Unveil the shadowy dance of queerbaiting with us as we trace its origin from a political weapon to a Hollywood marketing ploy. Grasp the full picture as we dissect the complex interplay between the intent to engage LGBTQ+ audiences and the broader goal of retaining mass market appeal. This episode peels back the layers of this phenomenon, probing deep into the critical balance of representation and the pitfalls of misusing the term 'queerbaiting' when it comes to personal journeys of self-discovery.
Step into the vibrant landscape of TV and film where characters like Sulu from Star Trek are caught in the crossfire of representation debates, and the chemistry between Supernatural's Dean and Castiel sparks more than just fan theories. Our conversation doesn't shy away from the tough questions, including the critique of industry practices and the call for authenticity in storytelling. We examine Benedict Cumberbatch's controversial comments on autism and the wider implications of subtext versus explicit representation in media narratives.
The controversy doesn't end there as we unravel J.K. Rowling's retroactive narrative additions and contentious social stances. Literature's impact on impressionable minds takes center stage as we explore the potential for fiction to shape societal views. Finally, we debate the merit of engaging with bad-faith arguments, alongside a fascinating historical detour that ponders the secret lives of Renaissance artists like Leonardo da Vinci. Join us for an episode that's as informative as it is thought-provoking, where history and modern discourse collide in the ever-evolving conversation on LGBTQ+ issues in media and beyond.
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
Want to see the video? Check us out on YouTube.
Unveil the shadowy dance of queerbaiting with us as we trace its origin from a political weapon to a Hollywood marketing ploy. Grasp the full picture as we dissect the complex interplay between the intent to engage LGBTQ+ audiences and the broader goal of retaining mass market appeal. This episode peels back the layers of this phenomenon, probing deep into the critical balance of representation and the pitfalls of misusing the term 'queerbaiting' when it comes to personal journeys of self-discovery.
Step into the vibrant landscape of TV and film where characters like Sulu from Star Trek are caught in the crossfire of representation debates, and the chemistry between Supernatural's Dean and Castiel sparks more than just fan theories. Our conversation doesn't shy away from the tough questions, including the critique of industry practices and the call for authenticity in storytelling. We examine Benedict Cumberbatch's controversial comments on autism and the wider implications of subtext versus explicit representation in media narratives.
The controversy doesn't end there as we unravel J.K. Rowling's retroactive narrative additions and contentious social stances. Literature's impact on impressionable minds takes center stage as we explore the potential for fiction to shape societal views. Finally, we debate the merit of engaging with bad-faith arguments, alongside a fascinating historical detour that ponders the secret lives of Renaissance artists like Leonardo da Vinci. Join us for an episode that's as informative as it is thought-provoking, where history and modern discourse collide in the ever-evolving conversation on LGBTQ+ issues in media and beyond.
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
Want to see the video? Check us out on YouTube.
Basically, turf stands for trans exclusionary radical feminism and it's basically the idea that, as long as trans women are allowed to exist, afab people and quote unquote biological women are not safe. Today we're talking about queerbaiting, which is everyone's favorite thing to love, to hate and to hate to love and has definitely taken over the internet zeitgeist, especially in the past couple of years.
Speaker 2:What's interesting about queerbaiting to me is do you ever hear gaybaiting? I have. It's so interesting too because we talk about language all the time and how language is ever evolving, and I found this article that talked about how queerbaiting used to be gaybaiting, but then, as the language evolved, so did the definition.
Speaker 1:There we go. That's fantastic.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that was pretty cool. I know we're going to get into the history of queerbaiting, so I'll wait to talk about that.
Speaker 1:No, I actually did not read that at all. I hadn't seen it. Not a single article I read talked about the fact that it came from gaybaiting.
