#also i support any trans folks using the term even if they don't fit the wikipedia definition of this bc like

[sephipedia]

sephiroth reading the page for transsexuality

Sephiroth Reads Wikipedia No. 10: Transsexual & Transgender

Sephiroth colorpicked pride flag image by @everyone-is-queer (original post)

(textbox generator)

[drdemonprince]

I read your newsletter about "transmisandry" today. I'm a trans man and I generally agree with what you said. However, I was wondering how you would classify a particular experience of mine and other trans men I know irl or have seen online.

In short, I find that in some queer spaces, masculine and/or "binary" (meaning, not non-binary) trans men are treated as outsiders and enemies. I imagine some straight-passing queer cis men experience similar.

This prejudice against masculinity has nothing to do with us being trans, and is in no way oppressive, but it seems to me that some people have a hatred/disgust/discomfort/etc. with masculine men, especially if we are proud of our manhood. I sometimes feel excluded in queer or progressive spaces, and like I have to change myself to fit into others' idea of "acceptable" manhood.

I think this tends to emotionally affect trans men in particular because being a man is generally hard-won and joyful for us. Have you experienced prejudice in queer spaces, especially trans spaces, for being transmasculine? And while I don't believe there exists systemic misandry, is this not a form of misandry, just interpersonal?

Thanks, I really appreciate your work.

Hi there, thank you for great question. What you are describing is certainly a very real and troubling dynamic within both queer and feminist spaces, and it's put me off for a very long time. I have sometimes referred to this as "playful 'misandry' feminism", always with "misandry" in quotes because, as we've already established, it's not a real locus of systemic oppression. I have also sometimes in the past likened it to "Men's Tears Coffee Mug" feminism in its performative, self-congratulatory, typically white feminist stance.*

*in the Koa Beck sense of the term. Someone who is not white can be a white feminist.

I was always put off by performative man-hating jokes and the exclusion of men within feminist spaces because, well, I was one, and because it nearly always played out in transmisogynistic ways that were transparent to me, and because I was a major ride-or-die for men who were victims of sexual violence yet were frequently excluded from survivors' spaces (again, because I was one, even before I realized that I was).

There are a lot of troubling effects that happen when feminist women make a big performance out of finding all men to be disgusting and evil and frequently express disinterest in men's feelings or suffering (which used to be way more common in my estimation, around the early 2010's or so it seemed to peak). I was driven away from feminist spaces as a young closeted trans man because I could see such spaces were not for me or for any of the other men that I cared about and needed support. On the inverse side of things, I have spoken to many trans men who said that "playful "misandry"" feminism actively made it harder for them to realize that they were guys. Men were seen as the enemy and inherently evil and destructive and so they felt absolutely disgusting about the possibility of being a man, or feared transitioning would get them seen as a betrayer of the feminist movement.

As you rightly note, it is not just trans guys who get excluded by such dynamics. Cis men who are genuinely avowed feminists can be driven away by such forces, which is especially upsetting in the case of sexual assault survivors and queer men. Trans women and TMA enbies are excluded from feminist and women's spaces because they supposedly "look like" men to these types, and their own feelings of superficial safety rank above the actual data on who is the most at risk structurally (which is trans women). Butches are regarded in some spaces as too aggressive or unacceptably masculine because of it. And people's analysis of gender oppression just overall sucks when they buy into "playful misandry" style feminism because they go around saying shit like "femme people are oppressed by masc folks." what the hell does that mean. Does a cis, gender conforming feminine woman have less structural power than a butch lesbian? I don't think so.

It seems to me that the big problem here is that "playful misandry" feminism is rooted in a deep deep misunderstanding of the structural nature of oppression. Sexism isn't caused by patriarchy and capitalism, it's caused by "men" and so hating men and excluding them is what will fix things. Men as individuals are responsible for sexism and so women should be as detached from them and unsupportive of them as possible. This logic leads to a TERFy place really quickly, and yes, it also really really damages trans men.

My opinion is that it's best to critique this problem as the political failure that it is: a misunderstanding of sexism as individualistic rather than systemic. That's the core issue from which all the problems flow -- from rampant transmisogyny to the exclusion of cis male sexual assault survivors to the feelings of alienation of trans men. Yes sometimes naming the performative nature of "man hating" jokes and the like is helpful because people recognize instantly what that dynamic is when they hear it. But the "misandry" itself is not the core problem -- it's the shitty gender politics and white feminism.

Does that make sense? To be clear, I think it's something trans men get to talk about. I talk about it from my positionality quite a lot really. I don't think "misandry" is ultimately the helpful or clarifying way to name it, but I will sometimes throw around that term with a TON of qualifiers if I'm discussing the specific interpersonal dynamic of women saying that men are evil rapists innately or whatever. But really discussing the broader gender politics failure that leads to those little shitty comments and looks is almost always more helpful. If trans guys and cis guys are feeling excluded from a space due to these dynamics it's almost always the case that trans women, TMA enbies, butch women, and lots of women of color are too.

[redtail-lol]

I wanted to make a veldian flag (or whatever term you want to use for it, I like veldian because it sounds good) to match my lesbian flag.

[Image ID 1: A 7 striped flag. Colors, in order, are: purple; light indigo; sky blue; turquoise; light green; pale lime-yellow. End ID.]

[Image ID 2: The same flag, with words over each stripe corresponding to their meaning. Purple is femininity and those tied to it. Light indigo is queer love of men. Sky blue is masculinity. Turquoise is gay history and diversity. Light green is gender nonconformity. Pale lime-yellow is nonbinary gays and nblm/mlnb love. End ID.]

[Image ID 3: The same flag as the first, but the bottom three colors are flipped so it starts with yellow.]

I am not a veldian so I made this in consultation with people who were. I don't wanna replace the current one, because I really like it, but I needed a matching one to my lesbian flag for a request. It does not have a name, but if any veldians like it, please submit any name ideas in the comments and I'll make a poll about what to name it.

Anyway. Stripe meanings, fully explained

1. Femininity and those tied to it: This was going to be the gnc stripe but I decided green fit that one better, and this better fit femininity. Feminine men are a very large part of the gay community, though this stripe represents more than just them! It also represents those who are trans and still feel connected to their AGAB, or those who are turigirls. It can also represent how men who like men are inherently perceived as feminine even if they aren't in any other way.

2. Queer love of men: No matter your gender, pretty much all veldians have a queer love of men. This stripe represents that love

3. Masculinity: Not all gay men are effeminate. Some of them are masculine, and masculinity in the gay community presents in many ways. Of course, masculinity doesn't only refer to presentation. It can also refer to gender alignment or connection.

