I guess I'll just point out puppets (in entertainment, in therapy, etc) are bits of felt onto which we project human qualities and characteristics and that it is v interesting to me which human qualities and characteristics ppl decide are allowable ones.
I also think re: Bert/Ernie, "Puppets don't have an orientation" is an EXTREMELY HILARIOUS way to describe puppets when you consider their function for most of western theatrical history has been to be extremely horny.
Also you will then have to explain Miss Piggy.
Also you will then have to explain Miss Piggy.
Like, what this discussion actually is about, when you push past its grasping and pointless claims upon canonicity, is whether queer people are allowed to see themselves in art - and, in this case, in art made and shaped in large part by queer creators.
Which is actually a discussion settled back in the 90s, when we recognized they'd never let us in the clubhouse, so we queered work ourselves.
But capitalism wants to claw this back, & "queerbaiting" gave way to pronouncements ex cathedra ("Dumbledore is gay") mattering more.
But capitalism wants to claw this back, & "queerbaiting" gave way to pronouncements ex cathedra ("Dumbledore is gay") mattering more.
Anyway, as usual, authors are sometimes (but very seldom) interesting interpreters of their own work, but that percentage drops exponentially when the "author" is the non-creative corporation with a controlling interest in maximizing the brand.
heterosexuality is a helluva drug. 
