case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-08-15 06:40 pm

[ SECRET POST #3512 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3512 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
vethica: (Default)

[personal profile] vethica 2016-08-16 12:19 am (UTC)(link)
Gems are physically sexless, but all the ones we've seen use female pronouns and present female (well, except Steven, but he's different). I think discounting the lesbian relationships in SU because "they don't really have genders" is clinging to a technicality.

(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 12:23 am (UTC)(link)
This. Anyone non-canon familiar (or even any character in canon who doesn't know what the deal is with the gems) who looks at Ruby and Sapphire is going to see them as lesbians.
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-08-16 01:15 am (UTC)(link)
I agree with you in the sense that they are lesbian-coded relationships. I do think it would feel weird to be told to accept that as representation though. I wonder if they'd be accepted on a kid's network if they were more explicitly lesbian.

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to take the "they aren't REALLY LESBIANS so it's okay!" approach! I want to see more representation, not less!

(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 01:49 am (UTC)(link)
iirc didn't the creator say they were made "genderless" for the purpose of getting gay relationships on kids shows?
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-08-16 02:23 am (UTC)(link)
Not sure. I wouldn't be terribly surprised, and if it's true, then good for her and good for SU :) and good for Ruby and Sapphire!

(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 03:00 am (UTC)(link)
Unless I'm forgetting something, it's never actually been brought up on the show that the Gems are genderless. At most it's implied, with the statement that their true forms are literally just rocks. And aside from using "she" pronouns, other characters have referred to them as women and other feminine words like "mom."

So Word of God is the only way we have definite confirmation that they're genderless. And this secret's showing how some people feel about Word of God...
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-08-16 06:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe it's a perspective thing but like...they really read as at least sexless to me, considering that they are "made" instead of born and spring up out of the ground, and there don't appear to be varying genders among them. I always got the impression that was intentional.