4. Unity: Despite how wide and diverse the community is, and how many names it has, all of them are united as one large community and that's beautiful

5. Gay history and diversity: There is a rich history to gay men and the community of them, which deserves a place represented on the flag. The gay communities of the past and present are large and diverse, and have such a broad spectrum of people. All the ways you can be a veldian deserve to be represented because there are so many

6. Gender nonconformity: A large part of the gay community involves gender nonconformity. Even masculine veldians don't all conform to the idea of masculinity most straight people have (the image of a strong, muscle-y man.) And it's not just nonconformity for men; this stripe also represents the nonbinary gays who are feminine or masculine rather than androgynous.

7. Nonbinary gays and nblm/mlnb love: Nonbinary or elsegender people have grown to be a part of the veldian community, both in who can be veldian and who a veldian can love. While men who love men are at the center of this community, it's important to also remember the love between men and nonbinary folk.

This flag was made by an inclusionist. It stands in support of mspec veldians, gaybians/velaurians, turigirls, and others with contradictory labels. It also, of course, supports aro/ace/aroace veldians, trans veldians, and veldians of color. Anyone who identifies as a veldian, or with another name for the same label, may use this flag.

[eldorr]

temp pinned

temporary pinned post until i figure out what to put here.

until then here's all of my blogs:

@eldorr = Main Coining Blog (you are here)

@mister-eldritch = Adult (18+) Coining Blog

@monsieur-eldritch = Triggering Content Coining Blog

@tucuteboything = Discourse/Vent blog (If you genuinely want to talk with me about something triggering or discourse related, please do so there)

.

Also with my DNI IDs, I opted into a more "context for context" approach, as I know some screen readers don't read dashes or slashes, so I opted into writing the ID in a way I hope won't come off as me being pro something and anti something similar lol.

Also if you're on my DNI you can still use my terms/flags, just don't interact with me outside of reblogging to hoard blogs.

.

If you're looking for my "Gendered Terms Archival" list for terms similar to Man/Boy/Woman/Girl/Enban/Enby/etc it would be [here]. I update it whenever a post with terms that fit what I'm archiving on it ends up on my dash.

.

Also some important things to note while clarifying about my DNI, under a read more since it's long:

The only "transid" group I'd be fine with interacting is trans species, because as far as I'm aware it's mostly just another word for alterhumans (mostly otherkin/therians), especially for those who want or acquire body mods to reflect that. The term didn't originate from TransID rhetoric so that's why the term transid is in quotations above.

I don't support the grouping of Mspec identities under "Bispec" under the guise of being inclusive. I view it as no different than calling Mspec identities "just Bi". I don't support the spread of BaB rhetoric.

I support KFF and the more casual use of alterhuman and otherkin language. I support those interacting with communities and exploring their identity in non-standard and non-strict ways. I believe anyone should be able to explore and have fun with their identity without being harassed by EITHER side, whether that's people harassing KFF (or other non-kin alterhumans) for the language they choose to use, OR KFF harassing or being ablest/sanist/etc to alterhumans whose identity is non-chosen. I believe folks shouldn't be forced to use highly specific microlabels if they don't want to, even if that language would "fit more."

To do with the above point, and before anyone throws a fit, I'm a reincarnate godshard. I use the term Kin and Kinnie casually to describe my nonhuman-hood as it was the first language I was introduced to and is the only terms that feel like it sticks. I do experience phantom limbs and shifts at times, however any identity (kin) I may take on typically fades at a certain point due to myself being basically a faceless shapeshifting void. I usually do identity as those past 'kins, in a state that may be described as "that was me" or in flux between is/was.

I will also ask if you're a KFF "factkin" to not interact. I'm fine with non-chosen factkin as a lot of the rhetoric against them have also been used against factives.

BIID and BDD are NOT the same as being Transabled or TransID. Don't conflate the two. I also believe folks with BIID/BDD should be able to coin and use terms to describe how they experience their disorder. Such as terms like Aldernic sublabels to describe a body one feels they should have.

Think that men of a minority cannot be oppressed for being (the "wrong" kind of) men. Likewise DNI if you support the phrase "transandrophobia truther" or you support Ba*ddel (e) rhetoric (the anti-nontransfem weirdos).

I'd also ask for folks who support the terms TMA/TME, or use the phrase "theyfabs" even in joking settings to not interact; yes, it's exorsexist and anti-transmasc rhetoric. I'm a Transunitist (Pro-Transunity) if that helps.

Pro-Contact Harmful paras in my DNI covers ANY para that involves any non-consenting partner, anyone or anything that cannot consent, or any involvement of a non-consenting third party.

There's quite a few things missing from my DNI that are mostly run of the mill "basic DNI" stuff, basically any bigot, bigoted belief, right-wingers, etc. I'm pro-choice btw.

[a-controversial-bean]

The main reason I made this blog is honestly because I am so sick of the lack of nuance I see around the term "transandrophobia"

My stance is that transandrophbia is a real thing we should draw attention to, but also that most people talking about it do so in the most annoying and/or hateful ways.

Just like trans women/fems experience gendered violence and discrimination that is different from cis women, so do trans men/mascs. We're not "woman lite" but much of the world still treats us that way. Although cis men carry a gender with privilege over all others, trans men do not (except in cases where they are cis-passing, and even then, that privilege gets revoked the second you're outed). We experience a flavor of misogyny, but the term transmisogyny describes a specific type of misogyny that trans women experience. Stealing that term would obviously be wrong, hence the creation of the term transandrophbia.

Personally, I think the term itself could use some more workshopping, but it's not like I have any better suggestions at this time either. I just don't think the term clearly expresses how we're talking about a specific gendered discrimination that impacts trans mascs in a way that cis men, cis women, and trans fems don't go through. This isn't saying that we have it any worse than trans fems. God no. That's part of why I'm so annoyed at many folks discussing transandrophbia. Creating a hierarchy of who faces worse oppression is bullshit. Trans women/fems are oppressed in our current constructions of gender and sex. So are trans men/mascs. So are cis women. And nonbinary people. And intersex people of literally any gender. I'm all for the creation of terms to describe these unique experiences! What I hate is trying to pit these terms against each other.

I often see white trans mascs trying to use racial comparisons to explain this, and it pisses me the fuck off. Don't do that. You're making all of us look bad and embarrassing yourself when you show such a lack of understanding towards intersectionaliity. However, I do think there are other comparisons that work better!

Specifically, disability has a GREAT comparison to draw from. It even has a few (false) binaries you can use to make your point!

