WalrusDragonOnABike

Their response was to ask me if everything was ok and made me pinky promise I wasn’t looking for jobs.

I refused to give a direct answer to my boss when asked if looking for new jobs. Like... I wasn't. But they don't need to think that.

If pineapple juice is anything like other citric juices, at least the sperm isn't so acidic and has a relatively weak taste.

It’s bad enough that my boss found my resume on indeed.

Hopefully just because they are hiring and happened to find it rather than stalkerish behavior. Surely, their response was to offer either better pay or working conditions to try to keep you, right?

I wanna be the type of pirate that yells "SUPER!"

I feel like I've read a fictional story about that.

Its actually in the headline. Dr. Who recommended "Dementia Tests For Trump"

Julia struggle session took over 100 comments away from here.

On the topic of boymoding, it really hit me last week that one day soon I’ll boymode for the last time.

Is this because you think you won't be able to convincingly do it anymore or because you are wanting to stop?

Congrats on the progress and good luck with the search. If you are trying to find a place that will be accepting of you, applying with chosen name and present the way you want to after you are hired seems like it would give you an outcome you'd prefer even if it causes a lot of anxiety and making getting hired harder.

Its been sorta expected to happen eventually. Texas is only not a swing state because of things like voter suppression. There's only 6 states with worse turnout than Texas. If Texas had the turnout of Minnesota, it might just be a blue state.

I think it would be more comparable to getting mad about some bi people insisting everyone is bi, saying they bully you for being a lesbian throughout your book and while giving no almost no attention to bi erasure.

i don’t see your issue with this other than the wording, i mean this is a dumb “gotcha” sort of way to put it but the sentiment is genuinely correct.

The gotcha wording is why I said I don't get how someone could seriously write it if they've thought about it at all. Its about as insightful as the "you live in the society, yet you want it to change" meme that I can only believe people would say if they either have not thought about it at all OR are arguing in bad faith. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Julia that I wouldn't give to a random internet stranger who said that and nothing else to suggest otherwise, but its still embarrassing and given the binarist bent of the language throughout the book (probably because that was the language in vogue at the time), it hardly seems like NBs and anti-binary sentiment was really as big a of a thing as portrayed (or Julia intentionally chose to use such language despite widespread alternatives without even mentioning them).

I don't disagree with the idea that people should present how they want and not restrict themselves based on avoiding to be too conformist. OTOH, people should question if they want certain things to conform or because they genuinely want to. I get this book is written about a specific time and place that I was not part of (early 2000s California trans scene IIRC), but it doesn't seem to describe anything I've actually seen at scale from trans people (maybe because this book was successful? Maybe just because of my limited exposure to such groups) But I still feel [citation needed] applies and without that I still feel like I should lump it in with the conservative stories about how they went to a coffee shop in a place like San Francisco and got beat up for being a cishet white male and no other reason. If it is just a story about a niche scene from 20 years ago, the book should still be given qualifiers about such when recommending it today.

You see this kind of thing in a very less fringe way in weird “wearing makeup is always self-enslavement actually” type takes from non-intersectional feminists.

I don't think it never happens, but it seems most popular among TERFs. "Feminists" were separately called out and cited in the book.

I can't help but wonder if she's mistaking her disproportionate negative feelings towards a couple of "subversive for the sake of subversiveness" types for a more widespread nature of it. Like on the ace meme subreddit, you would regularly see people complaining about too much "sex-favorable" and too much "sex-negative" content, often on the same day. And both would seriously believe that the other experience had some extreme disproportionate influence when like 90% of the jokes were just garlic bread, dragons, spACE, and invading Denmark and had nothing to do with sex in any way; yet, I still essentially took a side despite thinking the whole argument was silly, so I'm not gonna hold it against Julia for responding to that sentiment even if it wasn't as dominant as she seemed to portray it (I finished the book and I don't read - I still think its a good read).

I've certainly got the idea that it might be a bit... uhh... "dated?"... from some people's comments about it on here, so I don't think its totally without criticism. But idr details.

But given the reputation, perhaps others felt like me about it, thinking maybe we're the ones missing something given the praise it gets.