artstuffs

This is not an attack on OP’s character; this is a response to her argument. The purpose of this paper is not meant to be seen as hate or harassment toward the OP. Harassment over this issue, toward OP or others, is vile and unacceptable. If you feel that the authors of this analysis have been disrespectful or are speaking improperly, please don’t hesitate to message us asking for clarification and/or changes. If you have any other sources or perspectives on this issue that you would like us to include, please message us.

For the purposes of this analysis, Source will be congruent to the original meta written by @/zannolin, and Verdict will be the two authors’ position on the matter.

---

Why OP believes that she/her c!Wilbur headcanons are problematic

Because it's misgendering Wilbur’s character

Source: “a lot of trans people are uncomfortable with the headcanons going on and their implications”, “using she/her for a character who goes by he/him is misgendering.”, “genderbending/etc is a very uncomfortable topic for a lot of people under the trans umbrella”, “it carries themes of misgendering or is just outright misgendering as a whole”

Verdict: Arguable. Misgendering cis people is not okay. If Wilbur’s character was cis and used he/him pronouns solely, it would be disrespectful to change his pronouns. However, there has been confirmation neither that c!Wilbur is cis nor that c!Wilbur uses he/him pronouns solely.

Because it excludes other identities that c!Wilbur could have

Source: “if you look at someone who is unlabelled (and honestly the most “applicable” queer hc for c!wilbur, currently, is probably unlabelled) and say ‘oh okay so your pronouns are she/her’ or ‘you’re nblm’ or ‘you’re nonbinary’ or anything of the sort? you are misgendering that person”

Verdict: Incorrect. Personal headcanons are not likely to exclude other identities because they are⁠—by definition⁠—personal and headcanons. If fans were pushing Wilbur to make his character use she/her pronouns solely, then this point would be correct. However, there is no evidence of that happening and the request sounds unreasonable in general.

Because trans people have been attacked for voicing differing opinions about she/her c!Wilbur

Source: “there are people I have seen and dealt with, and who my friends have also seen and dealt with, who will wholeheartedly call you transphobic for so much as not liking/agreeing with their headcanons, much less trying to express legitimate issues with them”, “it has caused a lot of trans people serious discomfort, and has led to unnecessary and unsolicited harassment when people attempt to talk about it”, “(there is a) current tendency to harass, mock, and ignore trans people who want to talk about these problems”

Verdict: Arguable. Most likely correct, but this is a large part of the argument that is cited many times only through hand-wavey terms, such as “many people I know” and “friends I’ve talked to”. This would be stronger if there were specifics or evidence behind the claim. We acknowledge that the OP did receive harassment for posting this meta, but we are unable to determine if that was over the argument and the language used or because of the OP’s statements that they were uncomfortable with the headcanon. Specifics in the forms of evidence of other individuals receiving harassment for stating they were uncomfortable with it made prior to the time of the original meta being published would suffice.

It makes Wilbur uncomfortable because he didn't give “enthusiastic” consent

Source: “for CCs to have to throw up their hands and say, well since I can’t stop you from doing something I’m uncomfortable with, at the very least I just don’t want to see it.”

Verdict: Arguable. The above quote implies that Wilbur responded that way in regards to queer headcanons. While he didn’t seem to give enthusiastic consent, he did give consent. It is his responsibility to not give consent or to revoke consent if he is not comfortable with this.

It makes Wilbur uncomfortable because he didn't intend to portray this character in that way

Source: “cc!wilbur did not actively intend to portray his character as queer (and said as much)”

Verdict: Arguable. While Wilbur has confirmed that he did not intend to portray his character in any specific way, intentions can change. Just because the DSMP began as a way for the Dream Team to test the new snapshot and have fun with their friends does not mean it can’t change over time. The same applies to the contributors and their characters on the server.

It is either misgendering or truthing the content creator because Wilbur’s character is based on his real-life self

Source: “you cannot fully separate the character from the CC”, “a great deal of the lore has been spur of the moment, and interspersed with CCs just hanging out and being their ‘normal’ selves, not necessarily ‘in character’ but it is still drawn on for characterization”, “(a) large percentage of the fanbase draws from IRL content”

Verdict: Incorrect. None of the fans know Wilbur in real life/without his streamer persona, so to say that what we see on the screen is his “normal” self is assuming that OP knows Wilbur personally. Nobody who does not know Wilbur in real life has any basis to say whether this is accurate or inaccurate. He has stated the following:

“...Regarding gender anatomical art, I don't remember saying I don't like that, I don't really care. I don't really connect myself to what I put out on the screen anymore, I wouldn’t really mind.” (VOD)

If you attempt to argue against his statement, you are effectively saying that you know him better than he knows himself.

