So what you’re saying is, Karkat is Phil?
It keeps getting better.
someone should cosplay as chi-fu and the emperor from mulan and then when someone takes their picture at a con they should pose like this
I would do this.
sorry but you cant deny that in good omens, neal and terry specifically stated that aziraphale is an angel and angels have no gender. aziraphale is agender get the fuck out
This discussion has been persistent enough on the tag that I’d love to join in. From my perspective, the crucial thing to remember is that there are quite a number of intentional clues in the text as to why Aziraphale and Crowley both, as examples of angel stock, are very different from the rest of their kind. Crowley’s present body is described as “his favorite shape,” and he’s always terrified when he has to shape-shift that he won’t be able to change back. Similarly, Aziraphale’s dowdy bookshop-owner human manifestation is an aspect of himself to which he’s so attached that he goes so far as to ensure his nails are always flawlessly manicured. My guess is that Neil and Terry point out that angels are gender-less in order to highlight the fact of just how native Aziraphale and Crowley have really gone as a result of their time on earth with humans and with each other. The male human bodies they inhabit are now a crucial part of their respective senses of self-hood; at every turn, the pronoun used for both of them, whether by themselves or by each other or by others around them, is he. Did they start out as creatures essentially without gender? Absolutely. Did they both eventually discover that they’re otherwise much happier identifying as we see them now? Textual evidence seems to point to yes. That they evolve and change as a result of their unusual existence is part of the point. Along with the dolphins, of course.
pronouns do not equal gender.
No, they do not :) But the point I’m trying to make is that the textual evidence is more complex than the statement that angels do not have gender. Both of these creatures have adopted identities that are far more nuanced than that single statement indicates. Male presentation is a large part of how they seem to prefer to identify, as is usage of the pronoun he. To ignore the rest of the text beyond the statement that angels do not have gender is to ignore their complexity. And their complexity is why we love this novel so much!
Why are you trying to erase non cis identities because that is really all you’re doing and you should really stop.
I’m a nonbinary transmasculine person and I know irisbleufic in real life, and I can say that is absolutely not the case.
I think it’s inaccurate to say “Even though they are characterized as masculine and male, they HAVE to be agender because of one line stating angels are not male or female.” I think viewing them as agender makes sense, and is a valid interpretation, but to say that’s the only one?! Aziraphale and Crowley are, as irisbleufic points out, far from typical angels.
So angels are assigned neuter at birth - it’s completely inconceivable that they could develop a different sense of gender that doesn’t fit with their biology/background? That seems more like an erasure of non-cis identities than “Angels are canonically neither male nor female, but in this instance this angel and former-angel are presenting as and might identify as male.”