Speaker 2:Oh really, yeah, as recently as 10 years ago, gaybaiting basically referred to the practice of insinuating that someone was gay via coded language in order to harm them, while they obviously would maintain plausible deniability about it. But you see it basically a lot in politics where they would try to accuse their opponent of being gay so that they would gain more votes, which to me is very interesting because, if you think about it, I think they still do it today, but I don't know if you agree or disagree, but I think more today they use it in the opposite way, where they say that they will do things for gay people to gain that community's allegiance.
Speaker 1:Yeah, now that I think a perfect example of that would be, honestly, trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he came on stage with a rainbow flag that I think that had written on it LGBTQ plus for Trump, or something like that the whole acronym. I remember seeing that photo because at that time, I had some family members who shall not be named, but I forever hold this over their head because, bitch, I told you voted for him in 2016 because they didn't really like Hillary and they didn't see a better option, and that was one of the things that they were like yes, see, he's not anti. Look, he's coming out with a flag. He wouldn't do that if he was anti. Why no, he would. He would do it for the sole purpose of trying to get more right-leaning queer people to vote for him. That's the whole point.
Speaker 2:Exactly I was going to say. That's why the word baiting is in the term itself.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so absolutely in politics I would say that's a sphere you definitely see it in, but the definition overall of queer baiting is a marketing technique used in fiction and entertainment mostly, but again, politics. You can see it in a lot of aspects of life in which creators and even studios will hint at but never depict same-sex romance or LGBTQ plus storylines. It's a way to capitalize off of the emotions and desires for queer people to see actual representation and real storylines of what it's like for them in the real world or even in fictional worlds, and then just never actually deliver on it so they can still keep straight homophobic audiences as well. It's trying to basically capitalize off of as many eyes as possible.
Speaker 2:Right yeah, it's a celebrity culture term now, referring to performers and artists.
Speaker 1:Yes, I personally do not condone the usage of queer baiting on real life people who could just be exploring their own sexualities. You know what I mean. I feel like a lot of the times when we end up accusing celebrities of queer baiting. Four years later they come out and it's guys. This takes time. Do you not remember the days of self-exploration? Like it takes time to come to terms with yourself and sometimes throughout that process you're dipping toes in the water. Just because they're dipping their toes in the water with a lot more eyes on them doesn't mean they don't have the right to do that.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And I think I don't know. I feel like when attaching terminology that's meant specifically for fictional media or like political baiting, to real life human beings and real life journeys of self-exploration, that's such a slippery slope that can cause our community so much more harm than good. It ends up pushing away people that might genuinely just be exploring themselves.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's something that I was thinking too when I was doing the research. I was like, how do we know? There's a common phrase that's going around oftentimes where you hear people say isn't everybody just a little bit gay? Because not everybody tends to feel like they fit in that straight and narrow 100% of the time. And even you can make the same case for a queer person who's in a heterosexual relationship. We just we see a man with a woman and we just assume that they're both cis and straight. Yeah, but maybe they're not.
Speaker 1:And that's not okay. Exactly Even like at Pride's, I've seen certain passing trans people, if you will, and things of that nature Proud to be turned away, and it's guys, at the end of the day, pointing fingers at things that aren't major entities, like studios and major TV shows and movies, and where it's a lot of people that made a lot of bad decisions that got us to where we are. It's really difficult to accurately accuse someone of queerbaiting and not just being an asshole.
Speaker 2:I think, too, with queerbaiting, it's this question of what actually roots them in queer community and queer culture, beyond their sexual orientation and their gender, because if it's just a character that is a queer character and that plot line isn't developed or that character isn't developed, then that could be considered queerbaiting.
Speaker 1:I was actually reading an interesting article about that where it was basically saying she'll see people look at core queer representation and say that's queerbaiting. And she's no, you got a queer person, they just didn't do a good job at it. That's not queerbaiting, that's just bad representation. Those are different things that have to be tackled in different ways. It's not queerbaiting if there is a queer character. It's only queerbaiting if there isn't actually a queer character involved and they just continuously hinted at it.
