[ SECRET POST #3742 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3742 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Russian History (Ivan the Terrible and Anastasia Romanov)]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Stan Lee, Captain America: Civil War]


__________________________________________________



05.
(History Buffs on youtube)


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[JonTron]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Criminal Minds, Penelope Garcia]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.
[buffy the vampire slayer]


__________________________________________________



11.
(Mulan: Live Action Movie)







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 56 secrets from Secret Submission Post #534.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Identification means fuck all when they contradict the facts of a situation. Fact is Willow was bi. She may have ended in a gay relationship and said she was gay, but she was by definition a bi character in a gay relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

This is the underlying argument about identity that I want to strongly reject. Someone who identifies as gay is gay. You can't make them bi. You're not the arbiter of their identity. This is exactly the worst possible reason to claim that Willow is bi.

[(Anonymous)]

But since Willow isn't a person, she doesn't get to choose her sexual identity. The writers wrote a bi character and labeled her as a lesbian because it was the 90s.

[(Anonymous)]

But since Willow isn't a person, she doesn't get to choose her sexual identity

Like I said, I'm criticizing the underlying view, because I think the logic is wrong and I think it would apply. I accept that she is a fictional character.

The writers wrote a bi character and labeled her as a lesbian because it was the 90s.

I don't think there's any particular necessary reason to read her specifically as a bi character. I think there is some compelling reason to read her specifically as a lesbian character (viz, she says she is gay). The writers could have written her as a bisexual character, and maybe they would have done in 2017, and maybe they should have done, but the character they actually wrote was a gay character, and I'm really, really not comfortable with the idea that she was in love with a man ergo she must be bisexual and not gay. Again - it is not the way the character is presented on the show and saying the character is actually factually bisexual follows a bad logic about what makes someone's identity valid.

[(Anonymous)]

Words mean things, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that words mean things. I am fairly comfortable with the definitions that I am using here, and with the general idea that people's identity is their own thing to define.

[(Anonymous)]

So, by this logic we should all be OK with Rachel Dolezahl saying she's black and leading the NAACP because "that's how she identifies" even though she's a white woman with a bad perm, mild tan and no black ancestry. I mean, thar's what you're saying here: We should all respect what people identify as regardless to whether it's in any way an accurate reflection of reality.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think that someone who's only had sex with people of one gender can ID as bisexual?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes? Because sexuality isn't dictated by fuck history. More important question: why are you dodging my question that actually relates to the current conversation? Might it be because you realize this is n indefensible corner?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes? Because sexuality isn't dictated by fuck history.

I agree, which is why I think that calling Willow gay is correct and calling her bisexual is not an accurate characterization of who she is on the show. To be clear, I don't have any objection to Headcanon Bi Willow. It's a reasonable counterfactual. But it is a counterfactual.

More important question: why are you dodging my question that actually relates to the current conversation? Might it be because you realize this is n indefensible corner?

Because I think it's a side issue that's not really related to what we're arguing about, and because it's a very tricky side issue that would inevitably lead to a whole mess of confusing and complicated nonsense.

For the record, what I think is that there is a difference between the way that race functions as part of a human identity, and the way that gender & sexual identity functions as part of a human identity, such that the way in which we talk about those things is different. That seems fairly logical to me, and it seems like it must be the case if you think (as we both do) that sexuality does not resolve into fuck history. But feel free to present some alternate explanation or account.

[(Anonymous)]

It's an issue that relates directly to your claim that how someone identifies is al that matters. As for your response to the sex question: If Willows relationships with Oz and Xander had been portrayed as being solely about getting rocks off regardless of attraction...it might have something to do with what we're talking about. But she clearly had sexual and romantic feelings for both of those men, which makes "gay" an inappropriate label, regardless of how she *~identifies~*.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I don't think I can agree with that.

Is this specifically tied to Willow being a fictional character, or would you say the same thing about someone in the equivalent position in real life?

[(Anonymous)]

It applies to everybody.

[(Anonymous)]

Sexuality is fluid. Real people exist who've loved members of the opposite sex before and now identify as gay. They could change their minds and identify as bi, but that's up to them. You do, in fact, get to choose your sexuality to some degree.

[(Anonymous)]

You get to choose what you call yourself, sure, but whether it's an accurate description isn't up for debate. Because, as said above, words mean things.

[(Anonymous)]

So people in that position who call themselves gay are just wrong, and they are actually bisexual, no matter what they happen to think about it. That's your position.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much, yeah. They've adopted a label that doesn't belong to them.

[arcadiaego]

What gay means has changed at least 3 times in the last 50 years.