(2) is that dressing in a frilly princessy dress directly corresponds with “letting love in”, as though women who don’t dress in ways that are considered traditionally feminine are somehow broken and need to be fixed by a man’s love in order to be a “real” feminine woman. The suggestion is that a woman can’t be truly “feminine” unless (a) she is “traditionally” feminine and (b) she has a man to love. Which also suggest that it it isn’t possible for a woman to really be in love unless she’s (3) traditionally feminine. It’s also kind of ridiculous within canon, considering this is hardly the first time Emma has let her walls down and let love in. So it’s kind of a slap in the face to the development and relationships she had with Graham, Neal, and Walsh because it suggests that those weren’t “real” or “right” because she wasn’t feminine enough for her to have really let their love in. It’s also not character development because there has been no natural progression to this point. (4) It’s very similar to Hook getting the reset button. It’s not surprising, though, because these writers have show time and again that they cannot handle development. There’s an insidious misogyny to this whole thing that is just disturbing.
All of this!
I hate to break this to you but there are lesbian relationships that involve penis because there are trans lesbians with penises. There are lesbian relationships where everyone has penises in them.
Sorry* to burst your transmisogynist bubble.
*Lol, I’m not sorry.