Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178493

> Ann:

> And as I mentioned Draco's insults above: if homosexuality is 
taboo 
> in the WW, why does nobody use it as an insult? JKR doesn't mind 
> showing Draco using racist insults, so why would she mind him 
using 
> homophobic ones?

Magpie:
If Draco's insults--one or which is *Pansy's* line, not Draco's, are 
considered anti-black and anti-Irish (I think that last one is a 
particular stretch) then Ron's "they'll be announcing their 
engagement any day now" about Percy and Crouch would surely count as 
homophobic. 

That is, *if* we count either of those--I don't think we should. 
Pansy's line about Angelina's braids (not dreadlocks) could, if she 
doesn't make a distinction about Muggle races, just be a mean remark 
about the girl's hair. Since we later meet Blaise and see that he's 
considered "one of us" by Pansy, I'd say that shows us that this is 
the case. Assuming that it is might be giving derogatory remarks 
about black hair more objective truth (maybe not the right word) 
than it actually deserves. 

In the Weasleys case I think we're on far shakier ground. The 
Weasleys are English, with no hint anywhere that they're Irish. They 
actually do have a lot of children. So I see little reason to assume 
that many children must mean Irish (or Catholic) in this case. In 
fact, to assume it must be so actually says something about our own 
real world prejudices, doesn't it? Because we're the ones saying 
that if they have more children than they can afford they must be 
Irish.

Ron's comment, by contrast, is far more specific to what we're 
talking about in that he's describing a gay relationship in ways 
that Pansy makes no specific mention of being black or Draco makes 
any reference to being Irish. Not saying that proves Ron's line is 
supposed to be homophobic, though.

> Ann:
> Given that we're arguing about Dumbledore here, it's not 
surprising 
> that we never see him kissing anyone around Harry. True, there 
isn't 
> any explicit homosexuality in the books, but it's more reasonable 
to 
> assume that we're not being told about what's going on than that 
> there's no homosexuality at all. (Remember Austen and the Gaels?) 
The 
> WW may have a different culture to the MW, but homosexuality is 
> hardly unique to our culture, or even our species. In any case, 
homo- 
> and heterosexuality are hardly mutually exclusive options.

Magpie:
True, we just don't know the attitude towards it. Ron's reference to 
Percy/Crouch indicates "isn't that humiliating!" Since we don't see 
Ron responding to just same-sex attraction in itself we don't know 
if he's really just saying Percy/Crouch is silly or if it's extra 
silly because it pairs Percy with a man and suggests his devotion to 
his boss is emasculating because it looks like having a crush on a 
man. (I associate the Weasleys with some pretty traditional 
attitudes about dating and gender.)

It's true we're not told there are no gay people, nor are we told 
Dumbledore is straight. But like with Blaise being non-white, that 
tends to be the default--this is also indicated by the fact that 
we're hearing the news that Dumbledore is gay now rather than after 
DH when even some of us who did think of DD/GG (I was one of them) 
weren't sure if the author wanted us to think that (whether or not 
that matters). It's still interesting to me that there seems to be 
certainly special considerations when it comes to Dumbledore and 
perhaps other gay couples if they do exist that we've got a very 
long list of characters we see showing straight attraction or being 
in straight relationships but with Dumbledore it's not part of his 
character (the way being straight is to many characters) or not 
relevent to his story the way similar straight infatuations are.

-m