Why do the books (and movies) never actually say Dumbledore is Gay? 

C C exactly! In a doylist lens, characters cant CHOOSE anything. They are products of their creators.

I was going to say the exact same thing. And I can't help but feel like, even if Doylist and Watsonian terminology isn't used, the defenders are well aware of what they're doing. When I suggest that a woman video game character is wearing impractical clothing because the game designer is a perv or is catering to a perv audience (Doylist), responding that it's the character's choice (Watsonian) is a transparent deflection.

True but simply to make a counter-argument for the sake of making a counter-argument: isn't any narrative and visual there to please the narrator and/or the audience? Or should any story mainly serve the characters wants or needs I think the video brings up the interesting conflict between who is the story made for: The reader, and the reader's needs or is it the characters and their needs? And is there a right and/or wrong balance between these two? What's the balance between mindless pleasing entertainment and moral reasoning with fictional characters?

MarkFilipAnthony this seems to forget that, in the question of female objectification, women are ALSO part of the audience and that kind of creative choice is not for our benefit.

Fandom Musings that's true, but women has also the freedoms to sexualise and objectify men in their fiction and stories. Or which or whatever turns the audience and the storyteller on. Everyone has the choice to choose to support, critic and judge a piece of entertainment. I am not saying objecting for pleasing an audience is a good thing, I am only asking the question what the purpose of entertainment is if it's not to please the target audience? I agree that good stories follow good characters and narratives that goes beyond simple eye candy, because a rewarding story to tends to be more satisfactional than simple sexual desire through a characters looks. One should also always acknowledge that these are fictional characters never represent real life or real beauty standards, only fictional. But like I said, it was a question for the arguments sake, not to make a statement on pro objectifying or agains objectifying fictional characters. To ask the The question: what is the purpose of fiction in the first place?

Yes! This! And she keeps doing this in order to grab inclusivity points. For instance, a tweet she replied to asking if there were Jewish students at Hogwarts, and she gave them a single, random name that may or may not have even been mentioned in the books. She keeps making things up after the fact in order to seem "woke" and inclusive, but doesn't ever expound on any of it - or if she does, she does so sloppily and in ways that run contrary to what she wants to achieve (eg: her explanation for why there was no strife between the colonizing English wizards and Native Americans when she released the Ilvermorny materials; it just came off as uneducated and "look how un-racist my creations are!!").

@@ynysafalon yea I feel like she is following that high school musical 2 director type ish like giving thought to a characters sexuality to give clarity to fans

I do t thinkso. Its a fact that she planed out her world and characters long ago and duribg the writing of the poterbooks.Dumbledore being gay Was all over the books hell in book 7 when you read about his and grindelwalds relation to each other you see how much in love he Was...but Sure you only saw friendship

Because they wouldn't accept it back then. Tell me any film, series where an important good character is gay and i don't mean a comedy show.

@@indedgames4359lolll Rowling didn’t plan anything she’s full of shit😂 if you pay attention half of her “pre-planned” plot lines are just plot holes she throws band-aids on because she realizes after the fact that it didn’t make any sense.

Gizensha Fox RIGHT? And yeah, maybe the first few books would have been tough to get it published. But in 2007? And whats the excuse NOW for the new movies?

Heck, you could've just had Rita Skeeter bring it up in her book explicitly because seriously, why the hell from a Watsonian perspective WOULDN'T she say it?

Right!? Because people admitting they are gay in private wasn't invented until the 200s? Or films can't show characters in private moments? Just because something is set in a certain period, doesn't mean we have to adopt the prejudices of that time period.

didn't you know gay people didn't exist in the 90's? stay woke

Gizensha Fox Except that isn't who Dumbledore is. Especially after his split from Grindelwald, he led a very bookish and celibate life. Having him explicitly say he loved Grindelwald isn't realistic, it's serving your own insecurities. You don't need to specifically say something. That's not how life works. Stop pushing your own wants and ideals onto others. Let Dumbledore be Dumbledore.

Because what would that have to do with the plot, Dumbledore's sexuality?

Lexi A lot of stuff happens in the books that doesn't have to do with the direct, main plot, but how Dumbledore felt about Grindewald is kind of central to his story. That's not really my point though, I don't care if he's gay or not. My issue is JKR claiming his sexuality as diversity points after the fact when she didn't write him as gay in the first place and never intended to.