Speaker 2:I think it's hard too, because if you look at the history of queer representation it started out with, first we were invisible, we didn't even exist, and then that turns into with the Hayes Code and everything like that it turns into we start to see queer representation, but then it becomes villainy, and then it becomes mockery and then there's not a whole lot of trust in that. Where's the line?
Speaker 1:And even with all of that the Hayes Code and things like that that queer baiting, specifically in media, got its birth. That's where it came from. It's once these storylines could no longer be outright. They were secretive. There were no outright queer characters. All of those queer coded characters that we talked about last episode could technically be considered queer baiting media, because the characters are not outwardly shown as queer but a lot of the subtext would lead queer people to believe that they're being represented. It all has that birth in those days of the morals of Hollywood.
Speaker 2:And then there's the whole perspective of how queer characters were then used to basically attract a straighter audience or a straight audience.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they were. Basically, they were made just queer enough to draw in the LGBTQIs to be like, oh maybe, but then toted that line just enough to make sure that straight audiences remained comfortable, to make sure that they would leave being like, oh no, she wasn't, don't be silly, giving those straight people enough reasons to discount that character's sexuality.
Speaker 2:The examples that I found, too, was in Star Trek. Did you ever actually see that movie?
Speaker 1:With all the lens flares. I was never really a big Star Trek person. People are usually surprised when they hear that because I don't know, apparently I just give off the vibe of someone who would have been a fan of the old Star Trek, but I just never really got into them, unfortunately. I feel like I would have been a fan.
Speaker 2:Gene Roddenberry was his name. He was the creator of all the characters.
Speaker 1:Yeah I say I don't definitely do not know enough about Star Trek to know what iteration of it you are speaking about. I'm a friend who does.
Speaker 2:The role was originated in the 1960s and the reboot version of Sulu on Star Trek we learned he's gay. The portrayal of Sulu as gay has been criticized as queerbaiting. The criticism stems from the decision to make Sulu gay without fully exploring or unpacking or integrating his sexuality into the narrative. Instead, it appeared as sort of a superficial addition to the character and it was seemingly inserted for the sake of diversity, without meaningful development or impact to the storyline. George Takei, who is openly gay, himself expressed mixed feelings about this decision in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter. He remarked unfortunately it's a twisting of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it's really unfortunate.
Speaker 1:That's fascinating. I love that.
Speaker 2:So some argue that this approach tokenizes Sulu's sexuality, using it as a marketing tool to appeal to the LGBTQ plus people and audiences without actually genuinely addressing the complexities or challenges faced by the LGBTQ plus people. By merely hinting at Sulu's homosexuality without diving into its implications or significance within the story, like the broader story, it can be seen as superficial or a superficial attempt to appear progressive without committing to actual, authentic representation.
Speaker 1:Valid, agreed agreed.
Speaker 2:And then the fact that George Takei, the original actor who portrayed Sulu in the 1960s. He expressed reservations about the decision and concerns about the handling of the character's sexuality. He objected Sulu being gay, based on his understanding of Gene Roddenberry's original vision for the character and basically he pointed out the disconnect between the intentions of the creators and the portrayal on screen. He really understood Gene Roddenberry's intention for Sulu and his character development and feels that he left no stone unturned when developing Sulu, contributing to perceptions of queerbaiting within the franchise.
Speaker 1:That's man that sucks. It sucks but that is really cool at the same time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I thought it was really cool.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I love that. So for any of our listeners out there who spent any time in the 2010s on Tumblr, I guarantee you've heard of the word queerbaiting. That's really where queerbaiting saw a surge in the modern zeitgeist was the 2010s on Tumblr, with a lot of very specifically feminist-led commentary on certain pieces of media and fandom. So, yeah, I was one of those young people that I was in high school in the 2010s on Tumblr and those were the days.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you don't hear much about Tumblr anymore.
Speaker 1:No, you really don't. They did a not-safe-for-work ban five, four years I don't even know how long ago. At this point, I hopped off as soon as it happened because solidarity with artists who were getting their entire livelihoods destroyed.