All disabled people face ableism in some way or another, just like all marginalized genders face their own flavor of misogyny. People like to separate the disabled into categories like low/high support needs, visible/invisible, and physical/mental. Someone labeled as high support needs is often denied agency, while low support needs folks are often denied accommodations. Visible disabilities will have people asking too many uncomfortable and invasive questions, while invisible ones will have people saying you don't "look disabled". But at the end of the day, it's all just ableism. Repackaged to fit the individual, but ableism none the less. It can be convenient though to quickly say which category of ableism you experience, rather than drone on about details.

I would rather say "I experience transandrophbia" than explain how "I experience a kind of misogyny where my transness means people either see me as a failed woman or a creepy man depending on what's more convenient for their narrative. Living as a trans guy, especially in the years where I still had H cups on my chest, led to increased violence and bigotry in my life. In cis circles I'm rejected for being trans, and in queer circles I'm rejected for embracing my masculinity. Unless I surround myself with only trans mascs, my gender almost always makes me an outcast. " Even that statement is a super simplified and condensed version of the gendered violence I faced. Am I not allowed a term to succinctly express that sentiment?

Tldr: If you deny that trans men/mascs experience transandrophbia, then I hate you. If you use transandrophbia to shit on trans women/fems, then I also hate you.

[fantasy-anatomy-analyst]

(image description: eight sketchbook drawings of characters holding a variety of pride flags, all nude and posed in ways that match some old fine art pieces. The nudity has been censored with cute digital flower stickers. end description.)

Characters:

Dalmar, intersex man. Kouto, nonbinary. Chacha, agender. Parva, nonbinary. Xulic and Kidron, genderqueer. Obeli (or Abuela) Moruga, genderqeer. Olli, demiguy. Sajak, genderqueer.

Genderqueer is kind of my default for "well, biologically and culturally, they already don't have binary sex or gender, so they kinda default to genderqueer." And I know maybe some people will be bothered by that, but it's just part of the worldbuilding I've written around all these non-human and frequently non-mammalian species of people.

The uncensored version is on my Patreon page. I do have one more drawing to add to this series, but since it's four child characters I will not need to worry about adding any censors and keeping the original image only on my patreon, as they will simply be wearing their pride flags as whole outfits.

The previous part of this, my binary trans characters, can be found over here.

detailed character descriptions and explanations of the pose references under the cut

Dalmar Ubora, a black intersex elf man with short black hair. He is holding his arms up as he holds the intersex flag, mimicking the pose of Virgin Mary from Titian's painting "The Assumption of the Virgin". The shading was washed out by the photo, but his belly is still clearly round from pregnancy. Dalmar is an interesting case, in that he was assigned male at birth based on his outward appearance, continues to identify as male throughout his life, but finds during puberty that what was believed to be an undeveloped penis was actually just a non functional body part. Instead, what actually developed to full functionality was his uterus. He still identifies as a straight cis man, and has come to terms with his body. He is married to a medically transitioned trans woman, and he could undergo operations to change his body if he wanted to. Instead, he has embraced his body and even birthed some children who were conceived via sperm donations. This is why I wanted a Mary pose for him, and this painting in particular is about Mary being welcomed into heaven as a blessed holy woman. Dalmar may not be a miraculous holy figure, but there is a reverence in the way he has come to love his body and chosen to bear children, including the surrogate birth of his brother's child.

Kouto Hayashi-Loryck, a slender nonbinary elf with black hair tied into a bun. They are holding the nonbinary flag and standing in the pose of a statue known as "Apollo Belvedere", which is so old no one knows the artist's name. One arm raised, one lowered, legs in the relaxed contrapposto pose. Kouto is an artist and an art model. Apollo is a god of the arts, and regarded as a beautiful and sexual figure. Kouto is bisexual and admittedly a very sexual and flirtatious person. They did settle into a happy marriage though (actually they are Dalmar's in-law and the sperm donor for the aforementioned surrogate birth.) Marriage has not stopped Kouto's flirtations, merely limited their targets to a singular person. It felt right to give him this pose, from a pretty well known portrayal of Apollo. Beauty, art, and sex, all defining traits of Apollo and Kouto alike, all present in a pose where the figure seems to be reaching for something above them.

Chacha Faraji, an agender black elf with short hair. They are facing away from the viewer, seated on a stool that is covered by the draped agender flag. No physical traits that could betray their agab are visible. Chacha is sitting in the pose of Reubens' painting "Venus at the Mirror". The arm closest to the viewer ends at the elbow, while they hold a mirror in front of their face with their one whole arm. Their face is seen reflected, smiling, little wrinkles visible by their eyes. I chose this painting in part because it did allow me to obscure Chacha's agab. They were my first nonbinary character, and I never really settled on an agab. But also, I enjoy putting characters who have unconventional bodies into poses associated with Venus or Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty. Chacha is missing half an arm, they are getting older and it shows in the wrinkles on their face. Chacha is also Aromantic and Asexual, the full queer triple A battery. The mirror pose has become an independence of beauty. "Look but don't touch." Chacha is beautiful, and they do not need to be beautiful for anyone but themself.

Parva Turbatus, a white nonbinary elf with shoulder length curly hair that has been shaved down on the far side of their head. They are holding the nonbinary flag, standing in the slightly closed off pose found in Paul Gariot's painting "Pandora's Box". One hand on their chest, one hand held out to hold the flag. They have top surgery scars on their chest and a c-section scar on their navel, though all of these have unfortunately been hidden by the flower censors. I chose a pandora pose for Parva because they have one of the most intense tragic backstories of any of my characters. Like Pandora opening the box, they have suffered through many things but came out the other side with Hope, and healing.

Xulic Vos and Kidron Engedi, a drow and a lizard person. They are sharing the genderqueer flag. Xulic has long ears and white hair in a braid, with a white monkey-like tail barely visible behind their legs. Kidron looks like a leopard gecko, and their tail is acting as a visual block in fron of Xulic's groin. They are standing together in the central pose of Raphael's "School of Athens" fresco. Xulic is pointing one hand up to the sky, while Kidron holds one hand palm down towards the earth. Xulic's chest is visibly flat, however I have rewritten the drow as a eusocial people, who's biology has made most of the common population infertile and visibly near identical above the waist. Xulic's agab is unknown to anyone but them, and perhaps their reptilian lover Kidron. Both drow and lizard folk have biology and cultures that do not really support a gender binary, so genderqueer suits them both quite well. I chose the School of Athens pose because these characters are scientists in fields that overlap, and they often get into deep discussions on the matter. Xulic is a paleontologist while Kidron is a geologist, and they have another friend (my protagonist) who studies archaeology.