Nena i guess you could say he was never... **puts on shades** ...textual sexual

@@Flowtail I love this 😂

@@slavmetal So let's just say she always knew Dumbledore was gay right? But mind you back then homosexuality was ridiculed and outcasted if there even would have been a mention of homosexuality scholastic and boards of education would have never and I mean NEVER have approved the book for school libraries PERIOD. Idk how old you are but when I was in school saying the word gay whether it was to insult someone or not! Would have got you in trouble I had friend named Taylor her parents are gay men and when she told me that the teacher over heard and she got in trouble for saying my dad's are gay this was back I elementary 2006! Considering the Harry Potter franchise was marketed for kids and marketing Homosexuals to kids back then was the equivalent to spreading the plague so I dont think even if JKR wanted to make any of her characters gay she could have with out jeopardizing her writing career. I mean she really could have if she wanted to but let's be real and ask yourself this: If she would have even put the word gay (in terms of homosexuality not happiness) in any of the books do you honestly believe it would have garnered the success it has made? Do you honestly believe it would have spawned into 1 of the greatest film franchises in cinematic history? But I do not believe Dumbledore was supposed to be gay but she never explicitly said he was straight either he had no female lovers so.... what's the harm in him being gay? I mean call it queer baiting all you want but as a gay man who has been a fan of the series since he was 5 I am happy that the greatest character in the franchise can now represent the LGBT community.

Joe Do Dumbledore mentions he and Grindlewald were closer than brothers

Yo he is so gay in the new movie

Not expressings one sexuality doesnt mean ur not gay...

and vice versa

Exactly now people want to start connecting. Things that have no correlation with sexuality to make things make sense

I did as a kid and thought they were more then just "friends". Just make Dumbledore a woman and read it again. If Dumbledore was a woman no one would think there was nothing between them. I mean their story sounds like a cliche bad boy good girl tragic live story. And I didn't even know what being "gay" was back then. Just thought he seemed to have had a crush on Grindelwald.

Dumbledore is not gay. Never hinted in the Harry Potter books. Also, it's irrelevant

S.A. i mean, arguably it was important in HP too. Theres a whole subplot about dumbles in book 7

Yes his story is deeply touched in majority of the series in HP. This whole gay things made storyline weird, left a bad taste

Dumbledore was never meant to be gay, but the constant pressure to be “woke” took its toll on JK, if Dumbledore was indeed gay it would have definitely been more clearer in the movies and not twisted to fit today’s narrative, sorry my fellow SJWs and LBGTQRSTUVWXYZ ...... friends, hate to break it to y’all..

Thank you!

It's not the ONLY reason I'm feeling frustrated with the series right now (Sticking with Depp AND the completely broken world building don't help) but it really is the final straw.

Oh, massively agree on those two issues. Seriously, why wasn't Farrell just cast as Grindelwald/the main villain, he was playing the dude the entire movie and I thought he was fantastic. The world-building for American wizards should've been triply checked by various American fans to make sure it wasn't awful before she published anything about it. This bit really is the final nail for my enthusiasm.

Agreed. Yeah, no, the reveal that he was gay came in 2007, a few months after publication, loong before the FB movies were on the table.

um then you're wrong because he's gay.... what you think isnt right. Just because someone is dedicated to their job doesn't mean their asexual...... that's quite offensive to imply. what ru even talking about?

@@aandrewa4238 he is abcenent in the way a shaolin monk or a nun would be

@@aandrewa4238 he's not gay get mad about it

@@KeatonBonner He is gay, since the Author made it canon by her own words, and in the epilogue of fantastic beasts :) It's official, it's done, he is gay and not straight

@@KeatonBonner I'm not mad about it, I know it. You can't just deny something because you don't like it, that's just called being delusional. You probably weirdly get mad and infuriated at the fact that people get turned on by the same sex that your willing to say a fact is a lie, when the only lie is what your saying.

Sassy Gay Justice lol. You are very welcome.

I did! I'm in the middle of it right now, actually.

Something with with high school musical 2 with the baseball scene trying give lgbt community the limelight even tho it had nothing to do with sexuality

Bingo

No but jk rowling made dumbledore up so he is gay.... and has a say on his character since SHE is the author.

It's also added to the fantastic beast movie so therefore it is part of the story

@@DGS_1992 No but jk rowling made dumbledore up so he is gay.... and has a say on his character since SHE is the author.

