putting in a gay character isn’t forcing an agenda. homosexuality isn’t an agenda. i know this may seem very shocking, but gay people have always existed and theres nothing wrong with portraying that. same goes for people of color. black people and gay people weren’t invented in 2001. i know, shocking!! also, the story seems even more optimistic with anne’s ptsd being talked about bc she has managed to remain cheerful despite all she’s been through. the show still has the heart of the books.

issues-of-thepresentday:

You still didn’t get my point, did you? I am in no way claiming that gay or black people didn’t exist back then, but sure, go off i guess, and try to make me out to be some racist southerner from the 1950s. (You know, straw-manning me).

That’s like saying that [insert demographic here] existed back in jane austen’s time, so therefore we HAVE to include it even though it has no true place in the story.

Because the story isn’t about them or being “inclusive”. It’s just a STORY. 

If you have to change and add in things to make a classic (that has already held itself up for a century) “”””better”””, then it’s bullshit. It shows you don’t care about the story. You care about YOUR agenda – the show runner has actually ADMITTED into wanting to turn the show into some queer-friendly thing. I’m not making it up. 

You don’t add in extra characters to a book to fulfil a diversity quota, ESPECIALLY not in one set in a turn-of-the-century classic! You want to make a “queer friendly” show? Then for goodness’ sake, write your OWN show, don’t inject it into an already existing story that attracts its audience solely from the existing nostalgia around the title! It’s just plain laziness and betrayal.