@epiceneVivant
Cool. If anyone has access and can check in the book or another citable source, it would really be cool top add to the Wikipedia article.
Checked the German article and it is not in there, yet.
Edit: actually, evidence seems to be lacking, see https://k.iim.gay/@kim/statuses/01JYGTCJVKBBE1VREMT2S6ZG5J
@nicfitzgerald
@epiceneVivant unfortunately evidence for this seems to be a bit shaky. i took a look in Chuck Jones: Conversations and found nothing insinuating this, and others have tried the same in his other works and come up short: https://somelocusts.tumblr.com/post/732305128515895296/part-2-i-went-to-the-library-today-and-skimmed
i'd love for it to be true, but ultimately it's hard to say
@DotMaetrix @epiceneVivant i mean, he says bugs bunny likes it! i can see how someone would extrapolate from that, especially if they read this passage years before and were relaying their rosy memory of what they had read…
on the other hand i am pretty sure transvestites have been well known enough for centuries- and this passage feels a little bit like that trans erasure where we are perpetually a new and modern degeneracy that “no one” knew about 10 years ago
@epiceneVivant That is actually kind of fascinating.
Also, it's always super neat to hear some classic/celebrity/writer/whatever was actually a good person in some way. Too often these days we find out our favorites from childhood ate babies in their spare time or something.
Don't want to ruin this to you, but this is exactly the same as Rowling declaring post-facto that Dumbledore was gay and in his youth the mages pooped on the floor and magicked away the evidence.
Edit: to be fair, this isn't the reason why Rowling is generally hated outside the most fringe weeaboo-community.
Well, to each their own. And I do like to think that as Dumbledore was then written as gay in the prequels, that in the later works Bugs was written as gender-nonconforming intentionally, and not just as gag.
Edit: in such a way that would make them part of the alphabet-list.
@iju @epiceneVivant I really don't see how.
By the sounds of it the ‘genderfluidity’ was always there (see reference to norse tricksters) they just didn't know at the time that there was a community who would relate to it until they were told, at which point they embraced it.
Dumbledore, meanwhile, I don't think has ever been written as gay (even after the ‘revelation’) and I'm not sure anyone read them as such either — Rowling, as she often does, just felt like saying a thing, presumably with an aim of boosting her neolib credentials by ‘having a gay’.
I tried to bring that fluidity up in the follow-up post: that the gender-fluidity was (hopefully) more explicitly owned in the newer productions.
Dumbledore's gayness was implied in the originals to be the reason he couldn't go against Voldemort's predecessor, which was confirmed in the prequels.
The pooping thing was (iirc) mentioned in context of why the first HP-film/book had such late-modern and "normal" bathroom, while everything else post-1800 caused problems.
@iju @epiceneVivant literally when was that ever implied?
I'll admit I've not seen Fantastic Beasts first-hand since she was already being all-that, but I read the full original run, along with several of the spin-offs, and can honestly say I don't remember any reference to gayness at all.
Likewise I remember hearing a lot of people react to Fantastic Beasts films with frustration at a lack of gayness.
The toilets thing has always been ridiculous, and makes about as much sense as the train, but whatever.
Gayness onfirmed on the following pic: