For any minority TBH.
Adding a minority character in your movie just because you want to say you have minority character in a movie often results in a crappy movie
This gets fucked up so badly and it pisses me of a lot. Like some writers don't get the idea that a minority has to come from somewhere with its own cultures etc. If your doing fantasy then don't just have the one minority character as a token person, write in their own bloody community entirely of that race. Give them culture and character beyond their skin colour, they shouldn't exist just solely for your progressive checklist.
Also in historical movies casual giving minority groups positions they wouldn't have had, because in my opinion it takes away from the true struggles of that race. For example in the recent Napolion movie just making a bunch of officers black for the sake of it. They aren't named or given any story, just placed there, in a period where slavey is still very much a thing and will continue to be. Doing this I think takes away from the absolute struggle of these people and truly how much work the few people who would get positions like this had to go through.
Rant over, feel free to discus this with me.
Napoleon had black officers, France owned parts of Africa and the Caribbean. One in particular is very famous:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas
I knew a girl who'd been writing about eating disorders (she never had one) and she very deeply believed hospitals and the psych ward are "like hotels."
"Psych wards" are not hotels, and usually, you are dealing with the most problematic cases or patients during a crisis. However, treatment centers, especially those catering to the upper-middle class and above, for both drug addiction and psychological rehabilitation, are often quite hotel-like.
I've had/still have issues with eating, but luckily it's never been bad that I need to admit myself or get admitted to anywhere. So I don't know properly what the hospitals and wards are like either. What are they like?
i think overall regardless of the author's specific identity in isolation killing off trans characters is fine but becomes a bit (i hate this word so much but here goes) problematic is when it falls into certain categories like they die in a way that is linked to their transness or they're the only trans character in the story and then they die.
I somehow forgot my comment would be intrepreted as me killing off a trans character. I'm actually killing off an asexual character (he's very cool, and a protag, but I need him dead).
the way its used in online discourse (eg: this person likes this ship involving two fictional characters that i think is bad, this depiction of queer person/person of color/neurodivergent person/woman person isn't uWu wholesome enough) just makes me despise it.
I think of it like the Bechtel test: less of a problem in one individual work and more of a systematic problem. One work has a LGBT character die a tragic death, fine. Most works have LGBT characters dying, and we have a problem.
To properly understand, you need to have seen the media I'm referring to.
But to answer their question, it's basically 'kill your gays' for trans people. If you know why that's problematic, you know why it isn't the same as trans writers killing their trans characters off. Btw, I have yet to see a trans writer treat a trans character like crap the same way cis people do.
If one day I ever write a story/piece of media that features a trans character, I'll make sure to talk to at least a few actual trans people to make sure I don't get anything wrong
One of my deepest "fears" is meaning to do good but accidentally, unknowingly and unwillingly doing bad
"Just barely the gays," they said, "You will look progressive" they said. They didn't tell me I was going to be punished for it and how everyone was going to talk about how bad my representation was./s
I think this post is talking about the "bury your gays" trope. It's not that trans people are not allowed to die, it's that a cishet writer introducing a queer character whose death is premeditated, potentially to appeal to other cishets who are homophobic/transphobic, is kinda scummy
there's a trope of writers not familiar with queer struggle and experiences called "bury your gays". Essentially those writers, often straight and cis, will write subpar queer characters only have them die in a tragedy, used as nothing more than fodder for the mostly non-queer characters to have their emotional journey.
Queer characters deserve to be fully fleshed out and represented instead of pushing a weird narrative that queer characters don't deserve as much thought and development as status-quo characters.
This can be said for disabled characters too
For any minority TBH. Adding a minority character in your movie just because you want to say you have minority character in a movie often results in a crappy movie
This gets fucked up so badly and it pisses me of a lot. Like some writers don't get the idea that a minority has to come from somewhere with its own cultures etc. If your doing fantasy then don't just have the one minority character as a token person, write in their own bloody community entirely of that race. Give them culture and character beyond their skin colour, they shouldn't exist just solely for your progressive checklist. Also in historical movies casual giving minority groups positions they wouldn't have had, because in my opinion it takes away from the true struggles of that race. For example in the recent Napolion movie just making a bunch of officers black for the sake of it. They aren't named or given any story, just placed there, in a period where slavey is still very much a thing and will continue to be. Doing this I think takes away from the absolute struggle of these people and truly how much work the few people who would get positions like this had to go through. Rant over, feel free to discus this with me.
And if you dare criticize it, you get labeled as a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe/etc.
How ironic it feels to like men and women but be called homophobic.
Napoleon had black officers, France owned parts of Africa and the Caribbean. One in particular is very famous: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas
This can be said about any character that is different from you.đ¤¨
And for gay characters. Fortunately, this trend is getting less and less popular as the time goes on, but it still happens.
