The “straight” community would also benefit from “places for public sex”…

Just saying, less pearl-clutching would do everyone some good.

Hi, fellow (at the moment) hetero, cis man 🙂

I mostly share your point of view and feelings, with a couple nuances. I’ve never felt strongly about my own gender, but still hate toxic masculinity with a passion. I’ve often chosen to pose as genderless just to avoid being associated with the “stereotypical man”, but I’ve come to think that one doesn’t need to be queer just to denounce toxic behaviors. There are some, few, role models of “positive masculinity”, that one can follow, without changing labels. I don’t think that “men” should let the toxic ones monopolize that label; positive masculinity should reclaim it, and push the toxic ones out!

As for gender, sexuality, attraction… they’re all on a spectrum, and not necessarily at a single fixed point, or intensity. Artistic sensibility is on its own, also not necessarily related to the others. I don’t think that simply being able to appreciate a beautiful man, or woman, or lamp post, is enough to call oneself “queer”. We may not be like the “stereotypical macho man”, but that doesn’t mean one should renounce whichever label resonates more with oneself.

What a pity. The first book, and film, were great, mixing dark, fun, and morals. Somewhat in a Grimm Brothers way, somewhat in a magical way. How far has JKR fallen since 🙍

Don’t worry, the next Alpha Males will get crowned soon:

The first sperm race

Not from the 800K+ fanfics , or in general from all the fanart.

The Death of the Author is a pre-Internet reflection on personal interpretation over an author’s views.

Nowadays, it’s way more than that: whole fandoms can tear an author’s work to shreds, run with only the parts they like, and not look back. Rowling is no longer in control, or much of an influence, she’s merely coasting on her previous fame for those unaware. Right now, most of the fandom is quite critical of her views, not only on trans people, but also some other troubling aspects of her work… and they make the overwhelming majority of works in the Harry Potter universe.

There is this:

Paramount Is Rolling Back DEI Initiatives to Align With Trump Mandates

…but guess that’s been normalized now?

Fortunately, one doesn’t necessarily need to purchase any of the media to enjoy it. When an author or publisher changes flags, so can people 🏴‍☠️

McCaffrey took a turn towards homophobia, adding to her books that only inferior dragons would pick LGB riders, that then were used as a sort of cannon fodder, and a gold dragon queen would only choose strictly hetero riders because they were supposed to be breeders.

Roddenberry was a sexist nuisance, both on set and in the themes he tried to constantly write into the scripts. While claiming tolerance, he chased away some of the actors with his antics. Sexual tolerance themes got written more despite of him, than thanks to him, and mostly appear after he passed away. It can be claimed that he was “a man of his time”, but still.

JK Rowling is a poster case of why it’s a good idea to disassociate an author from their work (Harry Potter), followed by Anne McCaffrey (Dragonriders of Pern), Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), and some more.

The saddest part, are the nonsense arguments her kind are using. I’ve participated in some trans communities, and the largest issue I’ve seen, is that some are breeding grounds for gaslighting narcissists. That would be a much more concerning point to address, than all the BS these people are spewing.

tattoos are one thing they can’t take from us

Don’t give them ideas…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying

Didn’t he already sign one establishing that everyone is female? Is he now recognizing that trans people, do exist?..

Heh, yeah. Probably could be better, but share away!

After the Executive Order Defending Women from gender ideology extremism…, it’s much simpler now (in the US)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

Not sure I’d call a world made up of breeders, the undesirable, and Elon’s sperm bank, much of an utopia.

They will call it “multisex” and come up with treatments to “fix” the “medical issue”.

From the article:

The definition of male and female will be based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes.

What did you say your gender was?

Guess 🍑 is kind of generic, after all, who doesn’t have one?

The ⚧️ Transgender character is kind of an “all in one”, but its meaning is more about gender than about the genitalia symbols it’s made of.

The ☯️ yin yang is a representation of balance, among other things of the feminine-masculine.

As mentioned, the 🌺 kind of evocates genitals without specifying which ones, but it’s rather associated with female ones.

In polyamory, there is 🦄 and 🐲, but they again refer to particular concepts that may not be what you wish to convey.

I don’t think there is a single emoji unequivocally meaning “erogenous zone” without some gendered connotations. On the bright side, nothing is stopping you from using whichever emoji or combination you want. Sexuality is a conversation, it isn’t a one-fits-all, and you are allowed to ask or offer further clarification.

When in doubt, 👄👅😏♥️… 🃏🌸

True.

Just a correction: the NSDAP first went for internal political oppositors Night of the Long Knives, what in modern US they’re calling “RINO” Republican In Name Only… I’ve already seen literal calls to kill them! (on X)

The new poem might as well go like “First they came for the RINO, but I wasn’t even Republican and didn’t like them anyway…”

All logical and fair… but you can already see the POTUS calling it a “lunacy”. That defines it as a state of mental impairment, which leads to restricted personal liberties, and is just a step away from forced “therapies”.

Gender agnosticism should’ve been codified a long time ago, but it wasn’t, and now they’re planning on codifying the opposite.

“Psychoanalysis” is a word coined by Freud in 1896, just after the period on that list.

The problem with the fact-check, is that back then, they didn’t care much about what was a “symptom” vs a “cause”, they called everything an “illness”. To be fair, there also was little in the means of therapy; for reference, some “therapies” that were invented afterwards to try to fix that: Incandescent light therapy (1893), Psychoanalysis (1896), Lobotomy (1935), Electroshock (1938). Instead, in the 19th century they used stuff like: moral therapy, hydrotherapy, abstinence, opium… and simply confinement.

“Lunacy” is a very dangerous word when used by a politician towards any group of people.