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

[or.phan_ann]

No: HPFGUIDX 178528

sistermagpie wrote:
>
> 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. 

Ann:
No, you're quite right. I could have sworn Angelina had dreadlocks,
but there you go. And the Irish!Weasleys was a very vague case (I did
say "might be construed".) Incidentally, I think the entire WW is
Catholic; I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that second example. If
the Percy/Crouch Sr. jibe (on p. 54, GoF, UK ed.) is the extent of
homophobic expression in canon, homosexuality would appear to be...
well, pretty much irrelevant in the WW. It's more misogynist, in my
opinion, with the assumption that a wife must be ridiculously
subservient to her husband.

This reminds me of the "Perversion in the Graveyard" posts, 40118 and
onwards, actually. Obviously this doesn't have any bearing on the WW's
attitudes to anything, but it's certainly suggestive.

> Magpie:
>
> True, we just don't know the attitude towards it [homosexuality -  
 > Ann]. 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.

Ann:
Is the Percy/Crouch line the only comment about homosexuality? If it
is, we can pretty much say that homosexuality might be seen as
slightly amusing, but definitely not important or bad aspect of
sexuality. I've always read this line as being more along the lines of
Percy being silly and emasculated and therefore gay. But it doesn't
sound very considered. Ron doesn't think about it, just says it.

On the subject of alternative sexuality in the WW: they don't seem to
have much of a problem with half-giants. Rita Skeeter may score a
point by revealing that Hagrid's a half-giant, and he says he's never
met one before (GoF, p. 372); but he never mentions his parents having
to hide their relationship. In any case, it would be perfectly obvious
- by the time he's six, he's bigger than his father. In any case,
every wizard who attended Hogwarts for the last fifty years would know
how big he is, and be able to put two and two together; Rita's not
scored much of a coup, has she? I'd say that this is the best parallel
to homosexuality in the WW. Remember that Madame Olympe is a
headmistress of a prestigious school.

(Ok, maybe they pass it off as being the result of a magical accident,
but that could be dealt with by St. Mungo's, or make the Prophet if it
couldn't. And it could be seen through somehow, I'm sure.)

Magpie:
>
> 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.

Ann:
It is interesting, isn't it? A pretty big blind spot in JKR's
inclusive credentials, at the least.

Ann