Obeli (or Abuela) Moruga, an elderly goblin with sagging skin and axolotl-like frills on the sides of her head. She grins as she holds the gender queer flag, partly draped over the tall stool she is seated on. Her pose matches that of John Collier's "Priestess of Delphi" painting, which depicts a woman hunched over herself on a stool. Old Obeli Moruga, whose title best translates to "grandmother" is a significant figure in her community, both because of her more practical role as a leader and wise woman, but also because she has gained immortality and become an incarnation of Life Itself, after she was given the offer of such power when she nearly died in the goblin revolution. There are many figures that would suit her. Poses from statues of goddesses, like Athena or Gaia. Perhaps turning away from the theme of greek and roman figures I ended up with for my nonbinary group (dalmar is his own thing) and using the famous painting of Liberty on a battlefield. But now in her old age, all those poses of figures in more active poses, tall and imposing, simply didn't feel right. A wise old woman, hunched on a stool in a pose associated with the idea of an oracle, a priestess, a prophetess, felt much more fitting. (goblin culture does have specific pronouns for leadership, and in the common speech they have decided this translates best to the feminine "she/her")

Olli Moruga, also a goblin with axolotl-like frills, standing with the demiguy flag in his hands. He is in the pose of Michaelangelo's statue of Bacchus, god of wine, merriment, and madness. One hand up as if to salute with a cup, body leaning and perhaps a little unstable. Olli is a gay demiguy, stepping away from the naturally ungendered state of his people to embrace masculinity instead. He is extroverted, loves a good party, and has definitely been a little over his depth with alcohol on many occasions. He knows this is a problem. He used to act rebellious because of it, trying to be cool and aloof, but he has since admitted the truth to himself and now openly seeks help. His trans lover, Zaire (seen in a previous post) has become a great support to him. Even though it may seem odd to use the pose of a god of wine for a character that is trying to overcome an alcohol issue, I still feel like the vibe of Bacchus or Dionysus fits Olli well. He is not only a god of wine, but also of pleasure in general, a concept Olli embraces. Wild joy, perhaps to the point of becoming a little feral, abandoning tradition for personal fulfillment. It is unusual for goblins to embrace a binary gender, even partially. Gendered pronouns do not exist in their tongue, only being used in cases where common speech needs to be used to refer to certain significant figures, such as a leader. It is also unusual for a goblin to take a lover outside their species, since most goblins live in fairly isolated places and all mate together seasonally, depositing their eggs in a communal nursery pool. Olli stands out on purpose.

Lastly, Sajak, an amphibious person with some fish-like features such as their finned ears and a barely visible dorsal fin. They are holding the genderqueer flag as they stand in a commanding pose, one foot on a rock, one arm held out as if pointing to something below them. This pose is taken from the central Poseidon statue in the fountain of Trevi. Their head, arms, and torso are covered in dark tattoos in abstract designs, and they also have a few natural dark stripes along their arms and legs. The obvious connection between Sajak and this statue of Poseidon is that Sajak is a fish person and Poseidon is an ocean god. If I could have thought of a more medical figure, I may have made a different choice in the art reference. Sajak is primarily a doctor, a healer. They are fairly well known and they were an important figure on their home island, though they did leave eventually. Even so, there is a certain vibe to Sajak that suits the image of a powerful and unpredictable oceanic god. They are steady, intelligent, and careful, but they can become fierce when their loved ones are under threat, and the intense focus they show in their work as a doctor can be intimidating to see. There is a feeling of hidden power within Sajak, just as there is in the ocean when it seems calm. Fish folk, whether bipedal and amphibious or fully aquatic, also fit under my category of "non-mammalian people who are just kind of genderqueer by default due to their biology not fitting into a binary".

[raevenlywrites]

Hi Raev, I use she /her pronouns but I don't like being referred to as any female words like girl woman ma'am lady etc. I also don't associate with the male terms. Does this mean I could be nonbinary? Some days I feel more feminine energy and other days I feel more male energy but overall generally I don't feel a gender. I'm confused.

Gender is super duper confusing! Before I knew about nonbinary genders, I was in a similar boat. I used she/her because I knew I wasnt he/him, but I HATED being called a girl, only tolerated woman, and mostly just felt like a "female", though even that sat kind of clinically and gross in my head.

The thing is, gender and pronouns are not inexorably linked. Nonbinary folks can use she/her, he/him, they/them, neopronouns like xe/xir or ey/eir, or any combination of the above! Pronouns are really more like nicknames than anything. They can signal gender, just liked gendered names do, but they dont automatically mean anything. I'm sure you've met all kinds of folks named Chris, male, female, and otherwise. Its the same with pronouns.

Whether you're nonbinary or not is something you can explore at your own pace, and whatever you come up with is fine. Agender, nonbinary, GNC, genderfluid--theres so many ways to do gender beyond just cis and trans. Play with labels and ideas, see what fits right, and know that the people that matter will support you on your journey :)

[sky-chau]

Lets get down to business.

^This is the checklist.^

I will reffer to it frequently.

Ive understood you the past six times. I understand your frustration but you have to think of it from a broader perspective and understand that there are more variables at play than wheather or not nonbinary people feel like an afterthought.

Just so were on the same page I'm going to make a list of things and people (in no particular order, since tumblr likes to re arrange blocks of text anyway.) I have taken the time to consider and continue to have to think about with every edit.

Femmes

POC

Butches

Nonbinary Folk (anyone who doesn't identify as a male or female)

Composition

Color Theory

Merchandising

Replicability

Color Blindness

Epilepsy

Disabled folk

Trans Women

Mainstream Culture

Intersex people

Production cost

Traditional Symbolism

Ease of Understanding

Character icons

Fun edits

Honoring the Dead

Jewish people

Queer history

Making it hard to erase any identity certain people might try to exclude.

The DAD test

So keeping all these things and the checklist in mind lets run shit down and try to fix the flag.

Goal: make nonbinary people feel included.

So NB people don't identify with the fem signs.

That's valid I get that, I gave an all stripe flag for y'all to use as you wish.

But that still makes them an after thought.

You're right I kinda seems that way. How about we just get rid of the fem signs all together!

Here's all the problems getting rid of the fem signs all together:

1: it leaves quite the empty space and feels like a bad composition

2: violates checklist points 2 and 6.

3:the spotlight would be flat out unrecognisable

Well how so?

POC would be unhappy to know that they have been dropped from the flag. Id imagine the same kind of backlash from disabled lesbains aswell.

