Hi! So I know that in your stories the Dwarves are marvellously accepting of differences in gender/sexuality but what about the elves? I know Mellrin (?) is trans and Legolas treats her just the same, but is this a universal elven concept? <3

Yes, but for different reasons… I reasoned it out this way: Dwarves believe that you are first and foremost a Dwarf, and the differences in sexuality or gender simply do not affect their perceptions of each other – because Dwarves of ALL genders and sexualities are strong, clever, broad and stocky, created by and beloved of Mahal.

When it comes to Elves, particularly Elves of the Third Age (as opposed to the hotheads of the Age of Trees/First Age etc), I had these ideas, idk if they’re well put-together, but here we go!

Elves are, as a race, old. They will live forever. FOREVER, barring accidents or war. The greatest natural threat to their life is from growing so old that they literally fade from existence.

so, if you’re going to live forever, what the hell use is it to deny who you are and whom you love? And if that person there is ALSO going to live forever, then what the heck is the point of imposing your beliefs upon their love and life? Elves have seen wars before – HAVE THEY EVER – and they’ve seen inter-Elf violence and civil war, they’ve got very, very, VERY LONG MEMORIES. They’re a dwindling people, too. And Big Stuff is coming, and they know the signs. They’ve seen them before. They have learned.

So, let’s say you are a different gender to the one everybody initially thought you were? Congratulations, we shall have a marvellous garden party, I’ll bring the Dorwinion, you bring the lembas. And nobody will fight, and everyone will be pleased. We’ve got to stick out the next eight millennia together: I’m with you all the way.

Do you have any thoughts/headcanons about dwarf kids/teens exploring their gender and sexuality options? Because one of the things I love the most about Sansukh is the absolute diversity of sex and gender issues!

Ooooh, Nonnie, I headcanon that the Dwarf culture is more accepting of experimentation and exploration, certainly. I think they do not have gendered occupations, roles or appearances, and so many of the obstacles facing us in our world do not really apply. 

This is pretty idealised, I know! In contrast, I’ve headcanonned that Hobbit society, with all its properness and respectability and insularity and gossip, is much more strictured and repressive. 

So within these headcanons, I think it’s very normal for Dwarf children and teens to explore who they are! Like people here, some might be totally certain at a very young age. Some might need a bit of time and a bit of trying-it-out-for-size before they find the right fit. Either way, it’d be totally accepted by the society as a whole. Because hey, they’re all Dwarves. 

(I’m glad you like it, Nonnie! Thank you so so much!!)

hello! i’m the anon who’s writing an essay about queerness in lord of the rings… so far it’s about romantic friendships, homosocial relationships structures, and what queerness means in a world where races are arguably coded (like dwarrows are coded to be “masculine” and elves are coded to be “feminine”). anyways, it’s due tomorrow and i’m pulling an all-nighter to finish it, so please wish me luck!

AHH NONNIE! How wonderful, oh my gosh – I am crossing my fingers, toes, knees, arms and eyes for you!!

Oh my god thoughj, when you said Eowyn/Dernhelm and genderfluid, I SUDDENLY REMEMBERED THIS ONE FIC, WHICH WAS THE MOST AMAZING THING OK, EVERYONE IF YOU’REI NTO GENDERQUEER INTERPRETATIONS OF EOWYN, GO READ “The Stonework was Admirable” BY CULUMACILINTE OK, IT’S SO GOOD! (asdjahfjk sorry for using u as a sounding board here, Dets, but I just.!!!!!)

*SCREAMS*

omg genderfluid Eowyn as written by my darlingest Cully of the golden tonsils, how have i not read this AHHH SORRY @culumacilinte – thank you so so much, Nonnie! 

One of my final papers for this semester involves a queer reading of LotR. I know it’s an imposition, but I was wondering if you had any suggestions?

i’m at work, sadly (stupid education filter on my internet) or I would be flailing at you loudly and screaming and linking ALL THE THINGS.

There is subtext everyfuckingwhere. Unintentionally, as we know. BUT IT. IS. THERE.

