Okay, I’ll bite. But publicly, because I want everyone to see what a fucking scumbag you are. 

So, first off. You make this post in which you make the following points, which I will now pull apart.

• it’s a complete rip off of Sherlock (which, let’s be very honest here, it is)

Wrong! Elementary is an adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes stories, set in modern time. This is not an idea the BBC has ever laid claim to, mostly because that would be utterly absurd. The source material for the characters and stories does not belong to them, and since Elementary is set in New York, the only thing even similar between the two is that it’s set in our current time. Adapting novels to a modern time is not new - look at the long history we have of doing just that. The BBC ran an entire series of films adapted from Shakespeare plays a few years back, and in fact, the basis for the American show House M.D. is a modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes in a new setting and modern era. CBS and Elementary have “ripped off” precisely fuck all.

• My problem is firstly the de-gaying and secondly the humanisation of Sherlock’s character.

My problem is firstly your persistent use of the phrase “de-gaying”, which if nothing else, implies that the character of Sherlock Holmes has ever been shown as actually and canonically gay. You can make an argument for the subtext in the original books being all that ACD could show due to the  time and the way homosexuality was treated then, but you can make no such argument for the BBC Sherlock adaptation - which, since you compared it to Elementary to start with, I will continue to bring up. Where are your complaints about the “de-gaying” of BBC Sherlock, when the very idea of having him and Watson as a couple is played off near-constantly as a joke? 

My second problem is that you feel “the humanisation” of Sherlock is a bad thing. I’m staring at this sentence and utterly failing to understand why you felt the need to type it. But you haven’t specified what humanizing Sherlock entails yet, so I will leave this point for now.

• Watson is the human one-he (or she in this case) is the one who apologises

Watson should be the only one that apologises? Now I’m even more confused. What are you comparing this to, exactly? ACD canon, or BBC Sherlock? Or nothing at all, since Sherlock Holmes apologises at least once in every iteration. More to the point, why are you opposed to that? Sherlock Holmes is a terrible person, he is rude and insulting and frankly in the BBC version that is ramped up far beyond what it should be. Why shouldn’t he be the one to apologise? In canon, Watson certainly doesn’t do it for him. If you are again comparing to the BBC version, I should point out that even this iteration of John Watson frequently demands Sherlock atone and apologise for things he has done (even if BBC Watson is happy to ignore his coffee being drugged or abuse of other people, but will sulk at length when Sherlock reacts badly to a fear toxin.)

• Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are the gay ship-whichever incarnation they’re in. They always have been,

I see, so your objection to Elementary is that with Watson as a woman, you will no longer be able to connect with her or see any kind of chemistry with Holmes? I’m sorry to break it to you, friend, but that is you fetishizing gay relationships, and it really really is disgusting. You’ve just proven that you aren’t shipping Holmes and Watson for the chemistry the characters create, but for the fact that they are two men fucking.

• If they wanted a girl, I feel like they should have made them both girls

But that has been done, quite a lot! And again, this plays into the idea that the Holmes/Watson relationship is only worth caring about if it is a gay one. This is still fucking disgusting, and completely robs gay people of any semblance of personhood.

• By only switching one of their genders, it basically feels like CBS just wanted to de-gay Sherlock Holmes. 

Your obsession with a gay Holmes continues, despite a total lack of him being canonically gay in any iteration you have mentioned yet. Sherlock Holmes can be gay even if Watson is a woman, did you know that? Sherlock Holmes can be any sexual identity at all, while still viewing Watson as the most important person in his life.

• What I do know is that making Sherlock Holmes so aggressively straight (the reference to something serious involving a woman back in London) feels very very wrong to me. Conan Doyle didn’t write him that straight-if anything he wrote him as almost asexual-which is how he is generally played. Pretty much asexual but with a very deep fondness for Watson (which every fangirl/boy in the world knows is true love) he never shows any sign of being interested in women. 

Aggressively straight? Oh, right, because you’re gay or you aren’t, there’s no in-between. CBS Sherlock cannot be bisexual, or as you mentioned with his ace leanings, bi-romantic. Of course not, not at all. Sherlock Holmes cannot be anything other than 100% sexually gay - but wait, didn’t you say something about him being asexual? Okay, Sherlock Holmes cannot be anything other than 100% asexual homoromantic and entirely in love with a male, gay, Watson. Despite the fact that Watson marries in canon. Despite the fact that Watson dates women in the BBC series and vehemently denies that he is anything other than, as you said, aggressively straight.  In fact, what Elementary has done is much more interesting, because Holmes shows no real interest in women beyond total disdain. In forcing a canon-compliant Holmes to share his life with a female Watson, CBS can now deconstruct that dislike and show that the Watson/Holmes bond is based entirely in the characters themselves, and will not change if Watson happens to be a woman. 

