Icon from a picrew by grgikau. Call me Tir or Julian. 37. He/They. Queer. Twitter: @tirlaeyn. ao3: tirlaeyn. 18+ Only. Star Trek. Sandman. IwtV. OMFD. Definitionless in this Strict Atmosphere.
Y'all see what I mean when I say I get crap for it?
No! It is not a fetish! It’s this neat term called gender nonconforming. Y'see I’m a female, I was born as a female, but my ideal self would have a dick and no tits. I’ve had plenty of people tell me I’m confused, that I’m just trans, but they’re all wrong. I tried that, went through that gender exploration and it just wasn’t me, I’m not a guy.
It’s not a fetish to present the way I am, who I am. You wouldn’t call a nonbinary person fetishistic for wearing a binder right? I have a packer, a binder, an stp, these are things that aren’t strictly for trans folk and people need to start realizing that.
I always hear gender (and the way you present) is a spectrum but people really treat it as if there’s only three viable options. Cis, nb, and trans, while dressing accordingly to each. Stray from the image people have in their mind and suddenly your transphobic, your fetishizing other people for being who you are.
Basically, just fucking let people choose their own gender and present how they want. You’re a cis dude who wants tits? A vagina? Or go on E? Fucking go for it. You’re a cis girl who wants a dick? Doesn’t want breasts? Maybe you even want to go on T? More power to you.
Fuck the people who say you can’t be your ideal self. Fuck the people who say your body represents your gender. After all you wouldn’t say that to a trans person right? So why would you say it about anyone else’s gender?
If I gotta fight a million anons, make a million posts for people to understand they don’t have to stick to the three options society has made popular than I will.
If anyone wants to be shitty about this you can go through me first.
I hate that people call it transphobic to align this way, because, truthfully? What I see as transphobic is the insinuation that a flat chest and/or a penis is antithetical to femininity or womanhood. If you can’t accept cis women that feel more comfortable with a flat chest, or having a penis, or whatever other instance of gender nonconformity you’re gonna be shitty about, then not only is that real fucked up, but you’re also a hair’s breath from transmisogyny.
OP is absolutely right. People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies if it isn’t harming anyone. That’s just what bodily autonomy *is*.
Transphobia is an interesting term, because one of the core principals it revolves around is the destruction of bodily autonomy. So if you don’t believe people like OP deserve that right to bodily autonomy, you’re essentially stating that you only care about the fundamental bigotry that transphobia runs on if it has the “trans” prefix attached to it.
Leave people like OP alone.
When are we gonna get to the point where we stop looking for an “acceptable” queer target to bully? Cause this happened with bi people, then trans people, then pan people, then ace people, then aro people, then poly people, so on, so forth, and im sick of it.
I’m a non-op binary transgender man. I have a vagina! Given all the money in the world, I would still have a vagina. I’m a binary man who likes having a vagina. It’s not a fetish, it’s just a male vagina. Sometimes men have vaginas. Sometimes men *want* to have vaginas, and they are still men. Sometimes women *want* to have a penis, and they are still women. People should have access to whatever gender-affirming care that damn well pleases them.
This might be a hot take but also if it was a fetish, I don’t think that should matter in the slightest. It’s not like having a fetish is a big boogeyman that makes someone wrong. You can be trans or cis or kinky or vanilla or whatever about gender and it doesn’t matter.
“fem presenting” always sounds to me as “i perceive this person as close enough to womanhood or femininity that i feel comfortable misgendering them as such, even if they identify themselves explicitly as being men or masculine, and/or as being nonbinary or agender etc”
“why did you use she/her pronouns for him?”
“oh well, hes fem presenting”
no, hes just trans, and youre misgendering him as punishment for not “passing”, then describing it as if hes PRESENTED himself wrong, so you can blame him for your mistake.
“why did you use they/them pronouns when his pronouns are he/him?”
“oh well i know he said he/him but their hair is long and pretty and theyre kind of fem presenting so i just picked a more neutral pronoun”
people’s pronouns, rather like their names, are not up to you
[I.D. a flowchart that starts with “a person is homeless” in a rectangle and moves down to a diamond that says “did they make bad personal choices?” the graph splits off to a yes and no option, both options lead to “house them” in rectangles. end I.D.]
🫡 to the retail workers going to work today, braver than the troops
people in the tags commenting “this whole week” or “every day”, this is why i didn’t specify a date in the OP. retail workers are braver than the troops on every day that ends with the letter Y
i think there’s a definite nbc hannibal influence permeating amc’s interview, and the fact that fuller was originally attached to the project suggests that the studio wanted it that way, but every time someone —rightfully— points out the similarities, i can’t help but go “they don’t know that bryan fuller literally based the hannibal-will-abigail dynamic on interview with the vampire”. like, i need everyone to realize that both materials are engaging in a much more complex dialogue than just one being inspired by the other. they are, in many ways, two versions of the same story.
Gender can be like a bra or a corset or any other kind of shape wear. Very constricting and oppressive for some people and a comforting structure for others
Why is it considered okay to limit how much money a disabled person on benefits can have, but “big government” to limit how much money a rich person can have?
And don’t respond with “the disabled person is relying on the government”. The rich person is also. Do the police protect their ownership of their many houses? Then they’re relying on government. Do they own patents to protect their profits from competitors? Then they’re relying on government. Do they profit from other people’s work and are protected by the police against a worker uprising? Then they’re relying on government.
don’t get me wrong, the “we can’t be together publicly because of the optics” thing that is often used in garashir fic is very very juicy content, but every time i go back to the source material to try and figure out how their relationship would actually play out in canon, I find shit like this
BASHIR: How did you get Delavian chocolates? GARAK: I promised my supplier I wouldn’t tell, but since I deprived you of your dessert, I’d be more than happy to bring some by the Infirmary later this afternoon. BASHIR: Why thank you, I’d like that.
they LITERALLY already act like boyfriends. we don’t see this happen because garak goes and blows up his shop right after this and the chocolates don’t reappear until julian regifts them to him at the docking bay but that’s what he was planning to do! just stop by his work and give him a box of chocolates in front of the whole staff, presumably.
then after garak leaves julian goes and has lunch with miles and openly pines for garak’s stimulating conversation, but that’s a discourse for another day
[Tweet from @/fozmeadows: “human gender and sexuality are very much like animal taxonomy, in that both look structured and simple on the surface, but once you start investigating, it turns out there’s actually no such thing as a fish despite the fact that we all know what a fish is, and that’s okay”]
As a biologist, that is a fantastic comparison.
We talk about “fish” (which, cladistically, do not exist, there is no monophyletic group of “fish” that simultaneously includes all organisms we understand to be “fish”-like while also excluding, say, humans) because, despite the utter fiction that is fish, it’s still a useful label when we talk about certain features that “fish” tend to have in common.
