#all things that could be read as extremely inflammatory and stereotypical

[boyfridged]

this is only vaguely related to my last ask but it got me thinking again how much i don't like the type of scrutiny that some people engage with when it comes to headcanons. don't get me wrong, there is plenty of headcanons that i despite when they appear in a particular context because they clearly come from a place of total ignorance and sometimes even borderline malice; and there are ways of writing about characters that are very obviously rooted in reactionary attitudes. but i have also seen situations in which people of specific ethnicities were told they were not supposed to hc a character to be said ethnicity because of the classist implications. i have seen people saying that headcanoning a particular character to be trans is too stereotypical and that it makes them "sick." i've seen people annoyed about characters being a particular religion because "there's another character who was said to be that religion before" (shocking and upsetting to some americans especially: religions are real and usually have more than one follower so they don't have to be assigned to a single character per title as their token.) and idk i think we should all pause for a moment and remember that the pieces of identity that people assign their favourite characters are often their own. there are ways to reclaim these cliches too. it's a matter of intention. people often read themselves into their beloved pieces of art. and maybe it does not always create the truest image of the author's intention nor a revolutionary picture of minority rep, but no one claims it does.

#a matter that always gives me a headache is how people read my post about the issue of jason being portrayed as psychotic #as me saying he should never be portrayed as psychotic #when what i meant was that psychosis should not be associated with violence the way it was in these comics. #i write jason psychotic sometimes. #i also write jason queer in all the possible ways. he's a trans guy he's a woman he's aroace he's gay etc. #i also do write him in a way that suggests he has at least a cultural link to eastern europe. #and very explicitly catholic. as i do write quite a lot of characters. most notably dick #all things that could be read as extremely inflammatory and stereotypical #but that are ultimately pieces of me or my loved ones. #i think fanfiction and creative interpretation are a work of love in more way than one #as i said: in a sense you do not only read the material but also read yourself into it. #and there has to be careful consideration when it comes to it at times. #to make sure there is still engagement with the source that makes it worthwhile #but i don't think it's fair to tell people these experiences are inappropriate for these contexts. #it's another thing if devin grayson makes dick romani #it's another thing if a person of a particular id & experience wishes to explore it in fanwork #sorry idk. love wins.

[crispipaper]

A polite letter to J.K. Rowling By a transgender fan of Harry Potter (TW. Suicide and trauma)

Dear JKR, 

My name is Alex Hernandez, and I have identified as a Harry Potter fan since I was six years old, and a non-binary/ transgender individual since I was sixteen. I recently read your essay concerning your opinions about transgender individuals, and your claim that by providing information you were ‘protecting natal girls and women.’ I was extremely disappointed when I read your piece, both as a queer person and as a Harry Potter fan. The factual information you provided was ill-informed and often taken out of context. The opinions you shared were harmful to many members of the trans community, and perpetuated stereotypes that we have been trying to dismantle for years. 

What stood out to me most in your essay was the insinuation that the only way a person could truly be considered transgender is if they underwent hormone replacement therapy and/or gender confirmation surgery. This is simply incorrect, as there are many people (myself included) who happily identify as trans that have chosen to or cannot undergo those types of treatments. It also completely leaves out the identity of non-binary, a-gender and gender fluid individuals, who do not subscribe to the binary gender identities that accompany these types of treatment. It is also not as simple to gain access to these procedures as you seem suggest, even within your home country of the United Kingdom.

In your writing, you state that “a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law.” According to the official website for the government of the United Kingdom, a person who wishes to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate must be over the age of 18, have documented proof of a diagnoses of gender dysphoria, have lived as their intended gender for at least two years, and intend to live as this gender for the rest of their life (https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate). This clearly shows that a person must provide more than just their word in order to gain legal recognition of their gender by the British government. You are correct that surgery and hormones are not prerequisites for obtaining a GRC, however, medically transitioning is not a prerequisite for being a trans person. 

