you really can reach a point with transgender enlightenment wherein you can attribute any bodily feature silhouette and detail to any gender regardless of typical cisgender aesthetic connotations. anything can be a man's body if the person in it is a man. anything can be a woman's body if the person in it is a woman. anything can be a genderless body if the person in it is genderless. and so on. the only thing that matters is the personhood within and whether you are willing to look and know and see it. open your eyes. keep trying until you no longer flinch or turn away in shame or anger or confusion.
Friendly reminder, I say, as I grip my desk until my hands bleed: Steam summer sale starts on June 27 (This Thursday!)
(Tommorrow!!!)
To Someone Offscreen: Now give me my money you piece of sh--
Hey Patrick, I thought of something funnier than 2024
I really like how the positive side of the scale has a good smattering of votes-- and the neutral even holds a decent portion-- but whenever you head over to the negative side it's just: "Wipe it off the face of the Earth," absolutely no nuance.
This is a question required to receive citizenship in Asexual land
If my mutuals can’t rb this then we can’t be mutuals
You know, "human for scale" when showing the sizes of animals living or extinct is kind of vague. We should use a specific famous person with a well-known height for scale. Like Sigourney Weaver
we must replace all "human for scale" figures in scientific literature with mr shaquille o'neal IMMEDIATELY