, they're not humans, they're jews"

"Any Jew could be a Zionist, which would make them a cold bloodied killer. Their Jewishness is equal to homicidal tendencies"

"Israel supposedly has a large queer community, but they don't count and it's just pink washing, because they're Jews and Jews can't be enlightened"

"This headline is absolutely outrageous but I'm not surprised and won't question it because those are Zionists which are Jews and Jews are like that"

"Nothing could ever justify this, so I won't bother checking why it happened. All Zionists must die because they're all directly responsible for this action. They're hiveminded, yaknow, as Jews are"

"I can't believe so many people with high political standing support Israel. This absolutely doesn't indicate they know better than me, I don't have to look into it, instead I'll take it as an affirmation that Israelis control the government. It's not weird to think that way, Israel is a huge source of income for the US! This has nothing to do with the rich Jews control the world blood libels."

I'll stop, you get the point. Come the fuck on

[nerdygaymormon]

For Pride month, seven NHL players refused to wear a rainbow jersey for game warm-ups, mostly saying it went against their religion, and some Russian players being concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin would retaliate against them for wearing a Pride jersey. The NHL responded by banning said Pride rainbow jerseys.

Now the NHL has issued a new policy that on-ice player uniforms and gear for warmups and official team practices cannot be altered to reflect theme nights, including Pride, Hockey Fights Cancer or military appreciation celebrations.

All of this in response to 7 players!

You Can Play, which has worked with the NHL to help them grow more inclusive for members of the LGBTQ+ community, said, “Today’s decision means that the over 95% of players who chose to wear a Pride jersey to support the community will now not get an opportunity to do so.”

NHL President Bettman says “But we also have to respect some individual choice, and some people are more comfortable embracing themselves in causes than others. And part of being diverse and welcoming is understanding those differences.”

We have to respect individual choices...except the new policy includes a ban on using Pride Tape, which has been used by several players on their sticks to indicate their individual support of the LGBTQ+ community.

Theme nights are commonly used in hockey and baseball as a way to draw in fans and highlight different parts of the community. Wearing a themed jersey is a way to say we welcome this part of our diverse community to join with us and cheer on the team.

Can you imagine if the players were refusing to wear a jersey reflecting Hispanic Heritage Night or Military Appreciation Night or Gender Equality? Would the NHL be saying they understand the reluctance of some players to recognize Black History Night?

In order to ban such special displays for Pride Night, they had to ban all such displays. They are so committed to protecting bigoted attitudes about queer people that they're willing to deny this special recognition for all groups.

Themed games can still continue as long as that theme doesn't show up on the ice, including during warm-up practice. So come, enjoy a souvenir, enjoy someone representing your community singing the national anthem, but do not for an instance assume the players welcome you and want you here.

[aceoflights]

Alright, so, exactly one person said that I should do a long post about my thoughts on this scene. And that's literally all I needed. So, here I go, I guess. I'll try to be coherent.

This scene (and honestly Colin in this episode in general) really hit something deep in me as a queer person. I think it touched on something that I haven't seen a lot of media touch on in that way, but that I and a lot of other queer people have experienced

So, let's get into the scene, specifically Colin's reactions to everything.

I couldn't find gifs for everything I'm talking about, so here's the scene.

At first they're just talking about how cool Zava is and how much they admire him. And everything is fine. Until Richard calls Zava sexy, and Isaac's response is "Sounds a bit gay, bruv". And yeah, he's not saying "I hate gay people". But look at him and how he acts. He says it with a laugh. In a "you're being weird" way. Now, my point here is not to say that Isaac is homophobic. He is however referring to being gay as kinda weird, funny and almost a bit absurd. Y'know, the kind of jokes straight people make when they think there are only other straight people in the room. This is what closeted people live through every day.

I'm actually gonna put some tags from one of my other posts here. Because, yeah, exactly.

#I watched a few cishet reactions to the episode and #the way they Did Not understand the locker room scene #like that wasn't a funny 'joking with the gay guy' moment #that was a moment of 'we are all straight and the joke IS a gay guy' #like Colin is living in that liminal space of #okay maybe they aren't outright homophobic but they sure aren't openly accepting #and any change to that status quo may potentially make things Very Dangerous #so he just Isn't going to challenge that at all (@king-kal)

#stop acting like its all okay #this is exactly what makes it terrifying to come out #and what gaslights people into believing thier pain isn't real #because yes theres more blatant and explicit homophobia out there #but this does real damage too #and its fucking hard to know where youll be safe when the people around you give no indication that theyd accept anyone queer (@not-a-cheese-thief)

#however much they love him there has been absolutely nothing about them in relation to queer people that indicate they’d be #supportive and accepting #you really just never know which is partly why coming out is so terrifying (@theoneandonlypigeon)

Now, let's have a look at Colin. As soon as Issac says that, he has Colin's full attention. He turns his head, his eyes are on Isaac. And he looks kinda scared. Anticipating. He's listening intently.

