Being queer isn't a "choice" or a "belief" and I'm not interested in engaging with conversations that imply it's okay to think I shouldn't exist.

The discourse here has been getting worse by the day and I'm tired of having to defend my humanity.

It's been nice hanging out here with you all, but there are other fan communities.

Take care everyone.

53 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

#2. Having a binary gender system/belief isn't inclusive enough - be whatever you want/you should choose your pronoun based on how you feel (even at 5, 6, 7 years old). Nevermind that, that's a terrible way to find identity (who the hell knows who they are as a kid). And even though a non-binary message is highly offensive to ... yup, basically all religious people (well, at least the monotheistic/big three of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) they'll still preach it

Just to clarify, are you saying that you find non-binary people's existence offensive? Or that it's acceptable to hold such a view?

56 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

Sexuality of all kinds should be celebrated. (Nevermind that for those religious people I mentioned ... It's highly offensive/sin.) 

And again, clarifying: are you saying that you consider some kinds of sexuality (which you've conveniently left out) to be offensive and sinful? And if yes, would you care to clarify which ones?

Asking because I thought homophobia was against Dragonmount's code of conduct. So I'm trying to figure out if I'm misunderstanding you, or if casually queerphobic statements are actually allowed here as long as they're made in a sufficiently roundabout way to pass under the moderators' radar.

1 hour ago, NotRand said:

Tuon’s race is central to Mat’s attraction to her

Where are you getting this from?

As for the "casting controversy," this horse has already been beaten to death and personally, I'm tired of talking about it. There's plenty of discussion of this topic on the forum already if you want to look for it, including on this thread a few pages back.

11 minutes ago, Ralph said:

If the Greatest W is Lan that would be the Malkier story I assume

Oh, yeah! For some reason I don't think of Lan as the greatest warder but maybe.

All I can think of is the Stone of Tear but that doesn't seem right.

I also want a Malkier episode at some point!

The fourteen nations of the Westlands (not including independent city-states): Altara, Amadicia, Andor, Arad Doman, Arafel, Cairhien, Ghealdan, Illian, Kandor, Murandy, Saldaea, Shienar, Tarabon, and Tear.

4 hours ago, swollymammoth said:

Only if you view Halima as a stand-in for trans people on the whole rather than treating her as an individual. As I explained, this is objectification.

Halima is the only character with these characteristics in the story. If there were other characters who were trans and portrayed in a thoughtful way, this would be less of an issue. But Halima is the only one. That's what makes it a stand-in.

To fix this, there are two options:

1. remove Halima

2. add other characters who are explicitly trans and who do not have Halima's problematic characteristics

Option 1 is probably the easiest of the two, and should make you happy, since you're so against adding representation that isn't already there.

4 hours ago, swollymammoth said:

literature and culture at large (which is immensely supportive of trans-people and offers multitudes of sources from which to draw the validation they don't get from Halima)

This is objectively untrue. Media that offers accurate, positive and nuanced trans representation is very limited and very niche at the moment. I challenge you to name one big mainstream fantasy movie or show with this kind of representation.

But you also seem to mistake the issue. This isn't about "validation." It isn't even about trans fans or viewers. It's about everyone else. Everyone who doesn't know or hasn't thought much about trans people in general, and is at risk of unconsciously internalizing harmful ideas about them if the portrayal isn't thoughtful.

Tim has done a much better breakdown than I ever could, so I'll just leave it here for your reference.

On 11/11/2021 at 8:36 PM, Tim said:

To my mind there are two problems with the idea of "Halima/Arang'ar as trans", and reasons to junk the whole plot:

 

1. It happens by the direct act of the DO, to an evil character, and partly as punishment for Ba'athamel's prior failure - this has been discussed upthread, but obviously it's just not something that actual trans people would be likely to recognise as having anything to do with their lived experience, let alone an indication that their experience is considered valid. 

 

2. Moreover, the whole "there's someone chaneling saidin to kill female aes sedai who we can't find because - gasp - they look like a woman!" plot with Halima feels way too close to social moral panic around trans women and in particular the fear of trans women using female bathrooms in order to sexually assault biological women.