You also cited a very controversial study performed by Doctor Lisa Littman the supports the theory of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. According to this study, children and young adults are more likely to come out to their parents as transgender after engaging online with other trans individuals. Dr. Littman claims that according to the survey she conducted (which was directed at parents of children who had recently come out as trans), gender dysphoria can just appears out of nowhere during puberty, and that internet forums and peer pressure is a large contributing factor to this. However, there are several things wrong with her writing. To start, the survey she conducted in order to obtain her data was targeted at parents of children who had recently come out as trans and only posted to websites that were about parents questioning their teen’s recent coming out. She asked irrelevant questions about the child’s mental health, including whether or not they had been diagnosed with a mental illness prior to coming out, or if they had experienced trauma at some past point in their life. Although I understand that the article was taken down and re-reviewed, the author did not rescind her findings, and simply used the republication as a way to clarify what she had previously stated.  

The other aspect of your writing that stood out to me as particularly harmful to the trans community and those questioning their gender identity was the supposition that one could just “choose” to be trans because they have experienced trauma. Your experience as a survivor of domestic and sexual assault are real and valid, and your trauma regarding these situations is real and valid. However, this does not give you the right to suggest that you might have chosen to transition during these times in order to escape abuse. Transitioning (in your case) from an Assigned-Female-At-Birth (AFAB) individual to a male identifying individual does not automatically exempt you from abuse and violence typically experienced by cis-gendered women. It is not a choice people make because they have experienced a trauma. It is a recognition of what has always been true to them, that they were previously unable to freely express. 

Here’s where you seem to be missing the point. People who choose to transition from a female to a male are not trying to “escape womanhood.” What they are doing is finding ways to freely express themselves in the most authentic and truest way. For example, say you were born with red hair. But for years and years your family was dying your hair brown because it was more “socially acceptable” to have brown hair. You knew that you had red hair, and that wasn’t something that anyone could take away from you, even if they were trying to cover it up or pretend like it was brown. And one day, you meet a group of people who have naturally red hair, who are flaunting their red hair and making a point of not dying it to fit societal standards. And maybe you don’t agree with what these people are doing, and you continue to dye your hair. Or maybe, you realize that you’ve always preferred having red hair, and now you’ve come across a space where it’s ok to be a red head. These people understand what it’s like to have their hair dyed for years and years, and want to embrace their naturally red hair. That’s how it is for trans people. A trans man was always a man, he was just born into a woman’s body, and socialized as a woman. But once they encounter other trans people, and realize that these people will accept and love him for his true self, then he will “come out” because he realizes that he was always a man and now finally feels comfortable expressing that. 

I also want to take this opportunity to share with you my own personal journey of gender exploration, since the stories of non-binary trans people are often overlooked and rarely heard. I was assigned female at birth. I was given a traditionally female first name, and socialized as a girl for the first sixteen years of my life. However, even as a little kid I had a sense that something wasn’t quite right. When I was younger, I really didn’t like my name, and always wished I could have been called Amber or Ashley. I knew that I was not the person I wanted to be, but I didn’t have the language or understanding to really figure out how I was feeling. As I grew up, I came to embrace my feminine name, and to enjoy traditionally feminine things such as princesses and makeup.

Fast forward to high school, when I was beginning to learn more about the LGBTQ+ community. Before I got to high school, I didn’t know a single queer person my own age. Existing on the internet at the time, I encountered many stories of trans people, but the only ones I ever saw were of binary trans individuals. I knew that I didn’t want to be a man, but I also knew that I didn’t really want to be a woman either. So I cut my hair short and started wearing clothes that showed off less of my figure and that attempted to obscure my female form. When I was fifteen, I was doing a presentation on LGBTQ+ identities for school, and came across the term “non-binary individual.” At the same time, I was taking a class where we were learning about the history of feminism, and how many ancient cultures saw femininity and masculinity less as physical forms and appearances, but rather as energies that a person could embrace. Both of these streams of information collided, and I suddenly realized I had words to describe how I’d been feeling this whole time. I didn’t want to identify as a binary woman, and I didn’t want to identify as a binary male. Instead, I wanted the language that would allow me to feel comfortable traveling between these two energies. 