When you're closeted, and the topic of queerness is mentioned, especially if someone who matters is around, like a friend, you pay attention. You pay attention to what they say, to how they react. To figure out what they think about queer people. What they would think about you if they knew. Would they treat you differently? Would they start to dislike you even? Or would they maybe be supporting?

As a closeted queer person you can never be sure if you're safe. As some of the tags above have pointed out, nobody is saying anything overtly homophobic here, but nobody is saying anything to indicate they would be supportive either. So really Colin doesn't have any more information about how they would react to him coming out than he did before.

Then Richard says "Well I'm gay". And everyone turns around to him and is like "huh?". Except for Colin. Colin doesn't turn around. He actually turns more forward. He tilted his head in Richards direction when he started talking. But when he finished his sentence Colin looked straight ahead. And imma be honest here, I'm not really that good at analysing facial expressions, and this might well be me overanalysing. But the way I'm reading what's going on here is the following. Colin actively faces forward to not seem that interested in Richards possible gayness. his eyes also widen and then tart around for a second. Which to me reads as, like, "wait, what? could there actually be another queer person on the team?".

I'm not gonna get into Richard actually being possibly gay. Here's a post about that, if you're interested. (Not saying that's what I believe necessarily, but I saw the post and felt it necessary to include)

Then, of course "for Zava". And Colin laughs. But holy shit it's such a fake laugh. Like, I'm serious, watch that scene again and pay attention to Colin's laugh. It it so fake.

While they're talking about "men with charisma that transcends orientation", nothing all that interesting happens.

And then, Colin's joke.

Immediately after he finishes his sentence, he looks anticipating again, in a slightly different way. A short moment of "should I not have said that? Could it give them a hint about me?". Then the others start to laugh and Colin smiles along. He's accomplished his mission. He's blending in. He's a chameleon.

[identityarchitect]

ok hold on just for clarification are you like. pro transid etc.

i try and stay out of transid discourse for a variety of reasons:

with transdisability / transneurodivergency, i find it difficult to understand who the discourse serves? like, witch-hunting transautistics is not beneficial to me, as an autistic person, and if a transautistic is helping with fighting systemic anti-autistic ableism/sanism, then good.

i also find it difficult to understand exactly how transdisability / transneurodivergency is harmful beyond the emotional response of "how dare you romanticise my suffering". it's an extremely niche online discourse, online resources (i.e "tips on managing autism" posts, pages/blogs about disability, etc) cannot be depleted, and irl resources are either locked behind a diagnosis, difficult to get ahold of, or both, that i have no concerns that a transdisabled/transnd person will ever meaningfully take resources or whatever. the worst that could happen is that some impressionable preteen gets a really weird perspective of disablity/neurodivergency but like, they do that already

like even if some department of work and pensions dickhead is like "people on the internet are calling themselves transdisabled we need to develop a more rigorous screening process that will make more disabled people want to die when trying to get on benefits", thats not really the fault of transdisabled people? that's just systematic ableism.

it's not a discourse i'm currently capable of participating in or even researching without the kneejerk "they're romanticising my suffering" reaction, and if i am going to participate in it then i want to do so with a clear head and an understanding mindset, both of which i can't achieve right now

and there are, of course, cases where someone who is autistic finds transautistic to be a helpful "gateway label" (where their previous/current identification as transautistic helps them in realising/acknowledging/accepting their autism), there are probably people with a super weird relationship with being autistic (like, someone who was diagnosed as a child, and then their family hid this from them or gaslit them about it, etc, and then they later find out that they're autistic) who find transautistic to be a useful label,

with transrace, i'm white and i do not have a strong enough understanding of race like at all to have an opinion on any of it.

so like, idk if i can really be described as pro or anti transid? i try not to make myself the arbiter of people's internal experiences & i want to extend compassion and understanding to as many people as i can. i dont know enough or care enough to really make a comment on it.

my opinion on transplural is different because its like. a thing that you can do? no matter whether or not it's a good thing, or should be done, or if certain groups of people should do it, or what it should be called, or how it should be done, it is possible for someone who has been a singlet for their entire life to create a new guy in their brain and thus be plural.