Eowyn-Dernhelm – hello genderfluid character idea.

Frodo and Sam have some seriously eyebrow-raising dialogue. Also Frodo living with Sam and Rosie at Bag End post-war? (POLY QP HOBBITS AMIRITE, possibly QP ACE FRODO?? AAAAAH)

Legolas and Gimli have some SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY EYEBROW-RAISING DIALOGUE AND SITUATIONS. (and a happily-ever-after ffs, sailing into the sunset oh my god tolkien, we get it) – like, to the point where Tolkien Scholars from as far back as the 70′s sighed and accepted a queer reading of these two, it is not subtle at alllll, THEY are not subtle at ALL

Faramir and his starry-eyed worship of Aragorn i stg

Bilbo the queer solitary confirmed bachelor in land full of gigantic nuclear families…

there’s lots. LOTS. I’m not even touching the Silm. 

I’m sure if you go to Google Scholar and search for ‘character name +subtext’ SOMETHING WILL COME UP that you can use 🙂

I would love to read your paper. Seriously. I would LOVE that.

The Curb Cut Effect, or Why It Is Basically Impossible To Appropriate From Disabled People

jumpingjacktrash:

pilferingapples:

ozymandias271:

The Curb Cut Effect, or Why It Is Basically Impossible To Appropriate From Disabled People

In my treks over the internet, I have seen various people (mostly social justice people) worrying that they are somehow harming Real disabled people if they use a wheelchair if they can still walk a little or use stim toys or these nifty color communication badges if they aren’t autistic. Similarly, I have seen various people (mostly anti-social-justice people) who believe that Fake Disabled People are running around pretending to be disabled and using color communication badges and wheelchairs and so on, and this hurts disabled people somehow (they have never quite specified how).

This is completely fucking wrong.

In universal design, there’s something called the curb cut effect. Basically, things intended to benefit people with disabilities wind up benefiting everyone. Curb cuts, which are intended for wheelchair users to be able to get on sidewalks, help bicyclists, parents with strollers, delivery people, and a dozen other nondisabled groups. Similarly, closed captioning, which was originally meant to benefit Deaf people, helps people who have trouble with auditory information processing (hi!), people who like talking during films, and people trying to watch TV in noisy bars.

The curb cut effect is accessibility activists’ secret weapon. You see, people don’t generally want to accommodate disabled people any more than they have to. Accommodating disabled people is a pain in the neck, and disabled people are generally a small and relatively powerless group with limited ability to complain. However, if any TV network tries to remove closed captioning, they won’t just have to put up with complaints from Deaf people. They will have to put up with complaints from everyone who has ever tried to watch TV in a noisy bar. The latter is far more likely to strike fear in the TV executive’s heart.

Furthermore, pretty much anything that’s limited to disabled people only has to have some sort of process for figuring out who’s disabled. This presents numerous issues. Many disabled people don’t know they’re disabled. (Raise your hand if you’ve had a conversation with someone who thinks that ADD or depression isn’t real because everyone acts like that, right?) Many disabled people struggle with feeling like “fakers” and won’t ask for accommodations that they need. Many disabled people who do know they’re disabled can’t prove it: healthcare access is often limited for poor people, people of color, trans people, and so on; navigating bureaucracy requires skills like being able to talk to people, show up places at a scheduled time, and do things that you intended to do, that many mental illnesses and developmental disabilities make difficult. Every time you say “this is for disabled people only”– whether by limiting it to disabled people institutionally or by criticizing people who do it and whom you don’t think are disabled enough– a lot of disabled people don’t get access to it.

Sometimes this is a cost worth paying. For instance, we can’t let everyone bring their dogs into every public space, because service dogs have to be specially trained to not be disruptive in stressful situations. This training is expensive but service dogs are usually free, meaning that the number of service dogs available is limited, so we can’t have service dogs available to everyone who wants one. In this case, the alternatives are much worse and the cost is worth paying. But the cost is still a cost.

