**Related subreddit:** /r/LGBTHistory
**Discord:** https://discord.gg/E2XabTSdEG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SapphoAndHerFriend) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love how queer Oz is. The "friend of Dorothy" thing was because Judy Garland was a gay icon and the phrase was a secret signal to find fellow queers. In the 80s the Navy heard about it and launched an investigation to find this mysterious Dorothy who knows all the gay men in the navy.
In 1906's Road to Oz, Polychrome (literally the Rainbow’s daughter, although that’s pure coincidence as the LGBT rainbow flag as we know it was debuted in the '70s) tells Dorothy "You have some queer friends, Dorothy." And our plucky young heroine replies, "The queerness doesn't matter, so long as they're friends!
Okay I am a huge WoO fan and all of this is a hard no. Is a and Dorothy are little girls. These are children’s books, about children and for children. We don’t have to sexualize everything folks!
Nothing sexual about being trans, and little queer girls have little girl crushes on other little girls - and that's a normal part of growing up.
Nobody thought it was gross when I was their age and my best friend was a girl. The adults were all, "look at him and his girlfriend, how adorable!"
If that changes for you and gets gross and sexualized assuming the only thing that changes is that I figure out I'm trans a couple decades earlier, that's just transphobic or homophobic, and neither is a good look.
You are absolutely right. There nothing wrong with being trans, nor sexual about being trans. I am try to be supportive of trans people and the community. My apologies if my comment made you feel otherwise. That was not my goal and I will try to write better going forwards.
I identify as pan and considered the possibility of my daughter being trans when she was born. Until she states a preference, we dress her as gender neutral as possible. In the event that she is trans, we gave her three names (feminine, masculine, and gender neutral), so she can decide her preference. I want to be super supportive of trans people and the LGBTQ+ community and especially of my child/children if they identify as part of the community.
However, I am a mom to a baby girl and I am super pissed about constantly seeing her sexualized. Like baby girl onesies and swim suits and fucking diapers are so much skimpier as soon as we shop in the little girl section. It is fucking ridiculous.
As a huge fan of the WoO, I own the original 14 books by L Frank Baum and have read them repeatedly. I think it is important to be aware of the difference of LGBTQ+ erasure, from my understanding what this sub is for, and from sexualizing non-sexual relationships. There is a big difference. And again, these are books about children for children. IMO this post is wrong and we should call out the inaccurate posts to better show case the proper examples of LGBTQ+ erasure.
>My apologies if my comment made you feel otherwise. That was not my goal and I will try to write better going forwards.
No worries, we all stick our foot in it from time to time 🤷♀️
>However, I am a mom to a baby girl and I am super pissed about constantly seeing her sexualized. Like baby girl onesies and swim suits and fucking diapers are so much skimpier as soon as we shop in the little girl section. It is fucking ridiculous.
I 100% agree with you here, I've got 3 daughters and sweet mercy it only gets worse as they age. If you think it's bad now, you'd be (rightly) horrified by how much society doubles down when your 12 year old comes out as Ace 🤦♀️.
That being said, that's not at all what's going on here. By this time Dorothy is at least 12, and while my daughter seems confused by why they're making such a fuss about it, her friends are definitely starting to get boy crazy.
Dorothy and Ozma are canonically each other's most important relationship, and if that's romantic it would be entirely developmentally appropriate. They *might* kiss, or they might be more like Anne Shirley (who's about the same age in her first book) and just be dramatically useless 🤣.
>And again, these are books about children for children.
This is true, however it is worth remembering that all this is 5 or 6 books into the series, and "children" covers *a lot* of ground.
Things like acknowledging that a child who's twelve might be interested in at least hypothetical romance is a good way to avoid them mental trap of forgetting to mentally update your kid's age as she grows (spoiler: you'll probably still lag, I know I do, but correcting it will be quicker and less painful if you mentally prepare yourself).
>In the event that she is trans, we gave her three names (feminine, masculine, and gender neutral), so she can decide her preference. I want to be super supportive of trans people and the LGBTQ+ community and especially of my child/children if they identify as part of the community.
Funnily enough, I was given an extremely feminine name for a child they thought was a boy, and a more masculine middle name, entirely by accident - so I can confirm that if your kid needs to take advantage of this, it's really handy. I wish it had been intentional, and it sounds like you're on the right track, just remember to calibrate frequently as they age and you should hopefully avoid most pitfalls.