Why not just make them into stripes too?

1: we all know how much backlash the brown stripes get from white people who think they're ugly.

2: if nonbinary people are represented as a white stripe and disabled people were a white fem sign, what color stripe would we associated with disabled people?

3: too many stripes.

Alright so stripes aren't a great idea, why not change the fem signs into something a bit more nueteral? Like just circles.

1: looses the clever side of the design that has a couple walking down a road or atop a light house, who's sillouhets are the projection for the spotlight.

2: making them into say a circle is rather abstract and would not catch on.

3: would violate checklist points 2 and 4.

4: its just bad design.

Why not add a third sign?

That gets a bit too complicated and starts confusing the message.

So then how do we compromise in a way that is practical and appeals to a mainstream audience but isint racist/albeist?

Well you make the flag more versatile. Give it different forms for different people with different needs.

But why is the one with the fem signs introduced first and one for Enbies introduced second? Why not introduce them all at once? Why have a primary flag at all?

This is what's called boiling the frog.

If you introduce people to the new flag idea starting with 5 flags that can be used interchangeably, they're going to be rather overwhelmed and might find themselves angry at such a preposterous idea.

So what you do is you introduce the flag with the most signage as the "main flag" and for every flag that is a subtraction of signage, introduce it as a resource for editing.

This allows people to use whatever form of the flag makes them most comfortable without making anyone else feel as if though they've been excluded from representation entirely. It also gives the opprotounity to explain to the clueless why you're using the "resource for edits" as the flag. It gives you a chance to explain to the curious the nuances to your identity at a pace that the person questioning would not be overwhelmed by, and might actually have a shot at understanding.

To say one is an after thought when 1.0 also had nonbinary people is truely reading a tad bit too into it and s little foolish considering you've been woven into the fabric of the flag since the very beginning.

Wait, why do we have to appeal to mainstream culture at all? Queer people have never been mainstream?

I think Natalie Wynn (contrapoints) said it best:

"If you want to persuade someone it helps to meet them where they're at"

So what does that mean?

Well it means baby steps. If we wish to educate people on the variety of lesbians we first have to appeal to what they think a lesbian is. Then over time you can slowly slip your more woke and educated points in.

Most people (outside of tumblr) dont know what a nonbinary person is, much less what the signage for them would look like.

But even that is not what lesbians as a whole are mostly concerned about as for us, where people are currently at is still not knowing what fucking flag to use for lesbians. The fem signs give a very difinitve answer to the question "wait what's that new flag suppose to be?" and potentially sparks interest into finding out why a post used this flag instead of the lipstick lesbian flag.

While it's not the wokest flag around it has been made very strategically to make replacing the old flag, easier and make more sence to the clueless onlooker.

Now a little bit about how graphic design and symbols work:

Lets talk about bathrooms for second. More specifically gendered public bathrooms. I know this is a hot topic and a lot of people are on board with having gender neutral bathrooms.

So for the sake of this example working lets get more specific and say were talking about porta potties. Technically all porta potties are gender neuteral, BUT for camping events lasting longer than a few days on grounds with no plumbing they have a womens porta potty.

Womens porta potties are exactly the same as all the others. They even have a urinal pipe for men. The reason that there is a womens porta potty is because some women do occasionally go on their periods and hazardous waste with blood in it has to be treated differently than hazardous waste without.

Now there's alot of different women and not all of them wear dresses. But the sign on the door to the womens portable shitter has a little picture of a person in a dress.

They dont use that signage to alienate people or dictate what women can wear. It simply uses the culture to illustrate what this crapper is.

They could put a biohazard sign on the women's toilet but, all fecal matter is a biohazard, blood or no blood.

Since not everyone is super savvy on what the bio hazard sign would imply about a women's camping toilet, that would be considered hostile design. Its not easy to understand.

Hostile design as a term usually applied to doors, or anti homless spikes but can be applied more broadly.

Now using the fem signs on the lesbian flag is the same as using the little dress person on a bathroom. Its not making a statement about the demographic using the item, it simply serves to make as obviously as possible using the cultural landscape it lives in, what the thing is for/about.

The most common signage used for lesbians is the interlocking fem signs. Using it on a thing simply states that thing that it is printed on is for or about lesbians.

Without the signs, it may be hard to figure out what flag its suppose to be if nobody told you.

Your frustration is valid and I'm not trying to make you an afterthought. Ive put alot more thought, time and, effort into this than I think anyone realizes.

If enough nonbinary people say they really wont use or support the flag I will make a new one, but be warned: I will throw a fit.

I will whine about it not only because I'm a little bitch like that, but also because its actually a fucking challenge that will require starting over from scratch.

But don't get me wrong I am still absolutely HELLBENT on making a flag that works.

[askanaroace]

how is someone aro ace and a lesbian at the same time? I support people who id that way if they want to I just don't understand it. and if that's a thing can't exclusoinists say that aro ace people can be straight now? im sorry im just confused

I don’t mind people asking genuine questions!

Everyone can honestly have a different relationship with their sexuality (especially with something like aromanticism and asexuality which encompasses such a broad spectrum). So the best way to know someone’s relationship to their identity is to politely ask! Here are some of the ways off the top of my head that you can be an aroace lesbian:

Be aroace but want/be open to a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman

Be aromantic and ace spectrum, using ace as an umbrella term, and a lesbian

Be asexual and aro spectrum, using aro as an umbrella term, and a lesbian

Be aro spectrum and ace spectrum, using aro and ace as an umbrella term, and a lesbian

Anything else I may not have thought to list here

People may use aromantic/asexual as an umbrella term because: it’s easier or more convenient for explaining how they feel without having to go into great detail, they don’t know where on the aro/ace spectrum they actually fit, they don’t really care to or need to more specifically define where on the spectrum they fit, or any other personal reason I may not have thought have.

So yes, while some heterosexual/heteroromantic aro/ace folk may self-identify as straight (again, it could be easier or more convenient or they feel it sounds the best to say or perhaps they don’t know there’s another choice or they felt pressured into it or any other reason I haven’t thought of), that does not make exclusionists correct.

It’s kinda hard to understand, but straight is not simply a sexual orientation identifier. It is also a social classification. It is a position of privilege. It is experiencing your sexuality in the way that our heteronormative, heterosexist, amatonormative world demands that you should. Asexuality and aromanticism simply do not correctly fit that role, even aces with a libido and/or who want to be in a sexual relationship or aros who want to be in a romantic relationship.

