5 ms·

But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer

But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?

danaliv 6y ago
> why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress" That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
krapp 6y ago
> But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil. Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything? Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race? It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.
Pxtl 6y ago
If you're really curious about this matter, film analysis YouTuber Lindsay Ellis has an excellent video on the history of depictions of trans people (primarily in film) and puts Rowling's work into that context, tracing it back to Psycho and beyond. https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60 https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60 Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans people heavily.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  So it's not what she did, it's what other people did before her. Now, finally, we can call someone to task for it. Ah, this has so many parallels now with so many other things going on.
  - Pxtl 6y ago
    Yes, bigotry involves history.

danaliv 6y ago

> why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress" That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.

krapp 6y ago

> But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil. Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.

MikeUt 6y ago
> that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
- krapp 6y ago
  >Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything? Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race? It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.

Pxtl 6y ago

If you're really curious about this matter, film analysis YouTuber Lindsay Ellis has an excellent video on the history of depictions of trans people (primarily in film) and puts Rowling's work into that context, tracing it back to Psycho and beyond. https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60 https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60 Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans people heavily.

at_a_remove 6y ago
So it's not what she did, it's what other people did before her. Now, finally, we can call someone to task for it. Ah, this has so many parallels now with so many other things going on.
- Pxtl 6y ago
  Yes, bigotry involves history.