Speaker 2:Exactly.
Speaker 1:But yeah, I say those days were a wild time. It was a lot of discourse and a lot of communication around shows that we were all huge fans of, specifically shows like Supernatural the Biggest Offender, at least in my eyes Sherlock, another very big offender of numerous things for numerous different reasons, but good Lord and even shows like the 100 on CW were accused at this during this period of time of baiting queer audiences with storylines that never really came to fruition. And it's nice because this period of time really allowed. I mean, at this point I wasn't really out yet, but I was questioning, I was trying to figure things out. This was around the time that the first Avengers came out, which just so happened to be my awakening of Damn Girls Are Hot at least the first of what would then subsequently become many awakenings to things like my gender and so on and so forth.
Speaker 2:But I still feel that way. Damn, girls are hot.
Speaker 1:Valid, agreed, agreed. I remember not quite being out yet, being curious and watching these shows. Firstly because the storyline strapped me in. I mean, I loved Supernatural, mostly because I really wanted an older brother, but I loved the storylines, I loved the, the concepts, I loved everything about it. And then there was like the hint of a queer storyline. That was like In the tooth that there's no way. I was really hopeful and they did us so dirty. But I will get to that. I will 100% get to that. Let's let me take my time with this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, tumblr was a wild time in those days. I think back on it fondly. But To get into so it's deeper into some of these examples Sherlock that's on the BBC it stars. I'm not even gonna bother with his real name because he's an asshole bendy dick, come cucumber, and I think his name is Something Martin. I can't remember the guy who plays John Watson at this point. That's wild. But Basically the show Throughout its run, specifically in the earlier seasons back when I was watching it, there was a lot of leaning into the chances of Sherlock and John having something. The amount of times Sherlock and James Moriarty like slyly flirt with each other is appalling.
Speaker 2:Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:It's. It's, yeah, but it's. Sherlock also has just a lot of issues around it in general. Bendy dick cucumber has come forward and stated that there is no chance that a single character he has ever played, including Sherlock and the real-life Alan Turing, could ever be autistic, because he saw a care home with a bunch of children who have very high care needs and compared them to animals and Then said that all autistic people are like that. Wow so he is a terrible human being and one of many reasons to boycott Marvel.
Speaker 1:Yeah he a bad person. And also, the only reason the Cumberbatches have any money is because when slavery was Bended and their slaves were freed, they were given. I think nowadays it would equate to three million dollars worth of reparations for the lost labor, and that's the only reason that they had any money to build with coming into the future Was because they received reparations.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I didn't think of, I'm processing right now. Yeah, sit with. Still back on the Sherlock and Watson theme with queer baiting, because, man, that when I saw that on the list I was like, wow, yeah, there's the subtext. Between them, there's always this like romantic tension, declarations of their love for each other, this complex relationship, if you will, but never really was interpreted. I was always left open nothing more. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:John Watson's always married, in every version exactly yeah he gets married either super early or he like already has a wife. He's getting engaged or something like that. Even in in one version of it, they make John Watson a woman, they make her Joan Watson, and I think the two of them end up getting together in that Sherlock spin-off.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the ambiguity with that or like the innuendos and stuff like that, yeah, very present.
Speaker 1:Also, I just want to say real quick, considering Sherlock's reliance on nicotine and just everything If he's not autistic, I'll eat my shoe, I will eat my shoe, I will cook it, eat it, film it, send it to Bendy Dick, cumberbatch or cucumber or whatever I was calling his name, I don't care anymore. Just say I love the name you gave him, by the way, thank you.
Speaker 2:But yeah, when you know what to look for, right, it becomes screamingly obvious.
Speaker 1:His mind palaces the way he could, the details, the way he focuses in on details specifically, I just yeah, exactly. Alan Turing was an actual historical figure who could have very well been diagnosed. The fact for him to say, no, there's no way this actual historical person could ever be autistic wrong. That was a real human being. Get his name out your mouth, people don't get it. My favorite game is saying his name as anything but his name. It's a great time. Try it.
