I’ve been enjoying Noah’s video on TLOU2, definitely recommend. But one thing he goes on about, that a lot of cis critics have, is a bit of a misinterpretation of trans critics.
Thread below: https://twitter.com/mrgervaiswrites/status/1277278134371377153

Lev can be a good character while also being voyeuristically examined through a cis gaze. His contributions to the plot are not contingent on his transness, though there is an obvious intent to conflate metaphor and meaning from his role to the plot and his identity.

It’s fine, good even, that Lev’s gender is not the focus. But it sometimes is, like when violence is inflicted on him.
I’m fact, his transness disappears when he is agential. His transness is only present when it is used (by ND and the fiction). https://twitter.com/justicekazzy_/status/1276560593474981895

I’ve seen a lot of cis critics at least acknowledge that trans people have concerns. But they aren’t spending time with those arguments. https://twitter.com/jeslach/status/1277307410202288128

Saying you won’t talk over us is not the same as listening to us. Ignoring our writing because it isn’t “published” belies privilege. Your failure to listen to us where we are coming from is an indictment of you, not us, to critically engage.

I respect these critics enough to argue with them and not just stop reading them. Consider this a call in to actually read and listen to us. Thanks!

PS Waverly just published this great look at Lev as well: “But Lev is the only trans character whose violence is composed of the domestic emotional and physical abuse alongside the violence of the new world.”
https://twitter.com/hotelbones/status/1277636176946630656?s=21 https://twitter.com/hotelbones/status/1277636176946630656