Loki Confirmed as Bisexual

[phantom000]

I'm not sure Norse mythology really applies in this case because we are talking about a character who is loosely based on a comic book which is loosely based on the mythology.

It's almost like saying 'Simba has to die at the end of The Lion King because that's how Hamlet ended.'

[McAvoy]

Definitely. MCU Loki is Norse Mythology Loki by name and some similarities. Just like Thor or the rest of the Asgard stuff in MCU.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's a little more nuanced than Mad Hatter in Batman, but yeah.

[Mabus]

Ah yes, the good ol ' "JK Rowling maneuver", aka this character is totally LGBTKeyboard guys, and I can prove it to you because... well... I say so... oh and there's an offhand line where the character is implied to be not straight, because that was used in such a great way in Avengers: Endgame... and some deleted scene in Thor Ragnarok I think. And in The Rise of Skywalker... And...
JUST GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS YOU SELLOUTS AND ACTUALLY SHOW YOUR CHARACTERS TO BE WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE INSTEAD OF JUST MAKING OFFHAND REMARKS!

When I see some character never ever shown or implied to be gay or bi or whatever, and then later there's a single scene or a few scenes where said character says something that might be interpreted that said character is gay, there are two things that come in mind: One, this must be a script typo or some poorly worded line or Two, and this is more likely, said character is trolling, because said character is not serious about it and never acts on what said character says, so I can't take what they said seriously.

And I say this because I highly doubt that in the original mythos, Loki's tale of having orgies with horses and animals and people is just an offhand remark that could be interpreted in a dozen other ways.
Sure, you don't need to show orgies or bestiality onscreen, but offhand remarks which are not backed up by something palpable is just lazy writing and lazy characterization. "Tell don't show" is like the worst way to write a film series.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

When I see some character never ever shown or implied to be gay or bi or whatever, and then later there's a single scene or a few scenes where said character says something that might be interpreted that said character is gay, there are two things that come in mind: One, this must be a script typo or some poorly worded line or Two, and this is more likely, said character is trolling, because said character is not serious about it and never acts on what said character says, so I can't take what they said seriously.

Uh I watched it. It's not really a matter of interpretation. Kings and queens is pretty specific.

[phantom000]

Ah yes, the good ol ' "JK Rowling maneuver", aka this character is totally LGBTKeyboard guys, and I can prove it to you because... well... I say so... oh and there's an offhand line where the character is implied to be not straight, because that was used in such a great way in Avengers: Endgame... and some deleted scene in Thor Ragnarok I think. And in The Rise of Skywalker... And...
JUST GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS YOU SELLOUTS AND ACTUALLY SHOW YOUR CHARACTERS TO BE WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE INSTEAD OF JUST MAKING OFFHAND REMARKS!

When I see some character never ever shown or implied to be gay or bi or whatever, and then later there's a single scene or a few scenes where said character says something that might be interpreted that said character is gay, there are two things that come in mind: One, this must be a script typo or some poorly worded line or Two, and this is more likely, said character is trolling, because said character is not serious about it and never acts on what said character says, so I can't take what they said seriously.

I tend to agree. In 2018 there was a fan theory that Bow from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power was a transsexual because of a line 'everyone here is a princess, except me. Wait, am I a princess?' Noelle Stevenson, who identifies as non-binary, said: "It's a fan theory that I'm very, very fond of. I think that if anyone – especially trans people – can see themselves in Bow, it's incredible," she said. "And I'm very, very happy to be able to bring a masculine character who redefines masculinity in just a very positive, aspirational way."

But she also said...

"I will say, it is something I'm a little hesitant to canonise, because, honestly, I would have cast a trans actor if that was something I wanted to [do]. If I wanted that character to be very canonically trans, I think that would have been a really cool thing to do," she said. "It's just something I want to be a little cautious around, because I don't want to be adding to things after the fact – you know, pulling a JK Rowling, essentially."

I try not to be homophobic but you should never ret-con someone's gender or sexuality. Bow is not a transsexual in canon because the character was never intended to be one. It does make me wonder if Double Trouble was always intended to be non-binary or perhaps if maybe that was added as they were working on the rest of the series.