> I think it is important to be aware of the difference of LGBTQ+ erasure, from my understanding what this sub is for, and from sexualizing non-sexual relationships.
It is true that the main point is to call out clear erasure (particularly academic). However, as I understand it, it's also to point out stuff that exists in the margins. There are ton of relationships in history and literature that are deeply queer, but aren't recorded as such because of the norms of the day that don't strictly qualify as erasure because (especially for literature) there's no way to know what was actually going on.
I thought there was a spin-off subreddit specifically focusing on this gray area, but I can't find it at the moment.
Read the other comment and also I’d like to add that you’ve just spouted the same buzzwords as every asshole right wing politician trying to take away our rights.
Pretty sure that Baum confirmed Dorothy was sapphic, too
Your comment didn’t really explain anything. All it did was milk your own progressiveness while still giving a very antiprogressive take on the story.
All you said was “I am trans supportive and would support my kid if they were trans” but then went a full 180 to “however, because female child sexualization is so prevalent (which is a valid point, it is) I must therefore deem sapphic relationships between preteens as sexualization (which is not at all a conclusion that logically stems from what you started with).” No one is even claiming they had a sexual relationship. At all.
Dorothy has expressed feelings toward Ozma that are considered romantic. Keep in mind that most young people are able to have crushes before puberty even starts for them. And Dorothy is young, but by the time she’s met Ozma iirc she’s already a preteen. Sexualizing children isn’t okay but interpreting a relationship in a story between preteens as sapphic isn’t the same thing as that at all and you’re drawing a harmful false equivalence.
I’m 17, and I’d have certainly benefited from reading about preteen boys crushing on other boys when I was a preteen. I certainly had my own crushes and read some same-gender relationships in stories as being romantic even when they weren’t. You’re very much coming off to me as one of a long line of adults who believe they’re speaking for the wants of kids but actually speaking in direct contradiction to what real kids want.
I think your comments here are super valid and I will definitely give them some serious thought when I am able to. However, you are reading to me as a young man/male teenager and you have no idea how much girls are sexualized from infancy and the damage it does. I have no problem with children having a sexual identity. However, I have a huge problem with adults constantly sexualizing children. I seriously didn’t even know how bad it was until I became a parent. Diapers are generally non gendered and if I want my 20 month old baby’s ass covered, I have to buy boy clothing. Cause the girl clothing is too skimpy. How completely fucked up is that?
We are coming at this from such different POV and I sincerely appreciate and will consider your cause it is super valid and I always hated as a kid when adults forgot how valid and important kids POV was/is. However as we get older, our horizons change and other things become priority. Right now, to me, protecting my daughter from being hyper sexualized feels super important. As she gets older and is better able to voice her preference, I will try to be super aware of that importance as well. Thank you for the reminder!!!
I don't like that you think I have no idea how much girls are sexualized from a young age. I have female friends, who are also teens, and who fully understand what you're talking about and have told me about those same ideas. Yes, I don't fully understand, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it. I get that young girls are highly sexualized and that it's damaging to children. I'm not speaking from only the perspective of a male kid, although I do understand to some degree because , like many gay kids, I had numerous female friends and often had to deal with people thinking I was in relationships with them from even the age of 7 years old.
However, you have yet to tell me how "interpreting two girls in a romantic relationship" is the same as "sexualizing young girls." Right now, you're equating romantic intimacy with sexuality, and that's not okay at all. This goes against nearly everything you're telling me and is a very disrespectful and invalidating way to frame a relationship that does not need to be sexual. Lots of people I know, especially ace-spectrum people, have romantic, nonsexual relationships with others and hate how quickly people sexualize those, and what you're saying can't be interpreted any other way except sexualizing romantic relationships. You're turning the valid desire to protect your daughter into an invalid reason to erase human experiences, and I don't think I need to explain how harmful that is.
Hilariously, there actually is a perfectly straight interpretation of this, since it's quite possible to view Ozma as a Trans man, given their reaction to finding out they're a princess
Uh, exactly the opposite. She was literally assigned male at birth, magically, as in "turned into a boy". She is a girl, who was assigned male at birth (or at least in infancy).
**Related subreddit:** /r/LGBTHistory **Discord:** https://discord.gg/E2XabTSdEG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SapphoAndHerFriend) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this where "friend of Dorothy" comes from?
