The Numinous Tarot

Hedera

Ah, great, there is already a thread about this upcoming deck!

I haven't been this excited about a deck-in-progress in a loooooong time....

The first time I heard about it, was in this interview on Little Red Tarot:
http://littleredtarot.com/interview-with-noel-arthur-heimpel-numinous-tarot/

From there, I went to his Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/noelarthurian?ty=c) to look into it further - with as a result that I am now one of his Patreon backers!
(an extremely modest one, I don't have much financial wiggle room)

It's my first time backing someone on Patreon, although I had heard of the website before: I think it's a great way to support artists, writers etc.


I adore his take on the cards (best Strength ever!) and his artistic style.
And it does not seem like it will be *that* long a wait, either... :)
 

Laura Borealis

Oh! I love it :love: I'm not usually this affected by tarot art, but I'm overwhelmed. Honestly overwhelmed. I started to look at the art at the first link and I realized it's a genderqueer deck. And it's beautiful.

Off to read the interview and Patreon page. :love:
 

chocbird

This looks so gorgeous. I'll definitely try to get it in my queer little hands when it's out.
 

JadePixie

Wow, this deck looks amazing <3 Will definitely try to get my hands on it!
 

alainaobrien

Thanks for posting this - this looks like it will be fantastic when complete! I always love the genderqueer and diverse decks.
 

Farzon

I do like the artwork. I don't like some of the cards though... the Lovers is too much universal love for me.

And there is a strange effect in gender-fluid decks, that their queerness effects the balance between the cards. I prefer the Golden Dawn concept of two warrior-like (Knight and Princess) and two ruling (Queen and Prince) figures for each sex. It's much closer to the idea of gender equality I think. It gives people of both sexes the opportunity to identify with an equal number of courts in every suit when they look for a significator.
 

Laura Borealis

I can see that; it is good to have decks with balance between the genders. But what you are talking about, the way you are talking about it, is still reinforcing the gender binary. When you talk about "each sex" as if there are only two. Or when you say giving "both sexes" an opportunity. That misses the point of having a non-binary deck where there is an acknowledgement and celebration of people whose gender is more fluid than that.

I would say, if you can't see yourself in this deck enough to be able to choose a court card, then it probably isn't meant for you. Which is fine! I don't think it's trying to be all things to all people, especially cis people.
 

Farzon

I was hoping to start a discussion on this in fact. It's a very interesting topic. On the other hand it's a very controversial one so one thing before my actual post: if in the following, I don't share your opinion it doesn't mean I don't respect it. On the contrary, I'm very grateful for your thought provoking input. I had to think about my answer longer than I thought ... and with it about my own gender identity.

I can see that; it is good to have decks with balance between the genders. But what you are talking about, the way you are talking about it, is still reinforcing the gender binary. When you talk about "each sex" as if there are only two. Or when you say giving "both sexes" an opportunity. That misses the point of having a non-binary deck where there is an acknowledgement and celebration of people whose gender is more fluid than that.

But are we talking about gender or sex here? The existence of trans- and inter persons doesn't extinguish the biological fact that most people belong to one of the biological sexes. Even though I'm aware that it's more complicated than that on the genetical level as well.

I think we humans have the tendency to categorize things. That some of us can give birth to other human beings and some not is one of the most obvious starting points for categorization. And without it, we wouldn't have our archetypes.

The Golden Dawn teachings I am aware of say that gender is everywhere in the universe. And that it is a mere symbol that makes it easy for us to understand more refined concepts of the universe, a bit like yin and yang.

Take the Empress for example. Her archetype clearly refers to biological functions of women as mothers. Giving birth, being fertile and nurturing. Now if a "female" card like this shows up for me as a man it is pushing me to think about these concepts in my own identity. I think if taken seriously, these old fashioned, dual archetypes can in fact challenge our gender identity as well!

I would say, if you can't see yourself in this deck enough to be able to choose a court card, then it probably isn't meant for you. Which is fine! I don't think it's trying to be all things to all people, especially cis people.

It doesn't need to be everything ... but having a whole suit of courts male and one female is very counter-inclusive to my eyes. Especially since most of these people, although very androgynous in fact, are pretty clearly identified as male or female. But that could also be my individual perception.

One of my favorite books is the Wraeththu collection by Storm Constantine. It's about a race of hermaphrodites which spring from male humans. As the story and Wraeththu culture develops, they are more and more characterized in traditionally female ways. One and the same character has both sides to him during the same story! That's truly gender-fluid and I wish to see a deck that would realize this idea.

This deck, I think, doesn't go to that extreme and I haven't seen any else that does. And now I'm going a bit of topic. I thought about the whys and it could get confusing maybe [emoji28]. I hope it makes at least some sense in other people's heads as well.

A lot of decks stop at "occupying" male archetypes with female figures but in most cases not vice versa, like the Starchild Tarot or the Margarete Petersen or even the Silicon Dawn (all great decks). I think that is due to women having to redefine their role in society constantly. (Cis and straight) men don't have to fight for their place in society or rethink their identity. I still haven't seen a male Empress and this deck doesn't show one either, while easily switching the Emperor to female. The male and tender figure of strength is more close to redefining male identity. Which is something I wish to see in queer decks, but as you correctly said, might not be the creator's intention.

Thinking about it more closely, I experience this struggle with male identity myself. I can easily see what identifies me as gay man, but I struggle with seeing what makes me "just a man" besides biology. There are more and more thoughts running through my head concerning this but for now it's enough rambling ...
 

Laura Borealis

Farzon, I just wanted to say that I read your post and will reply - I just can't tonight - I'm very interested in the topic though. :livelong:

Just one thing, yes I am talking about gender not biology.
 

Rose Lalonde

I've been following this one. I like the inclusiveness.

I still haven't seen a male Empress and this deck doesn't show one either, while easily switching the Emperor to female.

Farzon, I enjoyed reading your posts. I'm used to the GD and Crowley's use of sex as metaphor for the resolution of opposites. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable expecting actual people to typify ideas about any particular gender. So I like the questions this deck brings up for me. -- Anyway, when I saw the Numinous' Empress, I thought the person was meant to be biologically male... or at least I saw what I thought was an adam's apple and made an assumption about biology (though not gender identification). So when I read your quote above, I was surprised and went back to look at the card again, where I found this on the artist's post for the Empress: "The figure in this card is meant to be any gender you like, not specifically female, male, or anything I might say. It’s up to you." Of course, if the card looks decidedly female to you, then it does, but I thought I'd mention that the artist didn't intend it to be explicitly so.