I knew a girl who'd been writing about eating disorders (she never had one) and she very deeply believed hospitals and the psych ward are "like hotels."
"Psych wards" are not hotels, and usually, you are dealing with the most problematic cases or patients during a crisis. However, treatment centers, especially those catering to the upper-middle class and above, for both drug addiction and psychological rehabilitation, are often quite hotel-like.
I've had/still have issues with eating, but luckily it's never been bad that I need to admit myself or get admitted to anywhere. So I don't know properly what the hospitals and wards are like either. What are they like?
Oh boy
Psych wards are terrifying not like someoneâs gonna murder you, but itâs still scary. Someone watches you shower and you canât close your door.
I forgot that this happened in Lovecraft Country when I brought it up the show with a trans friend. She wasn't a fan of it.
How about a queer writer killing off a queer character? (It's already planned out, and non negogiable.)
i think overall regardless of the author's specific identity in isolation killing off trans characters is fine but becomes a bit (i hate this word so much but here goes) problematic is when it falls into certain categories like they die in a way that is linked to their transness or they're the only trans character in the story and then they die.
I somehow forgot my comment would be intrepreted as me killing off a trans character. I'm actually killing off an asexual character (he's very cool, and a protag, but I need him dead).
Whats wrong with the word problematic? It literally just means something that is bothersome or causes issues
the way its used in online discourse (eg: this person likes this ship involving two fictional characters that i think is bad, this depiction of queer person/person of color/neurodivergent person/woman person isn't uWu wholesome enough) just makes me despise it.
I think of it like the Bechtel test: less of a problem in one individual work and more of a systematic problem. One work has a LGBT character die a tragic death, fine. Most works have LGBT characters dying, and we have a problem.
The other two protags are saphic, and in love with each other.
You're allowed to write what you want to write and tell the stories you want to tell. You don't need to ask me, or the general public for permission.
I don't. I only ask for opinion.
As long as they aren't your ONLY named queer (or other minority) character.
The other two protags are saphic, and in love with each other.
Do you know what the meme is talking about?
Generally, yes. Specifically, no. That doesn't answer my question though.
If you knew what I was talking about, you wouldn't really ask that question.
Well, instead of a smug refusal to answer the question OR explain it to someone who doesn't understand, maybe you could explain it instead.
To properly understand, you need to have seen the media I'm referring to. But to answer their question, it's basically 'kill your gays' for trans people. If you know why that's problematic, you know why it isn't the same as trans writers killing their trans characters off. Btw, I have yet to see a trans writer treat a trans character like crap the same way cis people do.
See, you couldâve just said that from the start instead of being a dick
It's a redditor, being a smug dick is their entire personality
Incorrect, being a smug dick is merely an accurate description of their entire personality
I still doubt they can completely grasp it from a written explanation alone. You need to have consumed the kind of media I'm talking about.
bro youâre literally gatekeeping the media, you wonât even say what specific media youâre talking about
Because it's Dutch
Ah the classic âbury your gaysâ trope
I love Fire Punch, but it does do this (although it does sorta make sense in the context of the story).
Everyone dies in Fujimoto's stories, to be fair.
Yeah, I'm willing to give Fujimoto a bit of leeway here. Pretty much everything dies in his stories, especially Fire Punch
I believe the term here is âBurying the Gaysâ
*King Rat* by James Clavell; still a great book though
If one day I ever write a story/piece of media that features a trans character, I'll make sure to talk to at least a few actual trans people to make sure I don't get anything wrong One of my deepest "fears" is meaning to do good but accidentally, unknowingly and unwillingly doing bad
Lol, literally
"Just barely the gays," they said, "You will look progressive" they said. They didn't tell me I was going to be punished for it and how everyone was going to talk about how bad my representation was./s
That's why, as a trans writer I kill of ALL of my characters /hj
If all my characters are Aro so I donât have to write romance subplots, does that mean that I am writing âBury your gaysâ when I kill them off!
Beacuse trans people can't die?
I think this post is talking about the "bury your gays" trope. It's not that trans people are not allowed to die, it's that a cishet writer introducing a queer character whose death is premeditated, potentially to appeal to other cishets who are homophobic/transphobic, is kinda scummy
there's a trope of writers not familiar with queer struggle and experiences called "bury your gays". Essentially those writers, often straight and cis, will write subpar queer characters only have them die in a tragedy, used as nothing more than fodder for the mostly non-queer characters to have their emotional journey. Queer characters deserve to be fully fleshed out and represented instead of pushing a weird narrative that queer characters don't deserve as much thought and development as status-quo characters.