Velma is new Scooby-Doo Halloween movie identifies as LGBQT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of us dream about the day when our kids see a gay character on TV and think nothing of it. Just like they think nothing of seeing characters with different skin colors and physical abilities. But that only happens if they actually do see gay characters on TV.

Do you censor children’s shows that have black characters or characters who use wheelchairs - until they can “understand” those differences?

Or are those shows OK because you’re not afraid they’ll turn your kid black or paraplegic?

I’m betting there’s a lot of overlap between these posters and the parents who are outraged that the star of the new Little Mermaid movie is Black.

Bingo.

Nope. Not even close. Think about percentages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

So exactly how much exposure do you think kids should have to all possibilities? A transgendered princess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

So exactly how much exposure do you think kids should have to all possibilities? A transgendered princess?

Sure, why not? What exactly is the problem with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

So exactly how much exposure do you think kids should have to all possibilities? A transgendered princess?

There are transgendered kids. My kids have a trans cousin (came out as an adult). I don't know why you think kids shouldn't be exposed to the existence of trans people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

So exactly how much exposure do you think kids should have to all possibilities? A transgendered princess?

Plenty of exposure? More than zero? Some amount? A goodly portion? Why are you SOOOOOOO terrified of your kinds knowing that people who are not exactly like you exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

[Anonymous]

LGBQT couldn't come up with their own movie, but had to rewrite the original? Yes, it's hard to create a classic, lgbqt or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

It’s not stereotyping. It’s recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

It’s a vibe. You don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

Velma wasn't artsy, she was into the sciences. But fear not, you've centered yourself way too quickly for anyone to mistake you for a member of an underrepresented group.