To continue this point, by using the terms c! and cc! there is a direct separation of the two. By using those terms, they are separated.

It is willfully ignoring canon queer rep because the reason these headcanons are made is because people are discontent with current representation in the DSMP

Source: “people want to headcanon what they want, and we are in a very large very accepting very queer community, and people want rep.”

Verdict: Arguable. It does not make sense that all headcanons are made for the purpose of “creating” or “forcing” representation. While many fans are likely using this headcanon to feel more connected with Wilbur’s character, it is unlikely that any of them believe their headcanon is a true or accurate representation.

It is willfully ignoring canon queer rep because fans are solely watching Wilbur or are prioritizing Wilbur over CCs like Ponk, Niki, Antfrost, Puffy, Eret, etc.

Source: “it’s genuinely baffling to me that people would rather headcanon a cishet cc/character to be queer instead of watch an actual queer CC”, “why headcanon diversity when there are actual real people you can watch?”

Verdict: Incorrect. Without sources or data, OP is in no position to say that her audience is ignoring queer content creators on the DSMP in favor of watching Wilbur. No data is provided that proves this.

---

Important point: If you are uncomfortable with a headcanon, that is completely ok. OP states that they and their friends are uncomfortable with the headcanon. That is perfectly ok. No one is saying you must or must not headcanon anything. However, being uncomfortable with a headcanon doesn’t make it immoral, incorrect, or means it crosses CC boundaries.

---

Why this isn’t a strong argument

OP uses a straw man fallacy to argue that headcanoning different pronouns is comparable to LGBTQ+ erasure, saying “can you imagine the backlash if someone were to say ‘I headcanon c!eret as cishet!’? they would be drawn and quartered for all to see,”.

OP claims to not endorse the weaponization of identities, and yet throughout the paper uses their identity to shield themselves from criticism. We acknowledge that this is not weaponization, however both of the authors find this a poor establishment of credibility.

OP also uses a slippery slope fallacy (as covered in the second point in the next section. We felt it best to include it there because of the language attached to that point).

Lack of evidence provided, general baseless argument. Where data is needed, data is not provided (as stated in the first section of the paper).

Claiming that the meta was a personal catalogue but structuring it as an argument, then saying that discussion about it was closed. This is not a catalogue, as nothing is catalogued.

Some readers interpreted this as transmisogyny. Neither of the authors can accurately speak on the matter, so if you have insight or opinions, please message us.

---

OP’s choice in tone, language, and implications

OP throughout the paper uses language that demeans the reader and/or people who endorse the headcanon.

“but here’s an apparently mind-boggling (/s) concept: you can deal with it.”

This is an instance of mocking those who disagree with OP’s point.

OP uses the slippery slope fallacy to imply that individuals who subscribe to this headcanon can often come close to CC truthing, stated here:

“I hope some of you have stopped and realized how uncomfortably close to CC truthing queer headcanons can stray. please note that I am not accusing people of truthing, I am not saying you are, I am not saying you are a bad person if you have headcanons. but I want to point out that it often starts down that road, and it can get out of hand.”

Firstly, this is a use of the slippery slope fallacy (Slippery Slope). Secondly, this is a tremendous and very serious implication, with absolutely no sources or examples provided. The only instances either authors can think of in regards to genuine queer CC truthing is people truthing that cc!Tubbo and cc!Ranboo are in a romantic relationship, and people truthing that cc!Tommyinnit is a transwoman. Both of these communities are miniscule and hardly prominent in this larger MCYT community, but consistently cross CC boundaries and invade their privacy.

Therefore, truthing is a very serious implication for the OP to make, especially with no evidence. It is grouping people with a headcanon about a fictional character together with people who maliciously invade the privacy of and speculate about content creators for their own personal gain. These are wildly different and it would be rude and inaccurate to compare the two, especially with no evidence provided for this circumstance.

OP mentions another instance of supposed CC truthing:

“people are increasingly not having ‘small personal headcanons’ but are borderline or full truthers, who are shoving their agenda in people’s faces, who are spreading misinformation, proclaiming things to be ‘canon,’ and harassing people who try to speak up about any issues with said headcanons.”

This is a huge generalization and claim with no evidence provided.

OP implies that individuals think that being cishet is bad or wrong and, in the same point, demeans the reader:

“but being cishet is not inherently a bad thing. your sexuality and gender identity are not indicators of your worth as a person or your morality. you can be lgbtq+ and still be a piece of shit, I’m sorry if this is the first time you’re hearing this, but it’s true.”