is transplural a super good term? is it transphobic? i mean, i don't think so. other people probably disagree with me, but i don't really find that relevant. i don't see a way that it's tangibly harmful or transphobic beyond, again, "youre romanticising my suffering", and i don't really have an interest in discoursing about whether or not something is harmful based on my or someone else's kneejerk reaction to it

and honestly, if someone considers their plural journey to be similar to transitioning, hell yeah! queer the identity.

but i mean, with the post i made, the person did literally say "i am in support of people creating systems" (which is what willogenic means) but then also said "i am not in support of people creating systems". if it were the term transplural specifically, they made no indication of that

[itsclydebitches]

The Bumbleby scene feels too random at this point. It’s like they literally picked the scene out of a hat to “confirm” it. As you mentioned, the don’t even hold hands. You’re telling me that’s more intimate than the freaking cheek holding head touched in V8? Wait a minute, didn’t everyone think BB started back in V6 after they killed Adam? What the fuck is even going on anymore?!

People have always shipped it, but yeah, 'canonizing' them started post-Volume 3 and ramped up into 'Oh damn I think they're really gonna do it!' territory in Volume 6. We've got:

Yang grappling with Blake leaving post-Beacon. (She's not, for example, similarly concerned that Weiss 'abandoned' her too. Yang shouldn't have any idea that Weiss was essentially kidnapped by her dad)

Tender and then rejected hand-holding in the shed at the farm

Agreed upon hand-holding while fighting Adam which, yeah, a lot of people read as the moment they 'solved' their relationship troubles, seguing into something new. Hand-holding is often used in RWBY to indicate a romantic relationship, the only problem with using this as a confirmation is that all our other examples also have something more overt: Saphron and Terra are married, Nora kisses Ren/he says "I love you," etc.

Adam's "What do you see in her?" line. Although, this one is severely complicated by a contradiction in the fandom. Many fans claim this implies that Adam recognizes Blake's interest in Yang precisely because she was once interested in him - how can you like her over me? That's compounded by his motivations changing from being politically focused to what feels like stalking and hunting down an ex. However, these fans don't want to admit to the other implications that Blake and Adam were an item due to a lot of anti-men sentiments, biphobia, gold star lesbian nonsense, and the like. Basically, some fans want to use Adam's potential relationship with Blake as proof that she's in a relationship with Yang now, but not actually admit that they ever had that relationship because ew, how could perfect Blake like a male villain? There's also some of that with Sun: fans using Blake's interactions with him to support an interest in Yang ('She has a type!'), but simultaneously denying that blacksun was ever a possibility because that supposedly (not actually) threatens the sanctity of her One True Sapphic Love.

Forehead touch after Adam dies + a promise to never leave

More hand-holding in the airship

Blushing over Yang complimenting her haircut

Having fun pre-outing in Atlas that kinda implies it might be a date, but no one actually establishes it as a date and everyone is going out together, so...

Taking silly pictures together when they get their licenses

Nora's comments to Ren about how they're likely more than friends

Yang being worried about Blake even though she fought with Ruby

Yang tenderly cupping Blake's cheek when they're reunited

Blake loosing it when Yang "dies"

Tackle-hug when everyone else gets...uh, a knee touch?

Blake being flirty, leaning in, finger brush

Weiss' "It's about time" comment

I've probably missed some stuff, but the point is that it's been four years (or even six years depending on how far back you're willing to go) and we're still in this flirty, teasing, ambiguous stage where, as demonstrated above, reading a romantic relationship often requires making a lot of assumptions that rely on having a lot of trust in your writers. I don't know if I'd call all this random, but it is a holding pattern. They blush, hold hands, and others vaguely comment on what they might be. But unlike our straight couples, we're not given anything solid to canonize them with.

I mean, even if you're a fan who believes that these little breadcrumbs are enough to prove the love between them (and here I'm addressing the fandom at large, not you specifically, Happygaynoises2) we get how the queer couples aren't given equal treatment, right? Pyrrha kissed Jaune. Nora kissed Ren. Ren said "I love you." Jaune asked Weiss to the dance. Weiss blatantly chases after Neptune. Ozpin marries and has kids with Salem. Everyone but Adrian has married, straight parents.

Compare that to our queer rep (with May being an exception due to her gender) and it's pretty obvious that this glacial "slow burn" has less to do with the needs of the story and more about RT hesitating to make two of the main girls unambiguously queer. After all, if most of your fans are happy with those breadcrumbs and a canonical relationship would drive away the homophobes... why not just toe the line to keep both groups around, giving you more money?

That's a form of queerbaiting and it's why so many of us remain nervous. I seriously hope given what we've seen so far that this will FINALLY be the Volume when we can set the 'Will they, won't they?' to rest. But who can actually say.