Besides that, exclusionists are still not right because hey, guess what? There are straight people in the ‘community’! Trans people can be straight, yet they are still welcome. Aros and aces who ID as straight are still aromantic and/or asexual and therefore still welcome.

Help this hopes clear things up!

x

[aroworlds]

Could you talk a bit about amatonormativity and how it related to you? I know the 101 (aka the definition), but I have trouble identifying it in real life, discussing how it permeates in fiction, etc. and this is kinda weird but I think an informed discussion about it would help? IDK feel free to ignore it if you don't have the spoons for it, but if you want to it would be a huge help!

Anon, I told you this was going to be long, but … well, it’s long!

The problem is that amatonormativity is a wall I keep hurling myself against, as an aro and as an aro creative, and there isn’t much conversational space where I am permitted to go all out in talking about it. I fear discussing this with too much vehemence, to go beyond the hand-holding 101 conversations about being aro, in case I alienate the alloromantic folks who do support me. Alloromantic people aren’t interested in conversations that undermine their sense of the world, and aro-spec spaces are small; both things together result in silence.

Because of this, I think it’s reasonable that this is something hard to grasp, for aro-spec and alloromantic folks alike: the educative conversations are hard to find or don’t exist. When you add to the fact that for the last two years a-spec people have been fighting targeted hate, that our conversations have fallen back to claws-out defence or the shield of validation, how the hell are we supposed to understand our own experiences, especially something as-yet-unquestioned as the practical impact of amatonormativity?

I hope you don’t mind, but because this is so long, I’m going to concentrate on amatonormativity in media and its impact on me as a creative.

In terms of fictional media, I think amatonormativity shows itself most obviously in the concept of a happy ending–that two people in a romantic relationship is by far the most common variant. No, not all stories end witha romantic happy ending, but so many do, even if it’s only a romantically-happy-for-now ending. Think Disney films; think action films shoving in an unnecessary romantic side-plot because the hero gets the girl once the explosions are over; think every story where the guy got the girl for reasons we the audience are expected to accept without question.

Likewise, a film with a tragic or unhappy ending is often shown by a protagonist not falling in romantic love or the dissolution of a romantic relationship. While there are other forms of indicating tragedy, the lack of a romantic paring for a character expected to be in one is common. There’s a reason Romeo and Juliet has long been framed as a tragic romance even though the tragedy, I’d argue, lies more in the impact of feuding families on the next generation, not the death of two young people in a “star-crossed” romance.

Even genres that aren’t romantic in the sense that romance isn’t the focus of the plot will still include sexual and romantic tension between characters: many of the crime and thriller novels I’ve read, supposedly less romantic because they target a cishet male audience, devote a great many pages to depicting romantic relationships nonetheless. The majority of YA novels depict the development of romantic relationships (which is why I kept reading middle-grade books even when I was too old for them) and even low-romance adult fiction still has the protagonists having had or desiring a romantic relationship at some point. So many literary works deal with the breakdown of romantic relationships, affairs, being single, unrequited love, or the way dangerous or alien environments, or the tyranny of distance, places stresses on romantic partnerships. These often won’t have purely happy endings–often tragic or complicated–because they’re Literary, but they’re just as obsessed with romantic love as any romance novel. In constantly going on about romance’s failure without ever making the point that someone can be happy and self-fulfilled without it, literary works are as amatonormative as anything else.

Romantic love and relationships don’t have to be successful: we just have to show a character desiring these or struggling with these, just so the audience knows that the protagonist is human. Characters who are shown as disdaining romance, or being uninterested in it, are usually antagonistic characters who are beyond redemption, are aliens or robots, or are coded as robotic–characters who are literally inhuman or portrayed as such. There’s a reason that The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper becomes a kinder, more “normal”, less-autistic-coded man the more he falls in romantic love with Amy, despite being introduced as extremely aroace-coded, and it’s called amatonormativity.

This is the point in the post where we aro-specs are giving the world that long, pained stare, and for good reason.

Romantic love as a marker of human worth is the most succinct way I can describe the impact of amatonormativity. It’s not a flawless summary, but so often romance is treated as a universal concept, relevant to all, because Western society uses the possession of or desire for romantic love as an indicator of a person’s humanity. Romantic love makes us human, and so romantic love is everywhere, unquestioned and unassailable.

Elements of a more expanded sense of amatonormativity include:

- The idea that romantic attraction, love and relationships are universal to the human experience (predominantly a relationship encompassing, exclusively, one perisex heterosexual-and-heteromantic cis man and one perisex heterosexual-and-heteromanticcis woman).

- The idea that romantic love is the primary form of love and all other forms, once one gains a certain level of socially-acceptable maturity or adulthood, are naturally secondary.

- The idea that romantic love and relationships are relatable to and attainable by all, and any failure to relate to it or attain it is a personal or moral failing.

- The idea that people who do not experience, attain or desire a romantic partnership are, after a certain age, childish or childlike, immature, robotic, alien, inhuman.

- The idea that sex (especially non-heterosexual or non-vanilla sex) is only acceptable, for a person of high moral character, when it comes paired with romantic love. (Characters who have sex without romantic love are often coded as grasping, hateful, calculating, predatory.)

- The idea that the attainment of romantic love and relationships is a marker of character development, growth, adulthood or redemption.

- The idea that because romantic love and relationships are universal, to not depict them in media is to render one’s work childish or uninteresting. (Every aro-spec creator of narrative media knows the impact of this one.)

- The idea that the lack of romantic love or relationships, or the desire for these, is an indicator of a person of low moral character.

- The unquestioned idea that romance sells, accompanied with the assumption that the inclusion of romance in a work (or the story-arc of a protagonist) is a necessary part of making that work (or character) appealing to all audiences.

- No comprehension that romantic attraction can be felt and experienced in a diversity of ways and strengths, particularly with regards to fluctuation, intensity and circumstance.

- Very little comprehension of the difference between romantic attraction and romantic behaviours.

- An assumption that there is a certain set of behaviours that are only or best experienced with romantic attraction. (Engaging in these behaviours without romantic attraction is also often coded as predatory.)

Please note that all these discussions of romance are based on an alloromantic model: romance in and of itself is not inherently amatonormative. Aro-spec people’s experiences of romantic love and relationships do not fit the above because they do not and cannot assume that everyone fits this assumption of romantic attraction being a universal, unquestioned human. If your depiction of romance doesn’t assume that romance makes us a worthy human and everyone experiences it, it’s probably not amatonormative.

There’s heavy overlap with ableism, misogyny, heterosexism, whoremisia, etc, and this must be acknowledged. Amatonormativity hits hard on its own, but it seldom hits alone. More often it’s paired up with another form of oppression, which means people who better fit its norms can deny its existence by claiming the problem is due only to amatonormativity’s current partner.