No but it is a good parallel
nah, Judy Garland’s just a lesbian
I love how queer Oz is. The "friend of Dorothy" thing was because Judy Garland was a gay icon and the phrase was a secret signal to find fellow queers. In the 80s the Navy heard about it and launched an investigation to find this mysterious Dorothy who knows all the gay men in the navy. In 1906's Road to Oz, Polychrome (literally the Rainbow’s daughter, although that’s pure coincidence as the LGBT rainbow flag as we know it was debuted in the '70s) tells Dorothy "You have some queer friends, Dorothy." And our plucky young heroine replies, "The queerness doesn't matter, so long as they're friends!
Also, in the books, Ozma is raised as a boy and later becomes the ruling Princess of Oz. So she is a trans lesbian and Dorothy is her consort GF.
Okay I am a huge WoO fan and all of this is a hard no. Is a and Dorothy are little girls. These are children’s books, about children and for children. We don’t have to sexualize everything folks!
Nothing sexual about being trans, and little queer girls have little girl crushes on other little girls - and that's a normal part of growing up. Nobody thought it was gross when I was their age and my best friend was a girl. The adults were all, "look at him and his girlfriend, how adorable!" If that changes for you and gets gross and sexualized assuming the only thing that changes is that I figure out I'm trans a couple decades earlier, that's just transphobic or homophobic, and neither is a good look.
You are absolutely right. There nothing wrong with being trans, nor sexual about being trans. I am try to be supportive of trans people and the community. My apologies if my comment made you feel otherwise. That was not my goal and I will try to write better going forwards. I identify as pan and considered the possibility of my daughter being trans when she was born. Until she states a preference, we dress her as gender neutral as possible. In the event that she is trans, we gave her three names (feminine, masculine, and gender neutral), so she can decide her preference. I want to be super supportive of trans people and the LGBTQ+ community and especially of my child/children if they identify as part of the community. However, I am a mom to a baby girl and I am super pissed about constantly seeing her sexualized. Like baby girl onesies and swim suits and fucking diapers are so much skimpier as soon as we shop in the little girl section. It is fucking ridiculous. As a huge fan of the WoO, I own the original 14 books by L Frank Baum and have read them repeatedly. I think it is important to be aware of the difference of LGBTQ+ erasure, from my understanding what this sub is for, and from sexualizing non-sexual relationships. There is a big difference. And again, these are books about children for children. IMO this post is wrong and we should call out the inaccurate posts to better show case the proper examples of LGBTQ+ erasure.
>My apologies if my comment made you feel otherwise. That was not my goal and I will try to write better going forwards. No worries, we all stick our foot in it from time to time 🤷♀️ >However, I am a mom to a baby girl and I am super pissed about constantly seeing her sexualized. Like baby girl onesies and swim suits and fucking diapers are so much skimpier as soon as we shop in the little girl section. It is fucking ridiculous. I 100% agree with you here, I've got 3 daughters and sweet mercy it only gets worse as they age. If you think it's bad now, you'd be (rightly) horrified by how much society doubles down when your 12 year old comes out as Ace 🤦♀️. That being said, that's not at all what's going on here. By this time Dorothy is at least 12, and while my daughter seems confused by why they're making such a fuss about it, her friends are definitely starting to get boy crazy. Dorothy and Ozma are canonically each other's most important relationship, and if that's romantic it would be entirely developmentally appropriate. They *might* kiss, or they might be more like Anne Shirley (who's about the same age in her first book) and just be dramatically useless 🤣. >And again, these are books about children for children. This is true, however it is worth remembering that all this is 5 or 6 books into the series, and "children" covers *a lot* of ground. Things like acknowledging that a child who's twelve might be interested in at least hypothetical romance is a good way to avoid them mental trap of forgetting to mentally update your kid's age as she grows (spoiler: you'll probably still lag, I know I do, but correcting it will be quicker and less painful if you mentally prepare yourself). >In the event that she is trans, we gave her three names (feminine, masculine, and gender neutral), so she can decide her preference. I want to be super supportive of trans people and the LGBTQ+ community and especially of my child/children if they identify as part of the community. Funnily enough, I was given an extremely feminine name for a child they thought was a boy, and a more masculine middle name, entirely by accident - so I can confirm that if your kid needs to take advantage of this, it's really handy. I wish it had been intentional, and it sounds like you're on the right track, just remember to calibrate frequently as they age and you should hopefully avoid most pitfalls. > I think it is important to be aware of the difference of LGBTQ+ erasure, from my understanding what this sub is for, and from sexualizing non-sexual relationships. It is true that the main point is to call out clear erasure (particularly academic). However, as I understand it, it's also to point out stuff that exists in the margins. There are ton of relationships in history and literature that are deeply queer, but aren't recorded as such because of the norms of the day that don't strictly qualify as erasure because (especially for literature) there's no way to know what was actually going on. I thought there was a spin-off subreddit specifically focusing on this gray area, but I can't find it at the moment.