SamWallace Artisan I didnt event watsonian or doylist. Theyve been around for decades. Secondly, its not the question itseld that differs, but the context of the discussion. Critique vs headcanon.

Diegesis is a term typically for the analysis of film and film-making, and refers to whether or not it is a part of the cannon world, or a signaler strictly for the audience. It is rarely used to refer to books (at least in my experience) and is used to determine WHETHER something is in-universe or not, rather than WHY something is in-universe or not.

Cule Chick Good point

Also, non-diegetic is usually used in criticism to describe stuff that is happening on stage/in film but that isn't meant to be read as actually occuring in the world of the narrative (ie, in the stage show Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, the narrator is onstage singing, but we know that she isn't really there in the main narrative). What's more, I think "Watsonian" hits at something specific about storytelling that diegetic doesn't cover, because Watson is himself a storyteller. So when we use the Watsonian lens, we can in good conscience stretch things a little to make them fit what we know or see in the real world, or to fit them into cultural contexts. If there were a such thing as the Holmesian lens, that would be the one devoted to using exclusively in-world clues about, say, Dumbledore's sexuality. People using this non existant Holmesian lens are the ones saying "hey this can't be right, there are literally no clues to indicate Dumbledore's queerness" where people using the Watsonian lens are saying "here's a way this could possibly have been true within the narrative if we expand/embellish on it using details that could have been part of the narrative, but weren't." And "diegetic/non diegetic" don't really capture that story-within-a-story as well.

Caperk ! Fair points. Still doesn’t make Watsonian sound less contrived to me. I’d go with Textual and Meta-Textual, as that says what it actually is rather than making a culturally dependent reference. Then again, I *do* say “lit” instead of “legitimate”, so I’m not exactly a lexical referee.

I mean, I would argue that "well, magic disabled people just don't exist/ disabled people can't have magic" to be....insulting at the least.

I wasn't saying that disabled people can't have magic, I'm saying that magic can either help or downright cure disabilities.

@@thegarunixking1101 so, you're arguing that disabled witches dont exist.

I'm saying there wouldn't be any, yes. I'm not trying to denigrate the experience of anyone who is disabled, I'm just stating the fact that, given the capability of medicine in the wizarding world, people with disabilities would be able to receive treatment that would, in essence, alleviate their disability entirely, rendering them no longer disabled. Isn't it a good thing that these people can be helped to the maximum potential? If, say, in the real world, we managed to discover ways to completely fix blindness, paralysis, cancer, everything, would _that_ be "insulting at the least"? No, it'd just be medicine.

@@thegarunixking1101 1. Thats super complicated depending on the disability. Many deaf advocates for example, would take umbridge with the idea that their subculture and communities should be eliminated. 2. The idea that all disabilities can just be wand waved away means that there's no representation for disabled people in the series AND 3. Mad Eye totally has prosthetics. So clearly not all disabilities can be wholly cured.

His relationship with Grindlewald was a major subplot of the 7th book. And not everything in a story works in direct service of the plot Sometimes details exist for character development, world building, or thematic depth.

Dyslexic Laef I think she was doing it for the right reasons. (Dumbledore being gay, characters being Jewish/Catholic/Wiccan, Hermione's race being ambitious) To me, following her interviews and Twitter for ages and understanding how she writes, it feels like she may have an impression of a character but keeps things vague for the reader to make their own headcannon, and so she may be able to use an ambiguity over a character for plot points later on. (Using indirect ways of placing a character or plot point is a pretty distinct aspect of her writing.) Incidentally, she did do a good job keeping Hermione's race uncertain. Her skin tone is mentioned only once in the series (as in her face was 'white (from fear)). If a black girl somewhere was able to project herself on Hermione, that would be cool.

Troy Edwards like I said I don't think she did it from the start and in my opinion If someone is going to be gay black or whatever do it from the start and dont just add it on later it just makes it seem shallow and fake

She totally did. Pure opportunism. Why risk losing money when you write it, just make up some bs later.

@@DampWetstew if she had wanted readers to be able to make up their own head Luca on she wouldn’t have said that Dumbledore was gay. My head canon never said that Dumbledore was gay and it was never an issue when I read all 7 books. Her saying that one of the main characters is gay after the fact actually changed how I look back on the books. And not for the better.

