felvybri:weasleypatronus:ahvahtlom:felixlovesyou:takealookatyourlife:heroicallyfound:svetlana-del-re

felvybri:weasleypatronus:ahvahtlom:felixlovesyou:takealookatyourlife:heroicallyfound:svetlana-del-rey:Was she going to slap you because you never in any way made him gay in the actual books, taking zero risks/doing absolutely nothing for gay characters in literature, and only announcing your “authorial intent” afterwards for a cheap shot at looking like an ~ally~^^^Gay people are just normal people. We are not told about any of the Hogwarts professors love lives, other than Snape, and it would be completely out of character for Dumbledore to walk around telling everyone about his sexuality.Did you want her to make him dress in glittery platform boots, a crop top, and decorate his office in rainbow flags to make it more obvious for you? Would that be enough of a stereotype to appease you people? Or what? Please tell me. I’d like to know how you think a gay character is supposed to be portrayed.And did you miss the Grindelwald chapters in the ‘actual books’? Or was that also not obvious enough for you? Did Dumbledore need to whisper “always” wistfully in order for you to connect that he had romantic feelings for Grindelwald? Maybe you are American and need them to gaze longingly into each others eyes with awkward close ups of their fingers almost grazing each other that Hollywood thinks means ‘true love’. It didn’t fit into his relationship to Harry to ever say “I’m gay”, and so it was not stated explicitly (you might have noticed the book was told from Harry Potter’s perspective).The point is though, that he is a homosexual, well respected, powerful, and very loved wizard- and his sexuality doesn’t matter because no one else thinks it matters. a.k.a. no one cares that he loves men, and that is wonderful.Ugh NO this completely misses the pointYes it would be problematic of her to have represented Dumbledore as gay by defining him around that or employing stereotypes to get the point across.Not because being a feminine-glittery-gay-man is a bad thing to be, but because it would be fucking terrible, lazy writing.But it is also fucking problematic to just do a ‘word of gay’. It does nothing meaningful for LGBT representation. OP is angry because it feels like she’s trying to pass this off as:~oh look at how radical and progressive I’m being by presenting the gays as normal people~Whereas really she’s done the easiest thing possible. She may as well say Hermione is bisexual, McGonnagle is a lesbian and Lupin is trans* while she’s at it. It might be a bit helpful for awareness but it’s far from ideal. And that’s what the OP is trying to say. This is the bare fucking minimum.The queerness of characters should be evident from the writing but not central to it, just like straightness is, unless it’s actually relevant to the plot.Post-hoc declaration of queer is really one of the laziest, easiest, least meaningful things to do.EDIT: Plus, do we really know thatThe point is though, that he is a homosexual, well respected, powerful, and very loved wizard- and his sexuality doesn’t matter because no one else thinks it matters. a.k.a. no one cares that he loves menis true? Homophobia is never discussed in relation to the wizard world. We don’t know if Dumbledore is accepted with it or despite itThat’s a very important difference, and JK does nothing to answer it in-book. -- source link

More pics about