And I say this because I highly doubt that in the original mythos, Loki's tale of having orgies with horses and animals and people is just an offhand remark that could be interpreted in a dozen other ways.
Sure, you don't need to show orgies or bestiality onscreen, but offhand remarks which are not backed up by something palpable is just lazy writing and lazy characterization. "Tell don't show" is like the worst way to write a film series.

That is why I said that the mythology has very little to do with this version of Loki. I kinda subscribe to the idea that any time you make an adaptation of a work you are making something new. So this character is not the same one from the mythology or even the comic books. Hell, you could say he's not the same one from The Avengers because he's a variant, he's different.

[Madner Kami]

"I will say, it is something I'm a little hesitant to canonise, because, honestly, I would have cast a trans actor if that was something I wanted to [do]. If I wanted that character to be very canonically trans, I think that would have been a really cool thing to do," she said. "It's just something I want to be a little cautious around, because I don't want to be adding to things after the fact – you know, pulling a JK Rowling, essentially."

I find this statement kinda problematic. You don't need to be whatever to act as a whatever. The keyword is *act*. Daniel Radcliffe didn't need to be a magician, to act as a magician. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't need to be an android (or "cyborg"), to play an android (or "cyborg"). And so on. I find it very objectionable even, to imply that a given type of sexuality even plays a role in the display of a personality. I know gay men who are (the stereotypically annoying type of) flamboyant. I know gay men who are the manliest men and I know gay men who you only know as gay, because they appear at your barbeque with their (to everyone's surprise male) partner while nobody ever bothered to think about it in the first place, because it's completely irrelevant to past interactions and so on.

[phantom000]

"I will say, it is something I'm a little hesitant to canonise, because, honestly, I would have cast a trans actor if that was something I wanted to [do]. If I wanted that character to be very canonically trans, I think that would have been a really cool thing to do," she said. "It's just something I want to be a little cautious around, because I don't want to be adding to things after the fact – you know, pulling a JK Rowling, essentially."

I find this statement kinda problematic. You don't need to be whatever to act as a whatever. The keyword is *act*. Daniel Radcliffe didn't need to be a magician, to act as a magician. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't need to be an android (or "cyborg"), to play an android (or "cyborg"). And so on. I find it very objectionable even, to imply that a given type of sexuality even plays a role in the display of a personality. I know gay men who are (the stereotypically annoying type of) flamboyant. I know gay men who are the manliest men and I know gay men who you only know as gay, because they appear at your barbeque with their (to everyone's surprise male) partner while nobody ever bothered to think about it in the first place, because it's completely irrelevant to past interactions and so on.

From the perspective of a writer, there is a difference between a character that had always been a specific identity and it was never relevant, and a character that was intended to have one identity and then was changed later for 'reasons.' I think one can usually tell when a character had always been something, but you never noticed, and when a writer is just changing said character behind the scenes for whatever reason.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

"I will say, it is something I'm a little hesitant to canonise, because, honestly, I would have cast a trans actor if that was something I wanted to [do]. If I wanted that character to be very canonically trans, I think that would have been a really cool thing to do," she said. "It's just something I want to be a little cautious around, because I don't want to be adding to things after the fact – you know, pulling a JK Rowling, essentially."

I find this statement kinda problematic. You don't need to be whatever to act as a whatever. The keyword is *act*. Daniel Radcliffe didn't need to be a magician, to act as a magician. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't need to be an android (or "cyborg"), to play an android (or "cyborg"). And so on. I find it very objectionable even, to imply that a given type of sexuality even plays a role in the display of a personality. I know gay men who are (the stereotypically annoying type of) flamboyant. I know gay men who are the manliest men and I know gay men who you only know as gay, because they appear at your barbeque with their (to everyone's surprise male) partner while nobody ever bothered to think about it in the first place, because it's completely irrelevant to past interactions and so on.

The political weight of demographics having a particular right to represent themselves in media is pretty persuasive. That's beyond any artistic interpretation of course (which may or may not be understated). Though there is artistic implication, it's much more specific to the case and not to be considered a general facet of political correctness, as is the case often with appropriation issues.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah, we don't see cyborgs getting turned down for cyborg roles so that well-known human actors can play them. Nor do we see human actors in silver paint perpetuating stereotypes that support the ideology of people who go around killing cyborgs.