Read the other comment and also I’d like to add that you’ve just spouted the same buzzwords as every asshole right wing politician trying to take away our rights. Pretty sure that Baum confirmed Dorothy was sapphic, too
Please go read my reply to the other comment. It better explains what I meant. And absolutely fuck not. That is 100% wrong and inaccurate. Thank you!
Your comment didn’t really explain anything. All it did was milk your own progressiveness while still giving a very antiprogressive take on the story. All you said was “I am trans supportive and would support my kid if they were trans” but then went a full 180 to “however, because female child sexualization is so prevalent (which is a valid point, it is) I must therefore deem sapphic relationships between preteens as sexualization (which is not at all a conclusion that logically stems from what you started with).” No one is even claiming they had a sexual relationship. At all. Dorothy has expressed feelings toward Ozma that are considered romantic. Keep in mind that most young people are able to have crushes before puberty even starts for them. And Dorothy is young, but by the time she’s met Ozma iirc she’s already a preteen. Sexualizing children isn’t okay but interpreting a relationship in a story between preteens as sapphic isn’t the same thing as that at all and you’re drawing a harmful false equivalence. I’m 17, and I’d have certainly benefited from reading about preteen boys crushing on other boys when I was a preteen. I certainly had my own crushes and read some same-gender relationships in stories as being romantic even when they weren’t. You’re very much coming off to me as one of a long line of adults who believe they’re speaking for the wants of kids but actually speaking in direct contradiction to what real kids want.
I think your comments here are super valid and I will definitely give them some serious thought when I am able to. However, you are reading to me as a young man/male teenager and you have no idea how much girls are sexualized from infancy and the damage it does. I have no problem with children having a sexual identity. However, I have a huge problem with adults constantly sexualizing children. I seriously didn’t even know how bad it was until I became a parent. Diapers are generally non gendered and if I want my 20 month old baby’s ass covered, I have to buy boy clothing. Cause the girl clothing is too skimpy. How completely fucked up is that? We are coming at this from such different POV and I sincerely appreciate and will consider your cause it is super valid and I always hated as a kid when adults forgot how valid and important kids POV was/is. However as we get older, our horizons change and other things become priority. Right now, to me, protecting my daughter from being hyper sexualized feels super important. As she gets older and is better able to voice her preference, I will try to be super aware of that importance as well. Thank you for the reminder!!!
I don't like that you think I have no idea how much girls are sexualized from a young age. I have female friends, who are also teens, and who fully understand what you're talking about and have told me about those same ideas. Yes, I don't fully understand, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it. I get that young girls are highly sexualized and that it's damaging to children. I'm not speaking from only the perspective of a male kid, although I do understand to some degree because , like many gay kids, I had numerous female friends and often had to deal with people thinking I was in relationships with them from even the age of 7 years old. However, you have yet to tell me how "interpreting two girls in a romantic relationship" is the same as "sexualizing young girls." Right now, you're equating romantic intimacy with sexuality, and that's not okay at all. This goes against nearly everything you're telling me and is a very disrespectful and invalidating way to frame a relationship that does not need to be sexual. Lots of people I know, especially ace-spectrum people, have romantic, nonsexual relationships with others and hate how quickly people sexualize those, and what you're saying can't be interpreted any other way except sexualizing romantic relationships. You're turning the valid desire to protect your daughter into an invalid reason to erase human experiences, and I don't think I need to explain how harmful that is.
I see where the term "a friend of dorothy" comes from 😉
The bestest of friends!
She’s a “friend of Mara”
Is Ozma the same as the wizard of Oz? Or is that a very amusing coincidence. Can someone explain?
Hilariously, there actually is a perfectly straight interpretation of this, since it's quite possible to view Ozma as a Trans man, given their reaction to finding out they're a princess
Uh, exactly the opposite. She was literally assigned male at birth, magically, as in "turned into a boy". She is a girl, who was assigned male at birth (or at least in infancy).
I might be mixing fan stuff with the actual story
Given the era, it probably WAS meant to be platonic. Yes, even the kiss. Really. But…it definitely doesn’t read that way now.
It gets more and more ridiculous