My personal definition of what it means to be a non-binary individual is a person who embraces both masculine and feminine energies, and can express themselves as one, neither or both. I keep my hair long and have chosen not to go on hormones or have reconstructive surgery partially due to trauma I experienced as a child, but also because I want to keep these aspects of feminine energy close to me. There are days where I feel more masculine, where I wear “mens” clothes and attempt to present as a more masculine individual. There are days where I want to feel more feminine, and I choose to wear skirts and makeup because that is what helps me to embrace my feminine energy. And there are days when I want to combine energies, so I will present myself as some combination of masculine and feminine presentations. 

All of this is just to say that when you, a person who has considerable influence especially on younger children, make these inflammatory statements and harmful claims, you are effectively telling children that this is not a world where they can be as authentic to themselves as possible. You are creating a hostile environment that encourages other people who share your ideas to be more vocal, which honestly does more harm than good. Many of those statistics that you quote about rising rates in teen and transgender suicide are often because people who feel forced to conceal their true identity would rather not exist in a world that won’t allow them to be who they really are. So if you are truly interested in changing public perception of transgender individuals, while continuing to support the education of children and the protection of women, I would suggest reading literature that directly opposes your view points, and having conversations with people (particularly trans people) who have real experiences and are willing to share them with you. 

Sincerely, 

Alex Hernandez (they/them)

#tw suicide #tw trauma #tw transphobia #Harry Potter #HP #JKR #JKRowling #trans #lgbtq

[antthonystark]

tbh there definitely are some problems with shadowhunters like izzy's yin fen storyline and how every black shadowhunters has turned into a villian but it isn't racist every single time something bad happens to a poc. it would be if the only characters who had to suffer were poc but every character on the show gets hurt at points and like...... idk there is bad stuff that needs to be acknowledged but not everything is a problem.

note: i just basically used this ask to let out all my opinions on this issue, but i sort of broadly agree with some of what you said but not necessarily as a whole. also this is incredibly long, so don’t feel the need to read all of it! 

essentially: i don’t think shadowhunters is racist in any significant capacity, and while i’m never gonna go after people for critically analyzing or evaluating the show if that’s what they want to do, at the end of the day, personally, i don’t think nit-picking at it is a really productive thing to do. esp when there’s a lot of…. well, actual racism in the media. 

See, the thing is, a lot of the stuff that people are calling“problematic” in a racial sense, to me, is just indicative of a positiverace-blind casting ethos in the show. Now, race-blindness is not generally a good thing when talkingabout race, but when it comes to casting, I personally agree with it, in termsof having open casting calls for characters that don’t have to be race-specific(e.g. for Izzy or Luke, who are racially ambiguous in the source material, butnot for Magnus or Maia, who are clearly and importantly Asian and mixed-racerespectively in the books). Because of this ethos, Shadowhunters is an incredibly diverse show.

I guess I should probably includehere that I’m a person of colour myself as a disclaimer? I of course don’tspeak for all people of colour, but that does (or should) go without saying.

I think my general opinion on raceand Shadowhunters is that I think it does racial diversity extremely well. Ithink characters of colour are given great storylines and personalities (withone slight exception that is the one that you’ve mentioned and I’ll get intothat in a minute), and I like that they are able to afford a diversity in moralcharacter and moral alignment to characters of colour that many shows cannot simply because they don’t have enough actual,well-written, non-stereotyped diversity to begin with. I also think the waycharacters of colour are positioned in the narrative is not looked at enough,and instead they are looked at in isolation and without narrative context whichleads to oversimplified and inflammatory comments regarding Shadowhunters beingracist, which I highly and heartily disagree with. No show is going to beperfect in its depiction of racial minorities, but I think Shadowhunters is oneof the best ones out there and certainly the best one I’ve ever watched.

Also, I talked about the racialallegory in Shadowhunters here and also here, so I’m not going to get intothis  on this ask, but basically I thinkthat people don’t really know what allegory means and take it way too far atface-value - in that they think it should correspond perfectly with real-life social structures, which it doesn’t - which is not the purpose of allegory, and I think people criticizingthe casting of certain roles as POC despite them being the “oppressor class” inthe allegory (which is quite a loose allegory anyway) is a bit hypocriticalseeing as I think diversity in general is more important than casting based onan allegory that is already encoded in the narrative irrespective of castingdecisions.