-

Well, the Elementary fandom called you out for those terrible and harmful views, and for tagging them with the fandom tag. You, in response, made this post. You open it with this little gem:

• To everyone in the fandom who’s seen the need to attack me and everyone else who’s expressed even the slightest problem with your show

You’ve been attacked? God, that’s awful. Let me look at the reblogs from your first post to see what awful hurtful things have been said!

I just read this I think I have understood what you said, 

Well, okay, that’s not hate, but there must be some in the reblogs! Next link -

 I’M PRETTY SURE CONAN DOYLE DIDN’T WRITE THE SHERLOCK HOLMES MYSTERIES TO QUELL THE FANGIRLS’ RAGING THIRST FOR NOT-EVEN-EVIDENT ANAL SEX. FICTIONAL CHARACTERS SERVE MORE OF A PURPOSE THAN ‘SHIPPING’. IF ANYTHING, THE WRITERS OF ELEMENTARY ARE TRULY PUTTING THEIR CREATIVITY AND THESE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO THE TEST BY MAKING WATSON A WOMAN AND NOT IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH SHERLOCK. ON TOP OF THAT, HOMOSEXUALS AREN’T THERE FOR YOUR FANFICTIONS, EITHER.

No, I’m pretty sure that isn’t an attack either. That right there is a clear and concise refutation of your points.

OP — are you actually serious or is this a joke?

Such rabid hate, good golly.

If BBC Sherlock and Elementary have any similarities it’s because they share source material or they’re both supposed to be modern takes on a series written in the 1800s. If you think that Elementary Sherlock is too human and therefore out of character, stop, because that’s truer to the canon than you’re apparently aware of. That whole rude asshole thing BBC Sherlock has is pretty much nothing more than alternative character interpretation taken as canon fact. Third, Holmes and Watson actually aren’t gay men canonically so there’s nothing to de-gay. That’s strictly personal interpretation. Turning Watson into a woman isn’t going to change their relationship in that respect.

I’m…. still not seeing any attacks, frankly. Anger, maybe. Frustration. A lot of good points.

Sherlock Holmes and Watson are not canonically gay in the books; Watson falls convincingly and touchingly in love with Mary Morstan and marries her. He notices women a lot, too. If Holmes has sex, he probably wouldn’t tell Watson about it, and if he did, Watson wouldn’t write it down for the Victorian readers of his stories (which you can also use to argue any Sherlockian theory you like).

I am a little puzzled why you object to what you consider “degaying” and “humanizing” Holmes. Is it good to think of a character as gay and “inhuman”? What does this achieve, exactly? And why do people want Holmes to be portrayed as just an uncaring machine? Can anyone explain this to me?

Nope, still no hate.

There’s NO GAY SUBTEXT in the relationship between John and Sherlock because they are NOT GAY. Not in the original books, and NOT IN BBC!SHERLOCK. There certainly IS a major dose of queerbaiting by Moffat & co, BUT JOHN AND SHERLOCK ARE FRIENDS…. ONLY.

I admit, that reblog then goes on to imply that the subtext in the books isn’t there, which is something I disagree with, but that still isn’t hate or an attack.

And finally -

You seem misinformed. 

All this is fine, Except:

• It’s not a rip off of BBC Sherlock. It’s simply another Sherlock Holmes adaption. 
• Sherlock is far more human in the original ACD stories than in the BBC Sherlock series. Elementary’s Sherlock is probably much closer to the canon in that respect. 
• Just because you read gay subtext into the canon Holmes/Watson relationship does NOT make it some kind of betrayal that it is no longer there. CBS did NOT “De-gay” Sherlock, because Sherlock is not canonly gay. 

Frankly, I’m still not seeing any hate, or any attacks.

I mean, that said, there’s a definite air of frustration to things like these, but that makes sense in context. You see, ever since Elementary was proposed, the tag for the show has been completely full of BBC Sherlock fans making racist, sexist, and otherwise really gross comments. Just look at onlyforthepressed, which has an entire backlog of awful things the Sherlock Fandom have posted in our tag. 

But anyway, back to your post!