And notice that the people who decide who gets service dogs are the client’s medical professionals, not random strangers. It is never okay for random strangers to decide if someone is disabled enough for an accommodation. For instance, some store owners will only let service dogs in if they think the person is “really” disabled. This is wrong (and also illegal by the Americans with Disabilities Act). Other people will make fun of wheelchair users who can stand up. It is a major violation of privacy to expect random strangers to disclose their private medical history to you. You are far more likely to be harassing an actually disabled person to be criticizing a nondisabled person. And even if the person is nondisabled… who cares? Nondisabled people using wheelchairs does nothing but create a larger pro-wheelchair demographic, which benefits disabled wheelchair users. There is no call to be the Disability Police.

For a specific example, consider one of my friends, who started flapping his hands when he was happy because he thought it was adorable and later found out that flapping your hands when happy is a common symptom of autism. He freaked out, worrying that he was appropriating autism somehow. However (as I told him at the time) actually nonautistics flapping their hands works out great for autistic people. A culture in which the default reaction to happy hand-flapping is “ohmigod, adorable” rather than “you freak” is a culture in which autistic people do not have to waste energy suppressing their natural ways of moving. And because he’s nonautistic, it’s much easier for him to explain to people who dislike hand-flapping why it is wrong to do so, which helps to create a more welcoming environment for autistic people.

Similarly, I’m nonautistic, but I do flap my hands when I’m experiencing intense emotion. Unlike many autistic people, it is possible for me to stop. Think about it like not smiling when you’re happy: it’s possible for most people to do so (especially if they get mocked for being weird every time they smile) but instead of being fully present in the moment you’d have to be continually conscious of your facial expression lest your lip twitch when you’re not thinking about it. If we say “you must be This Autistic to flap”, then I still have to police what my hands are doing, which goes against the whole point. But if we say “everyone gets to express happiness in the way most natural to them, unless you express happiness by punching people in the face or something”, then everyone gets to express happiness in the way most natural to them (yay!) and we have lots of people invested in creating a culture where that stays true (yay!).

In conclusion: if an accommodation helps you and you can get it without proving you’re disabled (i.e. as you must to get a service dog), you should use it. If using a wheelchair helps you move faster and farther than you would otherwise, use a wheelchair. If stimming makes you happy, stim. If those nifty communication cards help you express your communication preferences (and they are available at whatever event you’re at, which seriously why is that not every event, they are so cool), use them. And it is wrong to disability police people. If someone does not seem disabled enough to use an accommodation to you, then you should be quiet and mind your own business instead of harassing them about it. In the vast majority of cases, nondisabled and less disabled people using something is helpful to more severely disabled people, and when it is not, it is the job of medical professionals to decide, not you.

View On WordPress

Every time you say “this is for disabled people only”– whether by limiting it to disabled people institutionally or by criticizing people who do it and whom you don’t think are disabled enough– a lot of disabled people don’t get access to it.

this is such a good post.

Hi! I was re-reading Sansûkh and I wanted to ask if you meant to write Narvi as autistic? Because I’m autistic myself and I find a great amount of autistic traits in her!

Hey Nonnie! I didn’t set out with that in mind when I developed her character, honestly. But shit, someone much wiser than me once said ‘a book should say more than the author intended’, and I think that’s true. 

So, Nonnie. If you say Narvi is autistic, then fuck yes, she is autistic!

x-cetra:

vaspider:

wetwareproblem:

vergess:

wetwareproblem:

barbidreamdumpster:

bifoxstiles:

adayinthelesbianlife:

The first Pride was a riot.

Wall sticker in Marlborough lesbian pub, Brighton.

i’m actually realizing this now

but the original poster said “queer power” and someone erased that and replaced it with “gay power”

real classy

#is this real

Well. I’m not exactly an expert at image analysis, but the bottom text in the first one looks much cleaner than the top text while the second one matches better. Also, the creases in the second one on the Q and U seem like the sort of detail that wouldn’t be faked. Finally, this actually matches up significantly better to “queer” politics than “gay” politics; it was always queers who advocated and took the front lines in direct action.