Additionally, most mainstream amatonormative works are going to be about cishet romances (the romantic relationship between a cis heterosexual man and a cis heterosexual woman, presumed to be perisex and both alloromantic and allosexual). Women are far more subject to the need to be shown in romantic relationships than men; men are more often allowed to travel through the narrative without being subject to a romance, although most are shown as at least desiring it. Each experience of marginalisation is going to shape in different ways how amatonormativity impacts us, and this needs to be discussed (especially because if we don’t, antagonists deny the existence of amatonormativity altogether).

(I will say that amatonormativity and misogyny have a strange relationship in that excessive romance is treated as feminine and emotional, and denigrated because of it. We all know how literature is valued and respected over fanworks and genre romance. Cishet men, meanwhile, have a long history of treating the having of a romantic partner as a trap–phrases like “ball and chain” with regards to a wife, for example. Despite this, there’s still an unquestioned social expectation that men experience romance attraction and have, will have or want a romantic partner.)

I’ll use my experience as a trans aro to give an example of this kind of overlap.

Amatonormativity in LGBTQIA+ media is coloured by the fact that LGBTQIA+ folks have been denied romantically-happy-endings until recently; the rise of fandom and LGBTQIA+ genre media has done much to change this. Yet both are, predominantly, romance narratives, to the extent that there is little space for anything else. This history leaves me in an awkward position. The need for love stories featuring trans characters and trans bodies as worthy of romantic interest and desire is profound. In a world where romantic love is seen as the only kind of love worth talking about, powerful and primary, it’s natural many trans/NB stories are about just that.

I feel like I’m walking on thin ice if I talk about how depicting romance as the only acceptable trans happy ending defines my experience of gender by romantic experiences--and yet that is exactly what I feel. Furthermore, this is a narrative many alloromantic trans people need and deserve. In trying to tell stories about me, an aro trans person, who isn’t a target of romantic love, my stories are seen by alloromantic trans folks as mirroring the narratives that have long harmed trans people, treating us as unlovable. My work cannot provide the validation–that they are desired and loved romantically–alloromantic trans folks are looking for.

The amatonormativity isn’t in the existence of trans romance stories, but the fact there are fewer publishing options, and smaller audiences, for non-romantic/aromantic/gen stories about trans love and identity. The amatonormativity lies in the fact that romantic love for trans characters is the love on which trans genre media centres.

As a reader, I need stories that talk about different kinds of love, love for myself and my own body, a radical self-acceptance that isn’t tied to someone else’s romantic interest in me. Instead, I get stories telling me that I am accepted, as a trans person, if my identity is tied up in experiences I don’t have and don’t desire.

The intersection of amatonormativity and cissexism results in its own peculiar oppression for me as a trans aro, one that I find impossible to navigate in a world where it isn’t understood that romance doesn’t have to be the primary form of expressing love and acceptance for trans characters and even trans bodies. I’ve seen so many posts on my dash about people proclaiming a want for trans storytelling while getting no benefit from this movement because I’m writing about aro trans characters. That’s more than a little disheartening.

This kind of intersection does a lot of damage to aro-spec creators who are otherwise marginalised (so many marginalised experiences come with a heavy dose of we are lovable, our love is important, we deserve the right for our love to be accepted and protected and acknowledged, much of this conversation centred on romantic love) but just being an aro-spec creator who creates aro-spec narrative media comes with an inherent disadvantage that is difficult to surmount.

I’ve got some numbers for this disadvantage, actually. My latest work, The Wind and the Stars, has had fifty downloads in its first month, and I’m actually excited by that, because everything else I’ve posted with the tag “aromantic” has gotten approximately twenty downloads in their first months. A couple of works didn’t break the fifty mark until three or four months in! By contrast, with the same amount of promotion but published under a brand new name with no back catalogue to help (unlike my other works), my explicitly queer paranormal romance story got three hundred downloads in its first month. How am I supposed to provide representation for my community when I don’t have enough interest in my work to justify the work of its production?

The tag aromantic helps guide aro-spec readers, but it actively discourages most alloromantic readers (who exist in far greater number) from reading, and most of them won’t have any comprehension of why. They just see romance as normal and interesting, and anything that subverts this, be it specifically aromantic or just gen, undermines this worldview. It happens so subconsciously it’s near impossible to challenge.

In a way, one of the most damaging aspects of amatonormativity is its lack of recognition. Most people have some understanding, now, on what misogyny is and what harm it might cause, even if one disagrees with it or has a 101 understanding at best. There’s a social model for beginning to understand this. Amatonormativity, on the other hand, has no such basis. It’s so unquestioned that few people who aren’t aro-spec recognise it or need to, and it’s often seen as a lesser problem. As someone who is struggling as a creator because of amatonormativity, to the extent that I don’t know how I can possibly survive as a writer, it angers me to see this treated as less important than other forms of normativity. No, nobody will beat me up on the street as an aro, but if I can’t keep a roof over my head because only a small number of people are reading my free books and I have no belief they’ll buy my next book, how does this distinction matter?

Amatonormativity silences, erases and oppresses aro-spec people. It substantially disadvantages us in how we are seen by others and how we interact with the world around us. And almost nobody outside aro-spec spaces wants to acknowledge it.

Sorry for the rant at the end there, anon. Does this give you some idea on how amatonormativity is demonstrated through media and how it impacts aro-spec creatives?

[thedeadflag]

there's this post going around saying that young people who don't like being called the q slur or using it as an umbrella term are kind of uninformed and too young to know the history and stuff. ive had some pretty bad experiences with the word and i don't feel ready to reclaim it, or like i ever will, it makes me sick to see people saying 'you're queer.' am i wrong for not embracing it?

You’re not wrong, and they’re full of crap.

There’s also a myth that TERFs came up with the q word being a slur, that many of those folks peddle around. It, of course, is laughably false. 

The idea that it’s only young uninformed people who don’t know their history is false. I’ve talked to plenty of ‘elders’ who were active in the community during the 80s, 90s, during the AIDS crisis.  The use of the q word back then was heavy, it was a rallying cry, but most understood it was a reclamation. That not everyone was comfortable reclaiming to due to their history, and that wasn’t an issue.

There are also people these days who say folks shouldn’t even try to reclaim it, who shouldn’t use it at all, and those folks are also wrong, because the q word has a part in our history, and it’s as legit a term as any out there for those who feel comfortable with it. .

