[ SECRET POST #5148 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5148 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #737.
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)]

On one hand, I get that some stuff might seem like a bit of a stretch and that, regardless, pointing out things can get a bit performative woke and wanky. It gets even more complicated with stuff like fantasy species where their traits were based on even older fairy tales that had some pretty racist and antisemitic stuff - on one hand, it could easily not even be the intent of the creator of the modern work, but on the other hand there does need to be an understanding of where this stuff comes from imo.

On the other hand, there are cases where I see people pointing it out and I'm like oh. Oh shit. That's super valid and super sus. One example that gutpunched me a few months ago was a really great Tumblr post that pointed out how several female villains in Harry Potter are portrayed as performing excessive femininity (Umbridge's pink everything, Rita Skeeter's long, garish nails and tacky outfits) while having distinctly masculine physical features (Marge Dursley having a mustache, Rita Skeeter's "large, mannish" hands). Even if you argue that it wasn't on purpose, and honestly it could very well not be, it's still... idk, it indicates that the creator sees certain traits as worthy of being portrayed as villainous, and those certain traits align very closely with trans women. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions that people are drawing through it, I still think it's useful as media criticism to note when de facto othering or villainy aligns with actual, real life social justice issues.

Idk, just my two cents. I don't even know if I worded this all that great, but it's where I'm at with my opinion on this kind of media criticism atm.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. That's way overthinking it. Trans people weren't even on the radar as an issue outside of, you know, actually being trans in the days JKR was writing HP. I doubt that occurred to her on any level.

That seems much more likely to be rooted in attitudes to cis women, both hers and that of society at large.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt but it seems pretty reasonable in the face of it to suggest that JKR's general attitudes towards women, femininity, masculinity, and coded behaviors might in some way be connected to her later bigoted stances towards trans people, even if that's not what she had in mind at that specific moment

[(Anonymous)]

ITA. It seems very logical to link them as a progression. I think more than that is reaching though.

[(Anonymous)]

What? Are you twelve? Of course we were "on the radar"! Jan Morris transitioned in the early 1970s, and was very public about it.

I do agree that it's part of JKR's attitude to cis women and how everyone unlike her is doing it wrong, though. And that's shaded into transphobia the more she's been aware of trans people.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh please. People knowing you existed is different from trans issues being in the news regularly and you know it. Nobody who wasn't trans thought for more than two seconds at a time about trans people back then.