The idea that we should excuse the lack of representation because jkr wanted to coddle homophobes is a had take

@@fandommusings5302 your explanation doesn’t even make sense. What does “ had take “ supposed to mean.

HorseMonkey18 it is relevant to the plot. Theres an entire subplot in book 7 about his past and his past with gellert.

That's a watsonian defense of a doylist critique.

Albuss past feelings for Gellert make up an entire subplot of DH and gets several chapters dedicated to it. So. Ya know. You're wrong.

@@reluctantlydancing his homosexuality is like the color grey and blue he wears through out the series, who cares? The story isnt about him. That's re ally the crux of the argument.

I think you missed the point. Albus' romantic feelings WERE important to the story. They had a huge impact on an entire subplot of book 7, but because those feelings weren't made clear, we lacked a lot of context that could have made that prominent subplot more impactful. And obviously- I CARE. I made a whole video about it.

Weird how those kids apparently gave so many shits about Snape and Remus and Hagrid's straight love affairs.

Whoosh. Missed the point

How can a character not be in canon what their creator says?

Even the bit about wizards pooping their pants? I think refusing to put representation because it might mean the homophones don't give you as much money is....not very nice.

No, its not a nice gesture on her part when you think it through on what she did. No where in the books does it bring up the fact DumbleDore, DD, is gay. Not one point any where in the books. They are children's books and they where released in the '90s. In the '90s having a outright gay character would have impacted sales of the books, in a big way. So when it became safe to have a gay character, years after she had already made her money, she just says "by the way Dumbledore is gay." She is just jumping on the bandwagon years after it was safe for her to do so. I'm surprised more gay people haven't picked up on this and raised hell. My gay friends after I pointed this out where livid.

MarkFilipAnthony im going to disagree with you there. Dumbledores feelings were Gellert were VERY important to his character and motivation, and would have helpes develop the themes of love further in the story. It was just as, if not more, important than plenty of other things we spend time on.

Fandom Musings yes, but it wasn't just romantic love that doumbledore didn't open about, all types of love in general. Love to his family, even love towards his friends, or Harry. I think that's the irony of the character, he was all about the magic of love, and how love was the most important thing, but his own love life both romantic and general relationship was always hard and complicated. He was never a really openly private person, most things we get to know about him we get to know through other characters rather than himself. So almost everything we know are subjective view points, of people who new him. So if people didn't know he was gay, or what he felt about people in general, it wasn't mentioned or simply just theorised through other characters. The closest we get is his portrait crying in the stageshow 'the cursed child', but many doesn't consider it canon, or necessarily accurate information as it's a portraits feelings, not necessarily 100% how he felt in real life. My point is that if it was important for Rowling to explore doumbledore sexuality for the narrative and necessary for Harrys journey into defeating voldemort, I'm sure it would've been made into a bigger point. Overall she doesn't mention any other characters sexuality ether, rather the opposite anything to do with sexual attraction seem to not be mentioned in the books at al, yes crushes etc but mainly only Harry's. Most other characters relationship is stuff she has added later. In the same interview with Steve cloves she mentions how she has this major big back story for McGonnagal as a strong female character but she never found room or reason to fit it into the books, as the books were mainly about harry, so why would he need this info out her?

MarkFilipAnthony this whole video is about how there are OTHER Doylist reasons why it never came up. Because Dumbledores past IS important. Book 7 spent a LOT of time on it, and to only be told half truths in the text about the past of a person that makes up a whole subplot is....well.

Fandom Musings i understand ur reasoning, and everyone to their own opinion. In some ways dumbledore as a character is most interesting when u Don't know that much about him anyway. I think we've got to know enough about him in the 7th book for what was needed for the narrative. Of course as a fan I would love to explore more of his character and his life, but I thought they might do it in the fantastic beast movies. But if they don't, maybe we'll see what kind of "relationship" , dumbledore and grindelwald had in the first place. It always seemed to me that dumbledores love for grindelwald was very complicated, if I'm not wrong Rowling also stated that it wasn't a mutual love, but one sided thing. So maybe dumbledores "gayness" wasn't even that big of a thing, he seems to suppress a lot of feelings in general. Who know, I at least didn't feel his sexuality really mattered for enjoying the character nor understand the narrative. But I understand how "representation" for a lot of fans is important

MarkFilipAnthony i mean this is tje nicest possible way- its very....heterosexual logic to assume that being gay (in Britain, at a time when it was criminalized) wouldnt have had a big impact on his life. We know the fall out from gellert is why he never persued politics, and why he waited so long to stop gellert as an adult. That part of his identity gives a lot of context for everything he did.