BUT. Let’s get into it now! I’m goingto start with some number-crunching as a fun activity to illustrate theimportance of comparison groups, because science is important guys.

In order to kinda work through thisinformation and opinions you’ve presented here (because I’d like to think I’mthe type of person to admit when I’m wrong about something), I did some very rudimentary number-crunching.Taking all the main and recurring cast members on the show as listed onWikipedia (and I included Cleophas just because I feel like some conversationsare surrounding her), I did the math using the following 26 characters(specifically non-mundane characters):

White (10): Clary, Jace, Alec, Valentine, Jocelyn, Hodge,Lydia, The Inquisitor, Blackwell, Sebastian

POC (16): Isabelle, Simon, Luke, Magnus, Raphael, Meliorn,Camille, Maryse, Robert, Dot, Pangborn, Alaric, Maia, Victor Aldertree,Cleophas, Raj

Preliminarily, there are 6 more POCcharacters in the main/recurring cast compared to white characters, so it trulyis a show that represents diversity, if nothing else. So I think that’s quitenice.

Also, in terms of broad moralalignments, 50% of the whitecharacters are depicted as clear antagonists, and every absolute antagonist (Valentine, Imogen, Sebastian) is white(the remainder are Hodge and Blackwell the henchman). The remaining 5 are goodto ambiguous.

Comparatively, out of our 16 POC,there is much more moral ambiguity as I’ve assigned it, but anyone who iseither depicted as absolutely antagonistic or as more ambiguously antagonisticcomprises of 31% of the POCcharacters, and none of them are thevillain (who are the 3 mentioned above). I included Camille, Maryse (astretch), Pangborn, Aldertree (still sorta ambiguous but mostly evil), Cleophas(again, still somewhat ambiguous). I didn’t include Raj because I labelled himas ambiguous/lawful neutral, but including him still it jumps to 37.5%, still less than the proportionof white characters who are clearly antagonistic. The remainder are (62.5% - 69%) ambiguous to good.

Of course, as I said, this is arudimentary and over-simplified analysis, but the purpose thereof is toremember that there is no claim that can really be validated without acomparison group – you can’t say that POC are disproportionately villainizedwhen you don’t account for the control proportions, which in this case would benon-POC or white people who actually have a slightly higher proportionalvillainization than do the POC characters.

But now, onto the fun stuff! Let’sactually analyze things with narrative context.

Let’s begin with the big one, whichis Isabelle and the yin fen. Like Isaid earlier, I feel like this is…not thebest plotline to give their major Latina character, overall. I’m hesitant to utterlycondemn it until I see its full arc play out, though, because I feel like wehaven’t seen enough of it for me to condemn it as fully racist (since I seethat word as being quite a weighty accusation still). The disclaimer of coursebeing that I’m not Latinx, so I would of course defer to Latinx people’sopinions first and foremost. But if I might give my opinion, I do think thereare some mitigating factors (again, depending quite a bit on how things playout).

I think the key differentiation herebetween the portrayal and the harmful stereotype is that, in terms of how it’snarratively structured, it’s very clearly an antagonistic machination againstIsabelle (on the part of Aldertree) rather than some inherent characteristic ofthe Latina Isabelle that gives her the substance abuse problems. (The latterbeing the harmful stereotype.) It’s not great, admittedly, but I think itprovides a small but not insignificant mitigation, because in this way itdoesn’t negate all of the wonderful ways in which Isabelle defies harmfulstereotypes – that this plotline does not define who she is, but rathersomething that was unfairly and deceptively doneto her. (Which I think is also a slightly better way of portraying people withsubstance abuse problems, because it’s much more true to life of addictioncompared to the more common “people with drug addictions = inherently worthlesspeople” trope).

Also, it’s not a great plotline as Ikeep saying, and I think they could have done something different with her, butI also like that she has her own autonomous storyline? Compared with seasonone, where she largely played the support system of characters like Clary andAlec. I like that we see her struggle and suffer as any main character shouldget the chance to do – and ultimately grow – because Izzy is by no meansreduced to a one-note character through this plotline, and it actuallyhighlights some of her character struggles – drug or no drug – such as herinability to admit defeat and ask for help when she needs it.