Speaker 2:I love that. I, when I was reading the notes, I was like what the hell is this? But I got it. Oh, that's amazing.
Speaker 1:Oh my god.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so now do you want to rage against supernatural?
Speaker 1:Listen, I used to own I'm not even kidding, I hand on, I would say on the Bible, but that's not really hand on my screen bag. I used to own seasons one through 11 of supernatural on DVD. I had the physical copies of almost every single season. Wow, they were my pride and joys. I love them. I miss them a lot, I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 2:Wasn't it around like the fourth season or so when their relationship got a little questionable?
Speaker 1:Correct. The supernatural follows two brothers. It follows Sam and Dean Winchester. Dean is four years older. That's basically all you really need to know in order to kind of get it At the end of season three. Spoilers this is super old, so if you haven't seen it, I don't know what else to tell.
Speaker 2:Yeah, pause here. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:At the end of season three, Dean is taken to hell Because of this. He is raised from perdition by a very specific angel named Castiel, who is the most famous line is I'm the one who gripped you tight and raised you from perdition. That's like the whole thing. Dean has an actual scar of a handprint on his shoulder from where Cas grabbed him and pulled him out of hell. You know what I mean. So that's really where the I just call it it is the homoerotic subtext of supernatural really starts to kick off. There's numerous moments where Cas and Dean are referred to jokingly as boyfriends because of how close they are and because of the fact that Cas literally follows him around like a lost puppy a lot of the times, which can totally relate. That's literally me and my boyfriend just can relate. Dean also has often running jokes about him being bisexual, just as a character. He jokes at one point that purgatory is a bar in Miami, which is true. It's a gay bar in Miami specifically.
Speaker 2:And you wouldn't know that unless you were a queer.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and there's frequent jokes about Dean being rather effeminate, toting the line, being willing $20 is $20, kind of jokes but no real confirmation. It was to the point where even the actors, jensen Ackles, who plays Dean Winchester, who played Dean Winchester, and Nisha Collins, who played Castiel, would joke about their characters being in a relationship during interviews and at conventions.
Speaker 2:Having romantic or sexual undertones in a way, and the characters still. They share these moments of emotional connection and they sacrifice things for each other. It's the same with in Sherlock, with Sherlock and Watson, and it doesn't matter how many people can speculate about their relationship, it just it never is confirmed. So it's the same type of deep friendship, deep bond between the two characters in both. I'm just popping back and forth.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because it's one of those things where, without the confirmation, it's really frustrating, because it's really easy for straight people in general Not even like homophobic people, just straight people in general to just be like no, they're just buddies, they're just really close friends. I would do that for my friends. It's teasing. Yeah, but do you look at your friends like that? Do you hold your friends' hand for that long? Do you put your hand on your friend's leg like that? There's other things besides the sacrifice going on here.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, it's teasing. It's teasing a romantic relationship. Basically they're not fully committed or committing to queer representation is basically what it is and from our lens that could be seen as exploitive, it could be seen as insensitive. You know, when you are a person who is actually seeking authentic representation in the mainstream media and then you're just teased, it's a little frustrating. It's frustrating. No pun intended there.
Speaker 1:No, honestly, it really is, and I think what sucks most about it is that, at the end of the day, supernatural's ending can be only described as downright homophobic.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:There is no other way to look at the way they decided to end this thing. It's homophobic. I didn't even have to actually see it, all I've had to do is read a couple of articles about it. And it's like, yeah, after that long of playing this and teasing this, and yeah, so after over 10 seasons of teasing Castiel and Dean, will, they won't. They, are they not? Yada, yada, yada.