Headcanoning a character as queer does not mean cishet people are bad. If people have said that "being cishet is inherently bad'' when referring to if people were genuinely uncomfortable with cishet content creators, then why would they continue to consume content or support those creators? OP also says “I’m sorry if this is the first time you're hearing this” which implies that the reader is not well-read or exposed to other ideas, which is a rude assumption.

OP uses generally demeaning language and name calling to shut down those who disagree with their argument:

“I understand being defensive and the extreme embarrassment, shame, and discomfort that comes from being wrong or realizing there are problems with things you like. truly, I do. and as a neurodivergent person, I understand how absolutely shitty it feels. but you know what’s more shitty? trying to shut down people who are raising genuine issues with things like this. in this specific case, ignoring trans people who are trying to talk about it, or outright attacking them. telling trans people they’re the transphobic ones. just generally being a fucking dick about it?”

Firstly, to imply that the people who uphold this headcanon should be embarrassed, ashamed, and uncomfortable is odd. Despite stating in the first paragraph “I am not here to tell you what you can and can’t headcanon; I am not here to tell you that you are a bad person. I’m not trying to shut you down; I want to make you aware of the problems”, OP is very clearly using demeaning and rude language to shut down people who disagree. This is contradictory to their statement that they are just trying to raise awareness.

Secondly, saying “trying to shut down people who are raising genuine issues with things like this. in this specific case, ignoring trans people who are trying to talk about it, or outright attacking them. telling trans people they’re the transphobic ones,” implies that all the people who uphold this headcanon are participating in harassment. While there has been hate toward the OP (the authors of this analysis do not condone harassment of any kind), that does not mean that every single person who endorses this headcanon is doing this. This is a generalization of the people that uphold the headcanon.

Overall, OP’s meta uses inflammatory language and the authors of this paper find it unacceptable. We will note that the OP has apologized for some of the wording on Twitter (Statement) but we felt it important to cover these instances nonetheless because they affect the ethos of the entire original argument. We would also like to note that, while the authors of this analysis find this use of language unacceptable, we do not condone any harassment towards the OP regarding their selection of language.

---

Summary

Tl:dr; OP is personally uncomfortable with she/her c!Wilbur headcanons, and tried to decry these headcanons by arguing that they misgender c!Wilbur and cc!Wilbur, make cc!Wilbur and trans fans uncomfortable, and show an ignorance of queer content creators. Many of these points stretch the truth, and little to no evidence is provided. Readers were upset by the way OP argued her point, and some tried to shame her on social media sites through the use of quote retweets, private quote retweets, direct messages, and anonymous asks.

This paper analyzed the argument presented in the meta and determined it fails due to a lack of evidence, baseless claims, name-calling, and use of logical fallacies. However, we acknowledge that the OP and anyone else may feel however they choose about the headcanon regardless of the argument’s success.

Monde’s takeaway; I don’t think OP’s argument is strong in any way, and I don't appreciate the callous language used. However, I am far more disgusted by the way people responded to this. It is quite easy to see that this is a personal opinion, albeit poorly presented. Many people should not have acted in the ways they did, including (but not limited to) sending death threats, resorting to name-calling (e.g. “braindead”, “weirdo”, “grow up”, “bozo”, “pathetic”, “(...) need professional mental help”, “freaks”, and “dumb as hell”), harassing OP (e.g. continuing to private quote retweet her even though that’s generally accepted as something that people don’t feel comfortable with), minimizing the impact of pronouns on trans people’s experiences of gender (e.g. saying “its (sic) just PRONOUNS”), using ad hominem argument (e.g. attacking OP’s personal characteristics⁠⁠—such as her age⁠—instead of countering her actual argument), and wishing ill will on OP (e.g. “please lose your Lovejoy follow”). I hope that the people who acted in these ways will refrain from doing so in the future.

Ela’s takeaway; This was an interesting read. I will assert that no one has to like all headcanons. OP is perfectly within their rights to not like, endorse, or support this headcanon for any reason or lack thereof! No one is obligated to like anything in fiction. I will note that I do endorse this headcanon, so there is a bias there. As with Monde, I condone no harassment of any sort towards the OP or anyone else. If anyone has any issues with this paper please feel free to contact me.

---

TO REITERATE: Do not send hate to OP or anyone else. If you have any comments or criticism, please message one of the authors of this analysis:

@mondegreenlad on Twitter and Tumblr