 

I don't think Jordan intended either of the above in the way that they would be received now (and in the books I enjoyed how it was Romanda, of all people, who finally worked it out) but it is what it is - and it would be naïve to handwave the issue away. The show is being made now and so the showrunners have to take responsibility for what they choose to reproduce from the books.

 

But I'm also pretty confident that RJ would not write this plot in the same way today; whatever he might privately have thought on the issue, the continuing political prominence of debates over public bathroom laws (primarily in the US south) would have caused him to realise that there was no way that the plot would be received as anything other than a barely-disguised political metaphor - ironically, the very thing so many people seem worried Rafe will inject into the show.

Now, if you don't think good representation is valuable or necessary, or if you don't believe mainstream media has a responsibility to avoid causing harm to marginalized groups, then we probably don't need to argue about this any further.

This whole discussion is so weird to me. It's a visual medium. Of course they're going to show her face. That's how TV works. The detail of lore about why Aiel veil their faces will likely never make it into the show anyway, so audiences will be none the wiser. If you're so worked up about a minor change made to better adapt the story to a visual medium, you will hate the show, because there are way bigger changes coming.

So who else is listening to the soundtrack on repeat? Between this and the animated flashback episodes I'm ridiculously pumped. It's here. It's real. It's happening ?

20 minutes ago, Ralph said:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/300450585/the-wheel-of-time-kiwi-actress-zoe-robins-is-about-to-hit-the-big-time

I love this one. It must be such a weird time for them all thinking, am I about to become a celebrity? I can't even imagine.

I also love that Zoe had auditioned for Egwene too!

8 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

i was talking on a more general level. no, rj didn't face bad backlash. i'm not familiar enough with the show business to quote relevant examples.

 

but i am mildly concerned with the segregation of opinions I'm seeing. the whole "like" mechanism promotes conformism, and the way the mechanism works, putting first the comments with more likes, minority opinions are silenced. in turn, those minories go on to make their own forums, were they get more and more extreme.

and political correctness is not enforced by law, but still there is a big pressure for it.

 

Now, I am not a fool, I realize those issues are unavoidable. there is always a compromise to be found between free speech and instigating crimes. there is always a social pressure to conform, whether in opinions or just in the way to dress.

So, I do not believe we live in a society of political correctness gone mad. However, I do believe we could get there, if we are too hasty in labeling "hate speech" everything we disagree with, or everything that may be hurtful to someone.

In short, i disagree with the "too much woke" train, but i am symphatetic to them, and i believe we must not push too far, or they may become right.

 

all of this has nothing to do with the specific character of halima. incidentally, i never realize the connection between her and transsexuality until i started reading internet forums.

These are all valid concerns, and I agree with most of your points. I was thrown off because you brought this up as I was responding to someone who claimed Halima wasn't a problem, so I thought you were agreeing with them, or saying we shouldn't want that portrayal to be changed.

3 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

The easiest of which, of course, is simply to eliminate Halima. 

Agreed. They already need to cut a ton, and this one's one of the easiest.

3 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

the border between censorship and free speech is not so clear cut. sure, nobody is putting you in jail, but if you face too much backlash on social media and it disrupts your career, it's not freedom either.

 

the information age should have promoted communication, inclusion, understanding. and yet i see everywhere people ostracized, and like-minded people forming close communities where they refuse contact with other ideas. free information is easier than ever to find, and yet we have more flat-earthers, more no vax, more conspiracy theory guys than ever.

something went wrong somewhere

The context of this conversation is that we were talking about Halima's portrayal and how it reinforces stereotypes and ideas that harm trans people.

RJ hasn't been ostracized, hasn't faced backlash, hasn't had his career disrupted. The vast majority of those in the fandom who are concerned about this issue agree that he meant no harm and simply didn't realize the implications of what he was writing. 

That being said, we hope that the showrunners know better now and will take steps to correct this in the show.

The 13 towers of midnight. I wish we'd gotten the Seanchan sequels!

If they notice the x-ray thing isn't garnering enough views they might switch it up.

