So most of the response to this PSA has been thunderously positive, of course, with people who feel like they’ve never had any kind of formal representation now having it spelled out in unambiguous terms, and declaring that they feel seen and validated for the first time by pop culture. But of course, it also has attracted its share of gatekeepers, with their folded arms and upturned noses—who to the last seem to intentionally misconstrue the spot in order to launch their rants about why this representation is Bad, Actually.

The first, and weirdest, thing they all focus on is that being intersex doesn’t always mean being a perfect 50/50 blend of male and female—true enough, though of debatable relevance for this discussion—which they then immediately transition into a discussion of what may or may not be between Stevonnie’s legs, thereby to fume about how irresponsible it is to talk about this subject.

Now. The thing about this conversation is, uh, they’re the only ones talking about it. All the ad specifies is the obvious fact that Stevonnie is intersex. It doesn’t get into what that signifies here, nor should it need to. Presumably the character is gonna have a whole soup of chromosomes and hormones and neurology. People are making the leap to anatomy—but, er, why, in good faith? That says more about the person doing the assuming than anything that’s been stated.

When I read the text on the screen, my brain doesn’t go straight to Stevonnie’s genitals, because holy shit, why? It goes to their wide hips and higher vocal register, yet their coarse facial hair. It goes to the more abstract issue of their being an independent person with a physical body that’s not gonna conform to a definition of binary sex.

This is of course how Internet Discourse works: manufacturing a problem, and then attacking your own projections as if they were something inherent in the surface that you’re flailing toward, rather than engaging with what’s there on paper or the spirit of the work, its metaphors, and what it serves to talk about. It’s not about a conversation—which is unfortunate, as this show is so eager to hold one in earnest.

Steven Universe is a sci-fi fantasy, that communicates complicated ideas extensively through metaphor. Any given story element serves to talk about a bunch of things at once. The character of Stevonnie is about puberty, consent, first relationships, gender identity, the duality of self, self-love, self-doubt, feelings of objectification. As I’ve been saying forever, in a sense they’re the stealth main character, with the story treating their components Steven and Connie as two halves of one person even when apart—and in Stevonnie, embodied as a person struggling with anxiety over their own self-definition. Stevonnie is easily the most complex character in the show; when they manifest, it ratchets everything up a level, allowing the story access to much trickier themes.

Nothing depicted in this soap commercial is in any way new, except in that we’ve now seen Stevonnie’s sex and gender written out in so many words, and focused on them slightly. By definition, of course they were always intersex; and the show has always used an unambiguous singular they/them for the character. None of this was was ever unclear, as written and performed. But words are important, and here we finally have them.

The second and more bizarre criticism comes out of a previous point, in which people keep insisting that, well, the character’s identity shouldn’t come down to sci-fi alien symbolic whatever, because all that does is suggest that non-binary and intersex people are somehow fictional. Which just forces me to wonder, Christ, you know. Have you ever read a story before? Do you know how stories work? How metaphors function? (“Spoiler culture” has raised some concerns about literacy, of late.) And even more to the point, do you understand the limits of TV production? Particularly of a children’s cartoon, in the United States?

Sometimes to talk about complex things, or things that it’s unclear one can get away with, one speaks in coded or abstract terms. This is how art works. This is how people tell stories. Stories tend to be About Things, not clinical lists of details to showcase. Metaphors and subtext are a matter of verbs, rather than nouns, allowing conversation to happen and a story to functionally talk about things that matter. Artistic coding is all the more important when the things one wants to talk about aren’t necessarily easy to broach in the environment where the stories are being spun.

Prior to Steven Universe, has there ever been a children’s cartoon with an explicitly non-binary or intersex character before? With a foregrounded gay wedding? Has there ever been a children’s cartoon that basically serves in its entirety as one big honking trans allegory? No, because it’s hard to do. These are things that nobody was allowed to talk about, even around the time that Steven Universe began its run. The rules changed over the course of the show, in part because the show changed the rules, for itself and for everyone else, as to what was acceptable to talk about and how.

It’s so peculiar to me that for the one instance of positive representation that has ever existed, people who don’t have the active context for what it’s talking about or how it’s doing it will tend to sidle in and sniff, and say, well, it’s better that they not have bothered, because of XYZ preconditions I just thought up on the spot.

You know. I’m autistic. I’m genderqueer, I’m ace. I want to sympathize. Like, I recognize that there are tons of misconceptions out there, and for someone on the margins of society it’s easy to get nervous and defensive over things that come off as ambiguous. But nothing’s ever gonna be exactly whatever you’ve got in your head unless you write it yourself. Which, thanks to the exact thing you’re dismissing, may be easier now.

At any rate, when we choose to engage with a piece of media, how about we actually engage? Just, as a general rule of criticism, let’s go with what’s actually in the text, and what it serves to talk about, and how and why. When you project your own expectations, that’s not criticism, because you’re not engaging. What you’re doing is getting ahead of what you assume will be bad will by manifesting your own. And then you get to stand proud while jousting at yourself, allowing your shadow to affirm everything you expect to see in the world.

There’s more in the world than any of us knows. A lot of it is in fact sincere, and constructive, and serves to do good. If you’re gonna suggest ways to do even better, then that’s splendid. But to do that you’re gonna have to actually listen, and then make a commitment to build something new.