Speaker 1:Castiel tells Dean that he loves him. He tells him that it was through him that he was able to love all of humanity and see the good in all of humanity, and not like more than that. Like he loves Dean, he literally says I love you and grabs his arm right where the handprint scar is, leaving behind a bloody handprint which in and of itself, I feel is very symbolic of the ending of a cycle. And then he sacrifices himself for Dean into something called the empty, which is basically considered a type of super hell. They really just looked at the Berry, our gaze trope, and we're like now we can, we can raise the stakes on that a little bit.
Speaker 2:We're gaze are disproportionately killed off or experience some type of tragic ending in movies.
Speaker 1:You get the I love you. But it's right when he's sacrificing himself and I think it even ends up being a fruitless sacrifice, because I think Dean still dies by the end of the show Within an episode later it ends up being like not even really meaning much. It doesn't end up going out like nothing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's disappointing. Even in the final moments of his death they weren't really given the same level of attention or emotional weight as other character deaths in the series. So considering like that was the season closer or the end of the series.
Speaker 1:End of a cycle.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's dude really.
Speaker 1:And it's it's. They didn't even give us like a kiss. What You're going to tease this for so many years with some of the most adult jokes and not even give us a kiss. Are you serious? Why Dean can't kiss a man? Yeah, and I think it's also the reason they don't have them kisses. So that I love you is allowed to remain ambiguous, is it? I love you as a friend, I love you as a brother, I'm in love with you. What does that I love you mean? Like it allows even the final moment of sea we gave it to you to live in this ambiguity.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's interesting too. You bring up the how this is perpetuating the barrier gaze trope.
Speaker 1:Nonsense.
Speaker 2:Because I remember us talking about previously how we always get the shitty endings. Even when there is representation or ambiguity around something that could be, it's a shitty ending.
Speaker 1:We usually don't get a happy ending. Yeah, yeah, especially major media. No, absolutely it's annoying. And I think those are definitely holdovers from the Hays codes. We have to think about this. The Hays codes were overturned 54 years ago. It's one of those things where we realize like this really isn't that new for Hollywood. Hollywood probably still has really homophobic roots. It not only doesn't have homophobic roots, it probably still has homophobia and transphobia brewing throughout it. In fact, I would guarantee you it does.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's part of the lineage. That's why and that takes a long time to heal, it takes many generations to heal that.
Speaker 1:And it also takes accountability to heal and I feel like at this point. I don't know if Hollywood has actually taken proper accountability for things like the Hays code, when so many stories and so many things just never got to see the light of day.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Another really good example of queerbaiting from a really bad person.
Speaker 2:I was just going to say I can't wait to dive into JK Rowling.
Speaker 1:So resident turf, jk Rowling wrote some stupid series of books like a decade and a half ago. That's basically just a sandbox, because that's all the Harry Potter series is. It's a sandbox, I'm sorry. And then, four years after the book series started, something like that went. I don't even know. I think the first book was released in 98. And this was in 2007. So like a good amount of years after she got this thing going, she's doing a book talk and she exclaims that Dumbledore has been gay the whole time. Who would have known? Where's the subtext? Even I'm not even finding any subtext. What he dances with McGonagall Is that supposed to be enough? Gay best friend?
Speaker 2:Do you think that's because she got backlash for not having explicit LGBTQ representation in her books and that was, like her off the cuff answer? Short answer to that. Is that true?
Speaker 1:According to her, it's true that Dumbledore is gay. I've never personally read the Harry Potter series because I just didn't actually have any interest in it as a kid. It just wasn't for me.
Speaker 2:Have you seen the movies?
Speaker 1:I have seen the movies. The only thing I could think of is he hangs out with McGonagall a lot. That's something. I don't even see any subtext, I don't even see any hintings. He's just an old guy, he's just like a father figure. And even in the prequel series like I know that one of the movies just came out where they have Dumbledore as a young man, he's played by Jude Law. He's good looking, and they have who is supposedly his ex-boyfriend, grindelwald, as the villain of the movie. Okay, right.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So you're thinking like, okay, they could at least do something, some kind of I loved you at one point, like some something. There was such little that people were like trying to pick for what could have been maybe like hints at was nothing, it was nothing.
