If you are a man who thinks it’s funny to make misogynist jokes purely to make your female friends uncomfortable/angry, then you are a misogynist. It is not “just a joke.” You literally are finding humor in the discomfort and dehumanization of women. You are not helping, you are not making satire. You are just being misogynist.
sherlock holmes and john watson are beloved, iconic characters whose relationship (written in a time when it could not have been openly queer) was so intimate that the possible queer subtext has been being discussed for decades, and yet the possibility of their romantic involvement has never been textually explored on screen up to this point because it either hasn’t been allowed or hasn’t been socially acceptable to do so
there are queer people who have stated that it would be important to them personally to see sherlock holmes and john watson finally allowed to be in a textually queer relationship on screen
there are queer people who have stated that it would be important to them personally to see a queer romance given the same kind of slow-build treatment that heterosexual romances are often given but which queer stories are often denied
there are queer people who have stated that it would be important to them personally for the show to upset the notion that any character who hasn’t stated their sexual orientation can be assumed to be heterosexual by default
for this to actually happen on television in a popular show with such iconic characters would in fact be progressive and would in fact have a positive cultural impact and to pretend otherwise by accusing people who want it of fetishizing, of pretending that shipping is activism, or of not being queer enough is frankly repulsive
if it doesn’t mean anything to you, fine, but don’t sit there telling other people that the representation that they want isn’t valid because it didn’t get your own personal queer stamp of approval
oh, but i guess i don’t know why you’d listen to me; i’m just a bisexual woman who married a person of a different gender so i probably don’t count as being a “real” queer person
i am all for headcanon but i really think a lot of people don’t understand what the actual meaning of headcanon is.
headcanon is not ‘i don’t like this part of canon. in my opinion it should be different so i’m just going to replace it with what I think it should be’.
headcanon is ‘canon has never specified/is ambiguous about this specific thing, so i’m going to fill in the gap with my own reasonable guesses’.
A headcanon also isn’t an interpretation based on textual analysis, quotes and clearly outlined evidence.