Again, these are mitigating factorsto a storyline that does play into harmful stereotypes, so I’m not saying itentirely salvages or entirely excuses it, but it’s – as usual – a bit morecomplex than “racist fucking pieces of shit!!” or “not racist shut up!!!!!”

Regarding the rest of what you’vesaid plus what a lot of other people are saying, another thing that’s importantto consider is that I think using screentime as an absolute measure ofnarrative equality is a bit of a flawed paradigm, esp. when it comes to showthat juggles a lot of mains and side characters as well. While screentimeshould absolutely be considered, I think there’s an equal weight that should begiven to a character’s place and position in the narrative, and theirsignificance thereof.

In this case, I’d like to use Luke asan example. I saw a few recent complaints about Luke not getting enoughscreentime, and I can totally respect that (and would love to see Luke get morescreentime). But I think people think that this means the show is making himirrelevant, and I just don’t see that as being the case at all? When it comesto narrative positioning, Luke is in the extremely key position that is usuallygiven to the main protag – he’s the literary foil of Valentine. I mean, that’smy interpretation – he’s the Dumbledore to Val’s Voldemort, if you will. He’smuch more the perfect foil to Valentine than either Clary or Jace, who arerepeatedly highlighted in connection – rather than in contrast – to Valentine.Thus, to the main story arc, Luke is much more significant than a characterlike, say, Alec or even Izzy, because, just as an example, Alec’s narrative andemotional involvement in the main villain arc is usually tangential, connectedto it through Jace more than anything.

That’s one example, but I feel likepeople tend to oversimplify certain notions to just “amount of screentime”which is one measure, of course, and a significant one, but not generally thewhole story.

I think that most characters ofcolour in the story are given really critical parts in terms of how they’repositioned in the narrative structure and overall plotline that I think isreally gratifying – they’re not tangential, there’s not expendable, they’re notthere to just support the white protag and then get out of there. Like Cleophasfor example, they’re given complex motivations of their own that have norelation to the white protags (like Cleophas or like Maia), and they’re alsogiven crucial, pivotal moments in the episodes.

I liked Cleophas’ position in thenarrative and I loved the struggle between Luke and Cleophas – a clash ofvalues, of ideals, a pained family history – it was just so rich anddeliciously complex to me, in a way that relationships between 2 POC are rarelyif ever depicted. Had she been straight-up evil, I think it would have beenanother story, but she was a complicated and extremely dynamic character with aset of uncompromising principles. Personally, I find all of this that much moregratifying (and not racist) than just “this character is a good person and aperson of colour this is the rep that I want and deserve” (but MUCH MORE onthis in the next section).

And then, I mean, there’s some stuffthat’s just…not … racism. Like,there’s – it’s just not. Like, I saw one person going “oh Valentine had theupper hand in the fight against Luke so that means racist” like lol if any oneof the protags could beat Valentine in a fight then he wouldn’t be a veryeffective villain now would he? That’s just being silly. Also, I saw one persongoing “oh, they made Simon and Maia’s date all about the white girl’sfeelings!! racism!!” like lol, I’d rather have Maia be like “hey man you’restill into this girl so I’m not going to let you string me along here” becausehaving Maia puppy after Simon while he’s into Clary would be a lot moredemeaning, wouldn’t it? And speaking of Clary, don’t get me started on the “lolClary is a white saviour!!” thing. Like. You keep using those words but I don’tthink they mean what you think they mean.

Furthermore and most significantly of all, as I alluded to earlier, one of the mostimportant things about POC representation is that it should not feed intostereotypes. Like, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having POC playantagonistic roles provided that (a) they are not the only antagonists and (b)that they are not playing into and supporting harmful stereotypes about thatgroup of people. Because people can shout “Representationmatters!” until they’re blue in the face, but if they don’t understand why it matters, then it makes nodifference. It matters to show young people of all colours and races that theybelong in and have an important place in the media that they consume andinteract with, and it matters to show allpeople that people of colour are as dimensional, complex, multifaceted, andimportant as white people. I think Shadowhunters accomplishes both of thosegoals amazingly well.  Again, is itperfect? Nope. Does it try? Yes. Does it accomplish a great deal? Yes. Shouldit be condemned? Not at all.