• To the rest of you: I find it really amusing that you guys are saying that the Sherlock fandom is really nasty because they’re not saying that Elementary is ‘fantastic and amazing and the best adaptation of Sherlock Holmes ever’.

• I’ve seen a lot of posts by people expressing their honest opinion of the show (myself included) which haven’t been rude or openly aggressive towards the show, they have just pointed out each person’s opinion of its flaws, and they have all been jumped on by the Elementary fandom. And you guys are rude. Now I’m not saying that you’re all like this, but the ones of you that are-please get over yourselves.

I’ve just explained those things, but I’m going to also advise that you have a quick google and look up the words “tone policing”. If you are in the tag, being rude, and saying awful things - nobody has any responsibility to be nice to you. You’ve thrown the first punch.

• I think you’ll find that Sherlock Holmes is one of the weirdest most messed up characters to ever grace literature. He’s a drug addict at varying degrees of dependency throughout, he has long periods of catatonic depression, disappears for long periods of time and almost lives double lives at times.

Yes. And CBS is showing him being a drug addict in a realistic setting (BBC didn’t), experiencing depression realistically (BBC didn’t), and generally fitting exactly to canon. 

• Many scholar’s agree that he is on the Aspergers spectrum. So excuse you all when you say that the BBC Sherlock is more weird than the book canon. If we’re comparing to the book canon then BBC’s Sherlock is closer, but that wasn’t even the point I was making, all I was saying was that Elementary’s Sherlock was too normal and human. You guys brought the comparison to the BBC take into the mix.

I’m not going to make the point that you brought up the BBC comparison, in favour of juxtaposing your two main ideas in this paragraph.

1. Sherlock Holmes is on the Autism Spectrum.
2. “ Elementary’s Sherlock was too normal and human.”

Do you see how this is a really really bad thing to say? I can explain, if you don’t. You are equating being “normal” and “human” with not being Autistic. Do you know what that implies? It implies that you as a person do not think that anyone on the Spectrum is normal, and that you do not even view them as human. That is a bad, bad, bad thing to say, and you need to not think like that because it’s fucking awful.

I really hope I don’t need to explain why.

• As to the second, yes subtext is just that-subtext-however my point was that there is a lot of it in the books, and that Sherlock Holmes and John Watson were the gay ship before shipping even existed, and I PERSONALLY think it’s wrong to mess with that relationship.

I fail to see how making Watson a woman messes with their relationship in any form besides making it not a gay one.

• Apart from the obvious thing with them living together and really having no relationships with other people until Watson marries Mary (which could easily be nothing yeah, but a lot of people read into it and you can’t change that)

I’m… I’m sorry? You accuse people of not reading the books and then you claim that Watson marrying Mary could easily be nothing? Despite the way that it is written, despite his love and admiration for her, despite all of that?

•  I never, at any point, said it was canon. It’s not canon. That doesn’t mean it’s not still widely accepted and acknowledged as more than what it perhaps is.

You’re preaching to the choir here. The problem isn’t that it’s subtextual, the problem is that you are treating it like it is canon, like Joan Watson is breaking up decades and decades of explicit canon gayness. She isn’t. You just admitted that.

• Sherlock Holmes is an iconic character. He is freaking messed up, antisocial and probably asexual (though subtext does imply that he’s possibly gay). 

We’ve addressed this. CBS is adhering to all of these things so far.

• With a character as iconic as Holmes there is a line you can go up to with the liberties you take with characterisation. I feel Elementary has crossed that line. He’s not Sherlock Holmes anymore. Say what you want about it making him more up to date and modern-you can modernise him without making him too normal. 

Again, you break out the word “normal” when you want to criticize this new version of Holmes. 

• Yes, he did things which were a little weird (TVs, writing a book in his head) but they’re not Sherlock Holmes weird-they’re all those other really clever genius detectives in American procedural dramas weird. 

Please stop equating not being neurotypical to being “weird”. It’s still awful, and you really need to stop.

• As for the car thing, yes the book canon of Holmes gets angry-but he’s not good at expressing emotion-and most likely show that degree of anger so openly.

So the point you are making here is… what? Sherlock Holmes is not allowed to be openly angry? Once more I point you to canon, I point you to the BBC show that you started by comparing it to. If that is a problem you have, then it’s a problem you have with every adaptation. Where is your “problems I have with canon Holmes” post, or your “problems I have with BBC Sherlock” post?