"Fixed" kinda.

D4rk Inside Thematically, Harry Potter is a story about love, the power of love, how love can save and even redeem. So ignoring the way that the love Albus and Gellert had in many ways redeemed Gellert is a real loss. Not exploring how love specifically crafted Dumbledores own beliefs is a loss. Narratively, not Acknowleging the romance between Albus and Gellert weakens their whole backstory. (Dumbledores motivations to stay out of politics, gellerts actions in keeping the wand from Voldemort , why albus is estranged from aberforth) Which has a whole subplot in book 7. It weakens the motivations of the characters by obscuring them.

D4rk Inside there are multiple times when dumbledore and gellerts "friendship" was discussed where it would have made perfect sense to reveal the nature of their relationship. Most notably at Kings Cross. Dumbledore is already talking about gellert, how he "inflamed" him, even sheds a tear at the news of gellerts death. It would have been perfectly natural and logical to have a "oh, how I loved him" in there as well.

But Dumbledore doesn't need more backstory für Harry and how would people have known that he was in Love with Gellert? That doesn't make sense. Harry doesn't need to now that Dumbledore had a thing for the former dark lord and it's well done, that Harry just gets to know that Dumbledore could not kill Grindelwald. How should that weakens the whole backstory and like @MarkFilipAnthony and @Cyan L. said: It doesn't madder to Harry. It would have an impact on Harry when Sirius and Remus came out of the closed and decided to adopt Harry. But Dumbledore being gay? Not so much.

Its kinda foolish to say that race and sexuality dont directly affect characters.

@Ro Grant - you're a saint

But it was part of the story. Dumbledore's backstory and his relationship with Gellert is an entire subplot in book 7

Fandom Musings True, Dumbledore's love life was more relevant, especially in book seven. I still think Harry was more concerned with Albus and Gellert's oppressing Muggle theories, which was way more relevant to the story.

Their relationship is the reason it took so long for Dumbledore to stop Gellert, a good part of the reason why Dumbledore never went into politics, and why Gellert refused to give Voldemort the location of the Elder wand. Pretty relevant.

Fandom Musings You're making some good points. I need to rethink this.

There was an entire subplot about his ex boyfriend in book 7. So...it probably should have come up

I really don't mind that it doesn't mention he's gay in the Harry Potter series because it's not that important to the plot. What does bother me is that their won't be any representation of Dumbledore being gay in the Fantastic Beast series especially since he's suppose to be fighting the person he loves. They should at least confirm that he's gay in a book or film otherwise it will seem like JKR was lying to get attention.

Yes, I know her back story is revealed later but it’s never in the text so why is it an issue?