Speaker 2:If Dumbledore's sexuality was an integral part of his character, then that should have been included in the main narrative rather than disclosed afterward at a book signing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it just. It feels like, at the end of the day, it's the definition of trying to capitalize off queer eyes.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And at the end of the day, she is a turf. Yeah, she is not for the queer community. She has straight up liked tweets that have said at least the Taliban knows what a woman is. I'm not even kidding you.
Speaker 2:That sounds to me it's like more of a plot twist than a fully developed character. Hey, plot twist, he's gay, Wait what? But you had all those books to develop that character.
Speaker 1:Well, even after that, because I know there were more that came out after 2000. It's not like that really got developed since and I know some of my friends were like oh no, yeah did it.
Speaker 2:She did. Yeah, I think it's complicated with JK Rowling, specifically because of her controversial comments that she in actions, especially towards the transgender issues in community, where people are saying she's homophobic but also transphobic as well.
Speaker 1:And also she's also severely anti-Semitic.
Speaker 2:That too.
Speaker 1:The goblins are literally just characters of Jewish people. If you look, that's all that is. That's all that character trope is throughout fairy tale history. Goblins were literally just caricatures of Jewish people. That's what that whole even blood libel, the idea of Goblin stealing babies that came from anti-Semitism. And the idea of blood libel of Jewish people stealing infants and drinking their blood, which is an extraordinarily horrific anti-Semitic thing that has existed forever in many different forms and still comes around through the usage of goblins. And they run the banks. They literally put them in charge of the banks.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but I guess with writing she can get away with treatment of marginalized communities because it's. She can just say, oh, it's fiction.
Speaker 1:What makes me mad?
Speaker 2:Or oh, that's the character. That's how the character feels. It's not necessarily how I feel.
Speaker 1:Or even even with the way she names certain characters. Some characters have the most beautiful names, and the only Asian character that she has in the entire story is named two last names. I don't even remember what her name is, but that's just two last names thrown together as a first name. Yeah, what you couldn't girl. The internet existed then, books existed then Come on.
Speaker 2:Come on yeah.
Speaker 1:I don't know. I'm of the firm belief that bad people make bad writers and at the end of the day, you'll always at a certain point and a certain age where you reread that book and you realize, oh, there's a reason, this is for little kids, there's a reason why this doesn't really get past a certain point. It's bad people make bad writers.
Speaker 2:Or if they want to do some other coding right, they can specifically plant seeds in little kids, because little kids are so susceptible, so malleable, so almost gullible in a way that if they're reading shit like that, then you can plant seeds of really bad things Discrimination or transphobia, any of these things. It's easier to do it in kids because they don't realize it's happening.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. There's actually, I don't know. I'm going to call it a conspiracy theory right now and I'm going to say the words allegedly so we don't get nailed in the ass, allegedly conspiracy theory, and I'm not going to lie. I 100% believe this. Have you heard of that movie, argyle?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:That just came out.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there are posters everywhere for it.
Speaker 1:The book. Listen to this. It's based on a book, right? The book didn't hit Shells. Slash Get Published until 10 days before the movie comes out, right? No one has heard of this author before. She has never written another book prior to this moment, yet somehow Her book is turned into a movie before it even hits Shells. It's based upon an idea that the director of Argyle said he brought directly to JK Rolling. Which is what if you ended up in the world of your books? I think that book was written by her. I think that's all her.
Speaker 2:Wow, I want to be like shots fired.
Speaker 1:I would bet my last dollar on it. In fact, I would put everything on it. Allegedly. Conspiracy theory Allegedly.
Speaker 2:Allegedly yeah, are you planning to see it?
Speaker 1:No, the twist is I know who Argyle is. I don't have to see it to know who Argyle is. Exactly, I'm a writer, I know who Argyle is. Do you want to know who Argyle is? Because it's not hard to figure out. I say spoil an alert. I don't even know if.