• Now if you want to call me childish, uninformed, stupid, immature, rude, sexist..whatever..then go ahead. 

You are childish for assuming that a fact correction is a personal attack. You are uninformed because you equate being human with not being Autistic. You are stupid for thinking that tagging your hate with the show would not lead to backlash. You are immature for making a follow-up post which you again tag with the show name, and then accuse the fans who corrected you of being rude. You are rude because you think that your opinions on gay relationships matter more than actual gay people who are sick of being fetishized, dehumanized, and treated like playthings for your shipping. You are sexist for thinking that casting Watson as a woman will in any way change her character interactions with Holmes on an emotional level.

• I have an opinion, I’m expressing it, you guys need to learn to not get so aggressive when people disagree with you. The whole world won’t always share your opinions, and you can’t attack someone every time you disagree with them.

Tone Policing:

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone.

This is sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar — a particular variant of the tone argument.

The tone argument is logically fallacious because tone does not affect the truth or falsity of a proposition. Focusing on tone rather than content grants an unrestricted license to avoid engaging with sound arguments, protecting the derailing party’s own arguments from logical scrutiny.

One way in which the tone argument frequently manifests itself is as a call for civility. The key to understanding whether a request for civility is sincere or not is to ask whether the person asking for civility has more power along whatever axes are contextually relevant (see Intersectionality) than the person being called “incivil”, less power, or equal power. Often, people who have the privilege of being listened to and taken seriously level accusations of “incivility” as a silencing tactic, and label as “incivil” any speech or behavior that questions their privilege. For example, some men label any feminist thought or speech as hostile or impolite; there is no way for anybody to question male power or privilege without being called rude or aggressive. Likewise, some white people label any critical discussion of race, particularly when initiated by people of color, as incivil.

For people who find themselves on the more-privileged side in any particular interaction, an alternative to asking one’s interlocutor to be more civil is to think about the reasons why they might be speaking in a way that seems angry or hostile to you, and listen for the truth in what they’re saying. Do they seem angry to you because they intend to hurt, or because they’re frustrated about having their voices unheard and their perspectives erased over and over? Most discussions are more productive when people forgive apparent insults and model the behavior they wish to see, rather than derailing the conversation into the particulars of the other’s etiquette. When practiced by a more privileged person, a request for civility can come across as both controlling and disingenuous. Asserting oneself as the one who gets to define civility can come across as a way to show dominance, as well as reflecting a conflict of interest: if you’re the less-privileged person in the conversation, you may ask yourself: “Do they really think I was impolite, or do they just have an interest in not being criticized?”

Or, to use an example from you, here is your response to a reblog of your second post which called out your damaging ideas regarding Autism and humanity.

(link to the ask and reply are on the image above)

Although frankly, that entire conversation you are having made me throw up in my mouth a little. (2nd ask)

I genuinely don’t understand why ladyshinkicker is even attempting to treat you with anything approaching respect or civility. (3rd)

And now, finally, we get to my ask, and your quiet reply.

It’s okay, I understand keeping it off of your blog.

Gotta be impartial about this, after all.

Can’t just post people agreeing with you.

Obviously.

So now. I think I’ve covered why I’m angry at you, why claiming Elementary fans reclaiming their tag are “giving the fandom a bad name” is patronizing tone-policing horseshit, and I’ve detailed exactly where you implied that Autisic people aren’t human.

Onto your reply!

I do not need to sort my attitude out, because there is nothing wrong with my attitude. You made me angry, I sent you an angry message. The tone of that message is the one I set out to achieve, and you are, once again, tone policing. 

When you used the word human, you meant capable of recognizing emotion! You didn’t mean to imply that Autistic people aren’t human!

Oh, but wait, shit. 

You did imply that they aren’t human, and you’ve yet to apologise for that or delete the paragraph in which you say just that.

And then, without apologizing or admitting that your point was bullshit, you go onto say that when you implied Autisic people weren’t human, you actually just meant to say that they’re incapable of recognizing emotion!

Well, that makes it all better, then, doesn’t it? 

Hint: no it doesn’t.

Hint: me calling you out on being a dreadful sack of shit is not giving the fandom a bad name. Can I level with you here? Letting someone with views like yours keep talking would be giving the fandom a bad name.

In conclusion: you are literally scum. You are bad and you should feel bad. I hopefully await your short and succinct apology for being so awful, but will not be surprised at all if you either ignore this post or reblog it and try and deny the shitty things you have said.

Also I capped both of your rants. Just in case.