If you put the image in an editor or just view the full size of the first image, it becomes very obvious that the text on the bottom was added later: all of the vertical lines in every letter are pixel perfect straight lines. That is basically impossible with a photo of a poster that is both visibly at an angle, and has paper weathering and other distortion. Look at the verticals of the white text to compare. The only distortion of the text is the jpg artifacts we would expect in that level of contrast. There is no lighting on the pink text either, another highly suspicious trait.

Additionally, if you crop out the pink text in op and run an image search you get the second photo, as well as four or five other photos of the poster, all reading “queer power.”

With the pink text left in, however, the only version of the poster is this exact image, sourcing to op.

I want every single person who ever argued with me on That Queer Post to take a long, hard look at this. I have been told at least dozens of times that “nobody is saying you can’t identify as queer,” that I’m “ignoring history,” that they’re not trying to shift back to gay, etc.

Now, here’s this post, in which queer people are having their art defaced in order to rewrite their identity. Where they’re being forcibly rewritten as gay. Where history is being literally goddamn erased. It’s got three times the notes of That Queer Post, and as far as I can tell, @bifoxstiles is the first one to challenge this narrative. And I’m not gonna hold my breath on y’all to call out OP.

They’re literally stealing our history, rewriting it into a new version that excludes more than half of the community. And nobody’s challenging this. You’re too busy trying to shut down inclusive, egalitarian language.

Shame on every last one of you.

Uhhhh. That’s like a really famous poster, at least if you are over a certain age. I recognized it immediately. 

Yeah. It… it never said ‘Gay Power’ originally. It said ‘Queer Power.’

What the actual fuck.

OKAY KIDS. HISTORY LESSON TIME.

Ironically, just before this crossed my dash, Oxford University Press shared a link to a new archive of queer oral history. If not for Tumblr’s recent push to wipe “queer” from our collective memory, I wouldn’t have thought twice about OUP using the term. After all, it was chanted in pride and defiance when over a million of us participated in the 1993 March on Washington to demand an end to discrimination…

image

Video clip from that day: “We’ve come to Washington to show everyone that we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going anywhere!”

Queer theory, queer studiesnew queer cinemaqueer liberation: it was and remains the umbrella term in academia, since “gay” leaves out the bulk of people discriminated against for their gender and/or sexuality.

In the past year, I’ve seen some Tumblr members trying to suppress the word “queer,” just as people back then tried to suppress us. The excuse is that it’s sometimes used as a slur. But so is “gay.” In my 45 years, I have heard/seen “gay” used as an slur far more often.

At first, I tried to respect the fact that “queer” bothered some Tumblr users, even though it was painful for me to see queer-positive posts tagged “q slur.” But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that caving in to those asking us to drop the term “queer” would permit homophobic and/or transphobic sensibilities to define our identities. Do we have to drop “gay” now as well, or tag it “g slur”? Since when did we stop reclaiming these words as a matter of pride? 

Isn’t this just the latest ploy of internalized homophobia/transphobia sneaking up on us? 

Unfortunately, erasing “queer” from our vocabulary has hurtful real-world consequences.

Silencing “queer” silences many of those who fought, marched, rioted and died for your rights. It erases those of us who are queer but not gay: trans, intersex, nonbinary, lesbian, bisexual, aromantic, asexual people, and more (see why the term is so necessary?) Erasure/minimization of queer people is how we end up with disrespectful historical revisionism like that Stonewall movie. Or the Photoshopped poster above, rewriting our history with a lie. 

And that’s the real kicker.

Erase “queer” from our vocabulary, and we erase future generations’ ability to learn about their past. How will they be able to find LBGTA+ history, if you teach them not to use one of the main keywords they need to search for to find it? 

How much of our past and present community will be rendered invisible and their needs ignored (this article is really, REALLY worth a read), if those now lobbying against the term “queer” are successful?

Decades ago, when being out was taking a huge risk, we chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” It would be a bitter irony if, even as mainstream society becomes “used to it,” as demonstrated from the Supreme Court to the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise, our own community becomes less “used to it.”

Think about the forces of prejudice who were trying to silence us when that “queer power” sign was made. Please don’t let them win.