Speaker 1:I should say that because, like I said, I know nothing about this, but just from being an author I can tell who Argyle is just from the promotional things. It's the author, it's the creator of the world. Of course she's Argyle. No, it's not Henry Cavill, it's the author. Come on, guys, it's not that hard to figure out.
Speaker 2:All right, now that you've spoiled more than one movie.
Speaker 1:I'm really good at that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry it's so ill-. I watched the four trailers and I was like Are we serious? Is this really? Are they thinking this is going to be a twist, because it's obvious where they're going with this? Yeah, that's not some M Night Shyamalan level shit. I see where this is going.
Speaker 2:I guess we'll read about it in a few weeks.
Speaker 1:I listen. I have been eyes peeled on news around Argyle. I have no interest in seeing it, but I have been keeping updated on news around it because it's fishy. You can't find anything about this author except this book.
Speaker 2:That does sound really fishy. It normally books out a really long time and it does really well before it goes to film.
Speaker 1:Exactly. It can only keep it known for a while before that starts to happen for you. She's written under pen names before she released that transphobic fiction novel under Rob something under a guy's name.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't remember what it is. I don't remember hearing about that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it was basically like a novel directly about like TERFs.
Speaker 2:What's her problem anyway? Not that I really want to go into any of that, because we're about to jump to a fun fact, but it's just ugh.
Speaker 1:Basically, terf stands for trans exclusionary radical feminism and it's basically the idea that, as long as trans women are allowed to exist, afab people and quote unquote biological women are not safe.
Speaker 2:I have no words for that. I hate that point of view and that perspective on so many levels. Yeah, I hate that, like people worry about their kids going into restrooms and stuff, it's anyway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, for anyone out there. If you see yourself on the internet and you catch yourself stumbling across someone that has the acronym TERF in their bio, in their username, don't bother arguing with them. Every argument they come with is in bad faith. They are not looking to actually have their mind changed or ask questions. Delete their comments and move on. That's what we do.
Speaker 2:Yeah, keep it moving.
Speaker 1:I don't argue with TERFs. I don't argue with bad faith arguers. You're not coming here to have your mind changed. You're not coming here to genuinely try to learn. You're not coming here to genuinely try to have a discussion. At least Get the fuck out. Just yeah, don't for anyone out there. It's good for people to know.
Speaker 2:Exactly, keep it moving.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:They're not interested in learning.
Speaker 1:Exactly.
Speaker 2:They're not interested in evolving and learning and to understand anything about our community.
Speaker 1:Yes, but there's no point in debating people who aren't willing to debate Like debate has to be a back and forth, it has to be a give and take, a willingness to listen and bad faith arguments are never willing to debate.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and respectfully too.
Speaker 1:Great yes.
Speaker 2:Let's end on a light note. Okay, you want to jump to that fun fact?
Speaker 1:Absolutely, I do. So. Here's a fascinating fun fact, which I don't know. This might end up turning into an entire episode of renaissance artists that you have learned about that you didn't know were like most likely, if not definitely, queer. On April 9th 1476, Leonardo da Vinci, along with four other men, were anonymously accused of sodomy. Two months later, the quarantine authorities absolved all four of the charges so long as they weren't reported again. So because the report was anonymous, because nothing could really be backtrack proven that was very often what happened with sodomy accusations it was very difficult to prove these things. So because of that, pretty often they were just the charges were dropped, they were acquitted and it was like all right, as long as you don't get reported to us again, we'll never have to see each other, it never happened.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's what happened for da Vinci, and according to some records, he remained celibate for the rest of his life, from that moment going forward. According to some, he had an affinity for a younger male apprentice at one point later in his life. And yeah, there's just a lot of. There aren't too many documented instances of Leonardo da Vinci being interested in or being with a woman, whereas there are more readily available instances of him either being celibate or getting accused of sodomy.