To illustrate, let me use Raj as anexample. As a South Asian myself, I’m pretty aware of how we’re stereotyped. IfRaj was like Raj (lol) from the Big Bang Theory who was shown in the narrativeto be desexualized and unattractive and socially incompetent, or a characterwho was shown to be backwards and sexist, or excessively cheap, or something like that – I’d take a hugeissue with it. I mean, those are pretty extreme to show you what I’m talkingabout, but these types of things can creep into portrayals of POC subtly butinsidiously. I think that’s why the Izzy/yin fen thing is indeed something thatcan be seen as “problematic” for sure.

But I don’t take issue with Raj’sportrayal (it’d be cool to see more of him though) because there’s no harmfulsocietally-engrained stereotype that we’re snarky or slightly unlikeable, so aDesi, mouthy, maybe somewhat insensitive half-angel warrior is not a portrayalthat I find racist or harmful in any significant way. Actually, it’s kindarefreshing. Hell, I’m snarky and significantly unlikeable,and South Asian, so Raj is like. my dude. Nor is Raj the only Shadowhuntershown to follow orders to a point that is considered immoral or “against” theprotagonists – Alec is, Lydia is, Aldertree is, Maryse and Robert are as well.

I hope that gets my point across when I say “mean character of colour”=/= “racist portrayal”. You wanna think critically, my dude. Think about aportrayal and think, “what effect isthis having that does something to support racism in any larger context outsideof this show?” and if you’re coming up blank, then….you’re probably good.

I’m most comfortable talking aboutRaj being South Asian, but we’re right up there next to the Southeast/EastAsians so let’s take Magnus as another great example. Magnus takes harmfultropes associated with South/east/East Asian men and destroys them. Rather thanbeing submissive and desexualized, he is repeatedly shown as one of (if notthe) most powerful characters on the show, and is one of the most individualistcharacters who doesn’t bow to any institution or will except his own, and he’srepeatedly shown to be extremely sexually attractive in the narrative. Not onlythat, he’s a complex and well-rounded character in many, many different wayswith a rich backstory, and he is repeatedly shown to be his own character withstories independent of his relationships with any of the other protags.

A final one I want to mention isMeliorn. As someone who was raised Muslim and comes from a Muslim family (stilla closeted atheist), I’m very sensitive to portrayals of Arab people (oftenMuslims) since they are far-and-away one of the most stereotyped as terrorists or similar such roles. But Meliornis depicted as a very peaceful, meditative, powerful being with strong earthlyconnections – and it’s just so far from any stereotype that I really appreciateit.  

That’s just a couple of examples,but, more than that, I think one of the things that is the best about how Shadowhunters portrays people of colour is one ofthe things that other people seem to use as a detractor towards it. That is,that they are all complex. I likecharacters that have complex or ambiguous moralities. I don’t want charactersof colour to all be perfect loveable angels, because the whole point of goodrepresentation to me is to show audiences that we are people.

We can be characters that could havebeen white people – that, essentially, we can play characters that are notwritten as “Asian” or “Black” or “Latin” but that are excellent,well-conceived, well-rounded, unstereotyped characters that could have easilybeen written for and played by white people, but aren’t, because POC have a right to exist in the exact same spacesas do white people. (But still and significantly – SH doesn’t ignore theexisting ethnicities of the actors they cast, having Iz, Raphael, and Simonspeak Spanish; making references to Magnus’s Southeast Asian culture andupbringing; even having Maia briefly mention the problems of police and blackyouth; and of course the allegorical implications of Downworlders.)

And that’s why I like Shadowhunters,because it executes this concept beautifully, and that’s why I will yell tillI’m blue in the face about how it’s not racist. There’s no point in over-criticizing a show that does so much good when there’s so much bad out there, in my opinion. pick your battles fam. 

#...and that's what's up #ummmm lol this is like 3000 words long part of me is hoping just no one will read it cause i dont wanna deal with it but #yeaaah #shadowhunters #mavra and the discourse #mine:meta #discourse // #Anonymous #it was too long to read over so i didn't so i'm pretty sure by the end i stopped making sense