2 hours ago, Александр Чудинов said:

Neither do I. What I'm saying is that forcing creators to make what is correct (e.g. certain group must be portrayed a certain way in media) is generally bad. Again, it's fiction. It's not propaganda. We had a period in our history, when any fiction was supposed to be propaganda in some way and correspond to the "general line of the party", or you simply would not be published. Many good books were unavailable to readers at the time because of that and many good authors suffered.

This isn't censorship. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. We are, however, allowed to point out when something is hurtful. And we're allowed to wish for media that doesn't harm us.

But you don't seem to believe that harmful stereotypes even exist so I don't think there's much point in arguing about this.

35 minutes ago, Александр Чудинов said:

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. So what, we can't have one character with something unusual about them? It's perfectly normal to have just one white/black/trans/burrito-lover/alien-mutant from Alpha-Centauri character in the book and make them villain. C'mon it's just one of character's characteristics, and it's fiction. You don't have to make assumptions of some "idea reinforcing" from that.

There are no assumptions. We're not talking about the *intent* of the author or creators. We're talking about the net result when a certain group is only ever portrayed a certain way in media, and the subconscious stereotypes that will reinforce even with the best of intentions.

27 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I was about to say, many of these seem alright and pretty in line with what's already in the books ?

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Right. And there are points in the story where you could very easily envision him going full Danerys.

And with GoT in mind, I can see non-book readers being genuinely concerned that's where his arc is going which will make veins of gold that much better. 

1 hour ago, Lurker_Fan said:

One of the short titles mentions saidar and saidin. *sigh of relief*

I hope this puts some people's fears to rest.

That being said, I'm very excited for these. Possibly more than for the actual show? Is that weird? ?

I mean in EotW we don't even know that Moiraine is looking for the Dragon or that that's why the Dark One wants the boys. We only find out at the very end. So already, by telling us right from the start that we're looking for the Dragon, it changes the entire dynamic of the season. Aes Sedai knowing about previous Dragons seems minor to me in comparison.

1 hour ago, swollymammoth said:

Yeah I said that. 

 

"Not that those two things are mutually exclusive, of course. You can place an emphasis on diverse casting and still tell a great story. " 

 

Unless you're talking about my last paragraph. In that case, I'll just say that life is problematic. The real world is problematic. It is inevitable that writers will find themselves in situations where the best, most interesting thing to do will also be problematic and be faced with a choice. 

 

That choice will be made based on their own values. And if you're someone who believes that problematic content harms real people in real life, then it's obvious what you're gonna do. 

I guess I just disagree that it's possible to objectively decide what the "best, most interesting choice" is in any situation. What's most interesting to you might be tired and unpleasant to someone else. It's not like there's a official measuring scale of "good storytelling" we can use to definitively decide. And one might argue that storytelling that reinforces negative stereotypes is inherently bad storytelling. So then the question of whether you need to "sacrifice" good storytelling to avoid harming people become moot.

45 minutes ago, swollymammoth said:

Eh, maybe? But remember, proper casting and representation literally saves lives. In what world could you justify prioritizing telling a great story over saving lives? 

 

https://screenrant.com/diversity-movie-tv-representation-important/

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/31/eternals-marvel-lgbt-haaz-sleiman/

 

Not that those two things are mutually exclusive, of course. You can place an emphasis on diverse casting and still tell a great story. We don't know if Rafe thinks like this. He just talks like a lot of my old classmates who thought like this. 

 

When push comes to shove, if what's best for the story is to include something problematic, would Rafe do it? We don't know. But this isn't a question that we would even have to ask if he wasn't actively sowing those doubts himself. 

You're setting up a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. 

Re: pillow friends, it's also a poor example because it's considered a childish thing you're supposed to grow out and of looked down upon if you don't. That's not exactly stellar queer representation.

17 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

I have seen people claim that. sorry if i mistook you for one of them. i thought by de-gendering the power you meant removing saidin and saidar.

but then i don't understand what you mean by it.

souls are de-gendered, but if there is still saidin used by males and saidar by females, then the power is still gendered. perhaps tied to biological sex rather than gender - which would work much better, because unlike gender and identity, biological sex is pretty much binary

I mean, even biological sex isn't entirely binary (intersex people exist) but it's still possible to keep the saidin/saidar separation while accounting for that, I think, if they make it tied to biology. It's easier than using gendered souls at least.