Question one. Is JKR responsible as an author to address any and all potential issues of minority representation? Do you have any idea how long a book would be if it were asked to address in a preventative way the of the social issues that might be impacted by the mention of them or absence of the mention? Every book would be required to have both a male and a female hero figure. There would never be a single hero. For every thing one did the other would require an equal action so as to ensure neither appeared more heroic or valuable than the other. There would always have to be both a male and a female sidekick, and again equally portrayed. There would have to be a set for both heroes. You would need to ensure the hero and sidekick relationship never portrayed a specific gender in a diminutive position. All literature would be required to follow a strict literary dualism for every character and archetype. And then you need to address the issue of visual identity. How does your story promote proactively the equality of skin colour or body shape. How do you write a story with both a male and female as well as perceived racial equality. Two white here's, to of Asian descent, to of African decent, two of north American heritage. None of the them can be perceived in this one story as more able or intelligent. And then we move on to ability. Are all issues of ability acknowledged and represented in a positive way? How many of these character address social class, sexuality, age, or any number of other issues that may make some one upset at their lack of mention or perceived value? Is the lack of mention within the story an automatic indication of hostile intent? Would you as a reader want to read a book ten times longer than the original story that was simply filled in with all the dry content added to pad it out for all those reasons? No having Dumbledore specifically mention his sexuality wouldn't take that much page space. But that only one issue. If you mention and address it you now HAVE to write additional content to prove how other feel about it. You have to prove he's out and proud. You have to prove non of the teachers or anyone else thinks less of him. You have to prove sexuality within the wizarding world is viewed negatively and rather is promoted. So now all the teachers have to randomly mention it and in a positive way. Fudge and other high ranked people have to be given page space to do the same. Additional characters would need to be created to ensure a proper distribution of positive perception of him with the full knowledge of his sexuality. It isn't a one off mention. You can't just say it and walk away. If you open the box you have to go the distance. Two Would the inclusion of the things mentioned as absent add to the story itself? How does the issue of staircase or ramp accessories to the school impact the story? I'm not asking if some one some where would be happy to see it, I'm asking if it impacts the actual story. Do any of the character require require it creating a plot hole because there is nothing referenced? Is it important to the story? Does it change or affect the story? Is there a value to the story in adding the cost of additional pages? Three Very specifically, how would the mention of Dumbledore's sexuality impact the story? Does it add to the story? Would the outcome of the story change? Let's consider the story. Does the issue impact Harry, his friends, or any other character? Is this an issue the affecting Harry? If none of the principal hero or sidekick characters are experiencing an issue related to their sexuality what would it serve the story to add this detail explicitly? Let's say Dumbledore mentioned it to Harry. How would the story be perceived? From the Doyle perspective, what happens? Tell me how both children and parents are going to perceive an elderly man taking an interest in a young boy telling him that he is gay? The issue isn't that he's gay. The issue is that everyone even if they are gay is going to think Dumbledore is a pedophile. The entirety of society weather they are gay or not is going to be worried about the interest of an old man to a young boy. It isn't a fair worry probably, but that isn't going to stop people from worrying. It isn't going to stop schools and libraries from banning the book because they think it promotes it. From the Watson perspective what happens? Why would Dumbledore choose to share that information with Harry? How should Harry react? Again, Harry is already dealing with the question of his place and acceptance through his status as an orphan. Through his interactions with his muggle family, Snape, Draco. Every year a evil dead wizard attempts to come back to life and kill Harry. Harry doesn't need an addition reason to question himself. Would it affect how Harry interacts to him? Would it affects how any of the other characters interact with Harry or Dumbledore? Should it? Is there an issue important to the story that would be served? Part 4 I'm not going to lie and say your choice doesn't upset me. I find it to be click bait at the very least and as a member of the LGTB I find it offensive. I despise social justice in all its forms. As for the intent and a critique of the video itself on that basis I think the essay suffers because the purpose of the video isn't actually clear until near the end. As an educational tool on the differences between in canon and real world reasons for things I think you did a good job. However, at the end you suddenly swerve into the issue of structuring a debate arguement on perspectives that don't relate directly with eachother. In the end I feel like you lured me in with a click bait topic, used it to explain something valuable, and then complained about people disrespecting a debate by arguing additional perspectives rather than remaining on topic. I feel like the purpose of this video was to lure me in and impress me to the point I'd listen to you whine. If at any point in the books or movies an old man appeared to be luring an under age person in and preparing him or her, I would have walked away and never looked back. There is no GOOD reason for his sexuality to be explicitly addressed.

Pinki Mietz im going to disagree with you there. Dumbledores feelings were Gellert were VERY important to his character and motivation, and would have helpes develop the themes of love further in the story. It was just as, if not more, important than plenty of other things we spend time on.

ManaPeerfr i...answered the question from multiple perspectives and discussed the merits of those perspectives.

how can a _book_ be gay?

Darcy Joyce youve missed the point. And if you think that any and all critique of media should be met with "well the author wanted it like that so tough" then you really dont understand the purpose or value of media analysis.

Fandom Musings This honestly could come down to a difference in values because I think media analysis past how it effected you on a personal level to be kind of worthless. Nothing against your believes or videos but trying to tally the medias effect on the great human consciousness is just speculation unless you can prove it with maths. For the record I really liked how it was never explicitly stated that Dumbledore was gay, gave the character a sense of secrecy and hammered home the fact that he locked all feelings of love to pursue power. I also agree that its a missed opportunity that we dont get to see Dumbledore and his ex lover together in the prequel films, could add context to the other films which is what prequels should do. One quick question, is it ever stated in the books or films that being gay is accepted in the Wizarding world? I am honestly just curious