can you talk about tonks's queerness pls
I don’t even know what to talk about like Tonks is queer it’s just a fact, the character is queer-coded (stereotypical or not, this is how subtextual queer-coding works):
- whole “tomboy” attitude and behavior, choice of profession, etc
- doesn’t like to be referred to by the assigned name preferring the gender neutral last name
- can look like anyone which in itself is quite a genderfluid power, chooses to have short spiky hair while most of HP ladies wear conventional long hair i.e. is coded to be “not like other girls” (wink wink nudge nudge)
- straight males aka Ron “manpinion” Weasley don’t like how Tonks looks because “she does stupid things to her hair and her nose” (quote-unquote)
- not a proof but like, I totally fell in love with Tonks when I was reading OOTP I just could feel the queerness flowing off the pages
- ????? what else idk
- …then the character gets screwed over by the canon to fit into heterosexist box together with another queer-coded character by the name of Remus Lupin and it’s too upsetting for me to discuss
Yes, because straight people have Never done any of those things. They’re all straight-laced goody-two-shoes dressed in their Sunday best.
Isn’t saying that straight people can’t do many “queer” things just further dividing us, when the whole point of feminism is to break down barriers and let people be who they want to be regardless of whatever labels society applies to them?
I understand that it is frustrating that HP doesn’t have more queer representation, and I don’t mind headcanon/speculation, but this post just seems spiteful and that’s lame. I’d rather celebrate that we can have great characters like Tonks who shirk traditional ideas of femininity yet still remain strong, capable, and valued characters than bemoan the fact that she ended up with an exceptionally kind man in a non-traditional yet still heterosexual relationship.
edit: I wrote that I “don’t mind” headcanon/speculation, which I feel doesn’t accurately reflect my opinion. I think speculation and headcanon are fucking awesome and encourage it, but not when it is created only for the sake of being antagonistic towards a canon that doesn’t deserve such treatment.
Lmao gtfo from my post with your ableism and your “str8 ppl are just as valuable for representation” rhetoric literally no one asked your opinion about anything - or have you not noticed that anon sent the message to me and not to you?
PS by non-traditional relationship you mean coercive and shitty cos if not idk what you’ve been reading there but it’s definitely not Harry Potter
Thank you for replying to my text post!
As I believe it to be the most important part of your reply, allow me to offer my thanks for calling me out on my ableism. My use of the word “lame” was very uncool, utterly inexcusable, and I’m sorry I used it. I’ll take more care in the future, and if I slip up I hope there is someone as perceptive as, though perhaps less mean than, you to show me the way.
Anyways, let us move on to the reason we are here, yes? I have this thing where if I see someone on the internet expressing opinions that I think are particularly narrow-minded and crude, I like to add it to my blog as a testament to their petulance, and I often add some notes as to why that person is being a silly goose. It serves as reminder to myself on how to not be a shitty human being, because writing things down helps me remember them better, and a signal to my friends to remind them how to not be a shitty human being while also using them to make sure that my convictions are rooted in virtue and not anger, because I like to think that my friends who follow my blog might read it and would let me know when I am being a silly goose. Honestly, when I do this usually, the post has so many notes the original poster never sees it and we all go on our merry little ways, but today I have the fortune of corresponding with the producer of such fine petulance myself. I hope that addresses why, even though I did indeed notice that the anon sent the message to you and not to me, I posted your message onto my blog. Additionally, even though it is true that nobody asked for my opinion about anything regarding this topic, on my blog I am free to express my opinions as I see fit, just as you are free to post your opinions on your blog, so I don’t think I have really committed any atrocity in doing so. I apologize if it upset you, and I assure you it was not my intention. I normally wouldn’t have responded a second time because I doubt you want me to try and reason with you, but your message was so explicitly addressed towards me that I felt bad ignoring it. Of course, in responding, I am not abiding by your wishes to “gtfo from [your] post”, so I suppose I must apologize for that as well. I will note that you are also now on my post, and we are part of each others posts, and I think that post cohabitation is but one of the many beautiful products of the internet. It allows us to collaborate and discuss and rethink the way we view our world. Thank you for cohabiting this post with me.
Regarding my “”str8 ppl are just as valuable for representation” rhetoric”, I think you’ll find that, if you were to read my (our?) post again with an open mind, you would perhaps find that I was defending an individual’s right to assert their own identity regardless of preconceived social structures, which is something that applies to all people. In defending Tonks’ right to wear her hair in bubble-gum pink spikes and use an androgynous name and smooch dudes at the same time, I was also advocating for other women to wear long hair and dresses and smell like flowers and smooch ladies, or whoever they want to smooch, because, check out this rad copy-paste action, I said that we should “let people be who they want to be regardless of whatever labels society applies to them.” Meanwhile, you’re complaining about a “heterosexist box” (that one is not copy-paste because I can’t copy your original quote, but I triple-checked it) while shoving two characters into a similar box of “queer-coded” conformity (also not copy-paste but also triple-checked, as are the rest of the things I quoted from you. I think it is very important to accurately reflect the statements I am addressing.). So, I’m not really just diving in there and begging you to not hurt the straight people, I am suggesting that you think about what you are saying and how it actually relates to real queer people, as well as other people, because there are a lot of people and we shouldn’t exclude them based on such arbitrary factors.
I would argue that, in an ideal world where we had more queer representation, that yes, straight people would be just as valuable for representation. However, we don’t live in that ideal world, and we totally need more queer representation! I encourage you, and anyone who might read this, to create it in a variety of ways- write about your headcanon for Tonks or other characters and how they have had past relationships with people of their same gender and how those are still legitimate relationships even though they are with someone of a different gender now, or write your own stories about awesome queer characters. By all means, build pathways to advance the cause, but I recommend that you don’t build walls around yourself at the same time, because it defeats the purpose.
PS You got me again! It would seem that nothing slips past you. It is true, I haven’t been reading Harry Potter recently! I haven’t read any Harry Potter in about seven years, actually. If my memory serves me correctly, however, Tonks and Remus’ relationship was anything but coercive and shitty. It involves Tonks and Remus both totally thinking that the other is the bee’s knees, but Remus is hesitant to engage in the relationship because he is worried about how an association with him (a werewolf) would be disastrous for her as well, but then Tonks asserts that she cares more about Remus that sort of thing and they agree to totally go out and they probably snog a lot. The non-traditional aspect I brought up is the fact that Remus Lupin is Tonks’ senior by surprisingly large number of years, but as they are both consenting adults I would say that it is perfectly acceptable. At this point, I suppose you could argue that this type of relationship isn’t really non-traditional, and if I have forgotten some important detail that changes this assessment, I apologize, but my main argument isn’t really concerned with Tonks and Lupin directly, so I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much!