But there’s always been support for folks who can’t reclaim certain words, or just don’t feel comfortable doing so, due to their history. And for as long as I’ve been active in the community (half my life, and I’m nearly 31) there’s been a good understanding that using the q word as an umbrella term doesn’t necessarily include anyone who hasn’t reclaimed it. That’s why a hell of a lot of community centers are labeled LGBTQ+...because not everyone fits under the Q, and it’s pretty much always been understood that that’s perfectly fine and good.

So yeah, the folks spreading that shit tend to not understand our history, or have just decided their local history is the same all all history, despite masses of evidence to the contrary. Anecdotally, I find it’s a lot of the same folks who violently appropriated gatekeeping, and who have been making a concerted effort to muddy the waters of what “TERF’ means, to make it more general and abstract than, you know, the actual trans exclusionary radical feminists who have a violent, transmisogynistic, cissexist history alongside a part in the ongoing genocide of trans folks. It’s very hard for me to take anyone seriously when they’re trying to distance key enemies and histories of transphobic oppression from that transphobic oppression. 

Anyway, you do you, anon. I also don’t fit under the Q. I highly doubt I’d ever find myself comfortable taking on or falling under that label. That’s perfectly fine for both of us. Anyone who can’t wrap their heads around someone not reclaiming a word heavily associated with trauma is probably not someone you should concern yourself with, anyways.

[kiramartinauthor]

Writer to writer, how do you go about creating characters who extend beyond your sphere of personal knowledge. I don't want to be one of those cishet white writers who only write cishet white characters, but equally as terrifying is misrepresenting whatever group I want to give representation to. Its a really big dilema for me because I have not been exposed to a whole lot in my life yet, so my go to point of reference for creating realistic human characters is myself. Please, any tips?

My main character is biracial, so I get ya. I am not Japanese, so I’ve done my best not to misrepresent Japanese people. As far as tips, this sphere of race/gender/sexuality/ability/etc, while scary on the outside, is much the same as any writing. And this is the part where I make a list. Because, well… lists.

1.    Find an understanding through research. This type of research is so important because you need to understand the culture of the group as well as what’s okay vs not okay. After all, your character would probably know all of this and it’s your job to represent your character as accurately as possible. For example, if your character is LGBTQ, you could start a polite dialogue with some out, open, and willing to talk LGBTQ folks. Ask them if they’d be okay with answering a few questions about your characters/concepts/etc. Many people (including my queer self) would be delighted that you would even care and be more than happy to help you. Just keep in mind that it’s best to get multiple perspectives on any topic because no one person is the Voice of Their People™. If you feel awkward about real life talk, internet talk works too. If you feel awkward about that, there’s plenty of resources just a Google search away—it’s just like any other part of the process.

2.    Make them human before anything else. Just because a character is, for example, a person of color, their entire identity doesn’t revolve around their skin color. Basing their personality off of one aspect of their life is a great way to make very stereotypical and offensive character. Obviously, people are more than just a single identity. Understand that there are many different people in the world and that just because some people are of the same race/gender/sexuality/ability does not mean they will all have the same experiences/personality/culture/etc. We’re all human first, so treat your character like a human. Also know that the problem isn’t only in who your character is, it’s in how you present them through their POV.

3.    Don’t preach what you don’t know. If you are not in the same demographic as your character, it’s best to avoid making the book’s main conflict about their experience with oppression within their demographic. Example: I am a cis woman, so writing a novel about a trans woman coming to terms with her gender identity is a hugely inappropriate. It’s so deeply intimate and not only would I have no fucking idea what I was talking about, but I’d be silencing the voices of those who are already oppressed. It’s great being an ally and all, but taking their stories and their struggles without having more than a skin deep understanding is not okay. Instead, use your privilege to lift up those identifying writers/stories and support the ever-loving shit out of them.

4.    Enlist beta readers. If you’re worried that people could take something the wrong way or that your character isn’t coming across right, enlist beta readers within that demographic that might be able to shed more light on it. Ask things like: “So this character has depression, did I present it right?” This DOES NOT mean to recruit allies and hang on to their every word. Allies are great, but they can be like over excited dogs. They just want to help you do the thing, but in the process, they can break EVERYTHING. Listen to them of course, but know that they have no better judgement than you—their voices are not the ones you should be following through on. Granted, it can be hard finding multiple identifying people who are willing to beta a whole book, so if you have non-identifying people saying a certain aspect of your book is ignorant/disrespectful/etc, listen to them and check in with someone who is open and willing to talk. (See #1.)

5.    Listen to the voices within the community. It’s that easy and it’s the most important one. Don’t magically cure disabilities. Say that your bisexual character is b i s e x u a l. Listen to what people within these groups have been saying forever.

All this being said, sometimes certain specific things can just plain not fit with your book’s plot/theme/characters/whatever. A lot of the time (especially in think pieces), being politically incorrect is used as a tool to shed light on the problems in the world around us, but know that some people might only see it as problematic. What you decide to do is ultimately your judgment call and you can only act with the best intentions. Hope this helped!

Chapter One / Website / YouTube / Facebook

[twinfools]

Gender identity confuses me. Not other people's​, but my own. I've been called "she" my whole life, so it's familiar, but I don't feel like a girl. But I don't feel like "he" fits me either. But at the same time, I'm totally fine with being seen as a boy or a girl, or neither, and it makes me kind of happy when somebody calls me by male pronouns (I tend to dress "masculine", have short hair, and sometimes wear a binder because I hate having boobs). Any advice on figuring myself out?

Hello there Anon!

By the sounds of it I think you have yourself pretty figured out. You’ve definitely identified here what you feel comfortable with, what you like and what you dislike. These things don’t have to fit neatly into a package or even have a title or label attached to them. This description above IS an identity, and with any identity it’s one that you’ll continue to explore at your own pace. Go with what feels affirming and comfortable, and if the time feels right/helpful perhaps a label may fit your identity. It also may not, and that’s oaky. This is how many labels and terms came to be, and in all cases labels are oversimplifications of complex ideas that just make it easier for us to talk about things like gender. Labels are important to many people, but a label isn’t needed to validate an identity. 

For some folks it can be helpful to speak with other trans/gender diverse/questioning folks. Hearing about other people’s experiences and being able to speak about your own experiences and thoughts in a non-judgemental environment can be a helpful way to learn more about yourself (and others!). If you go to school I would suggest connecting with your school’s GSA (if you have one). I’d also recommend looking at community support groups of LGBTQ+ youth (many cities have LGBTQ centres that often host a youth program). I’m happy to help you identify a centre or group near you if you’d like!