Don't let it stop you, though, Becky. I think it's great that you're trying to cover so much of the LGBTQIA spectrum. As an aromantic, it's always been a source of mild sadness to me that my settings don't allow for much diversity.
I didn't try, it just kinda happened. And don't let the setting stop you; look at me, I've got two queer girls in an, admittedly altered, medieval setting. Just do it. (Don't start meme-ing on me, though.)
Well, in fairness, as a member of the LGBTQIA2 community, the whole thing is kind of a tangle and can be ridiculously confusing for the people involved, so for someone with limited exposure to the whole thing, it could easily seem ridiculous if you're on the outside looking in.
I was originally suggesting that when your 12 year old tells you they are writing a novel about something of which they have no experience (which lets face it is most things at 12) they can expect a "that's nice dear" response followed by "but you don't know anything about..." It doesn't necessarily mean the adult concerned is homophobic (or nonbinaryphobic if that's a word), the reaction would be pretty similar if they told you they were going to build a race car..
Quite - I thought the point of reclaiming Q was to cover all the other types of preference not covered by LBGT ETA : I'd be careful about writing LGBTQ characters in a medieval setting - in that period it would have to be very much on the down low if you didn't want to get burnt at the stake, or have a red hot poker rammed up your arse (as happened to Edward 2)
This doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I think you've given yourself plenty of room to maneuver here. In reverse order, the "altered" medieval setting sounds to me like fantasy (sorry if it's not), which means that you can keep your knights and such while making adjustments that allow for queer* characters to survive and even thrive. Secondly, society has always been more tolerant (tolerant is too strong a word, but it'll do for here) of female sexual... irregularity? IIRC, the original Kama Sutra condemns male homosexuality, but simply mentions relations between women as something that happens, but not noteworthy. However, compared to the frequently violent response to perceived M-M sex, your queer* women have a much more plausible chance of surviving, so run with it. *acknowledging that the modern term "queer" encompasses a whole hell of a lot more than was dreamt of in Horatio's philosophy, but, at least in Western civilization, I think people tended to get put into either: 1) cis/het male or female 2) frigid female 3) clergy 4) burnt offerings Women who weren't interested in men, for whatever reason, would have a better chance of being simply vilified as "frigid" than ending up being killed.
Yes, that's definitely true. No, women couldn't just be openly gay, and I'm sure many lesbians were really unhappy to end up married to a man and having their babies regardless of their feelings on the matter, but at the same time the majority of societies have just kinda not believed that there was such a thing as a lesbian. It's hard to tell if it was just turning a blind eye or if they really were in denial of the subject, but I suspect that men just didn't care as long as their wives/daughters weren't having babies. By contrast male homosexuality was always seen as something really appalling. Even kings couldn't get away with being gay, even though we know some of them were. It's hard to say why exactly; maybe I just can't get into their minds very well but I've never understood why it was something that we took such an exception to. But certainly they did and certainly no-one cared if you killed gay men.
Someone, or several someones, said once straight men were afraid gay men would treat them the way they treated women, and I think the idea has a lot of merit. The babies thing has also always been an issue, plus the fact that through much of human history, women were basically property. I read a autobiographical book about a young gay man who got incarcerated in the US and was fairly rapidly owned by an older prisoner, who became his "daddy." The older prisoners didn't identify as gay, but they all had younger men that they treated as "girlfriends." There was on scene where the writer found himself attracted to another daddy's girlfriend, so they asked their daddies for permission, which was granted. He said that had he been with another daddy, it would have been cheating, but for two "girlfriends" to have sex was seen as akin to lesbianism and a source of amusement.
