anonymous asked:

Hi, I'm questioning, and I just...fundamentally don't understand gender as an "experience." I can go by indicators like "I want to use she/her" and "I'm fine being seen as a girl." That's why I didn't question it before. However, nothing within me feels inherently feminine. And certainly not masculine. I just feel like...a person. I don't know if I should start ID-ing as agender to reflect that lack of experience, or stick with "girl" since I'm comfortable with it even if it's kinda inaccurate.

You can be agender/genderless and still be comfortable with being called a binary gender, and you can definitely be agender and still use she/her! Or you can experiment with the term “agender girl” but you’re not obligated to. 

-Mod Dave

Feel free to check out our questioning section on our resource page ! 😊


“What are you looking at, human?”

💎 Caesium 💎

gender thoughts:

i don’t want other people referring to me with feminine terms beyond “lesbian”. 

i might use those terms for myself, i might refer to myself as a woman or whatever (although always with caveats and footnotes), but i don’t want other people to label me as a woman.

because while yes i am female-aligned, i’m still genderless, and i want to be perceived as such. i want, more than anything, to be seen as and referred to the gendervoid person that i am.

happy trans visibility day! I struggle with lots of identity issues like being mixed and thinking sometimes I’m not a true poc to worrying that I’m not a really trans™ because I’m dfab and identify more femme them masc and lots of other stuff but I’m valid and so are u guys he/it/she pronouns

Still thinking about non-binary characters in podcasts vs mainstream media, and it just occurred to me that Welcome To Night Vale is the first instance I’ve ever come across of characters’ genders being explicitly stated as outside of the binary for the audience. 

The most obvious example - and the one I keep returning to - is the Sheriff’s Secret Police’s genderless spokesperson. The gender game is right there in the name. Though, admittedly given their description, they could to be included in the category of ‘possibly not human/out of the ordinary’ that many non-binary characters seem to fall into. That being said, this is Night Vale.

Then there’s also Alicia, a masked warrior from the Desert Otherworld, who is described as “not a woman or a man”. This description immediately establishes them as identifying as a gender outside of the binary. Again, ‘out of the ordinary’ given that they are a giant desert warrior, but - as with the genderless spokesperson - still humanoid and (presumably) living in a society where binary genders are the norm.

In many mainstream instances, non-binary character’s genders are treated almost like Easter Eggs within the canon, or never really brought up in context. I mean, I was really excited about the Crystal Gems from Steven Universe being confirmed as non-binary, but it hasn’t gone beyond the creator saying that they are. 

And it doesn’t necessarily have to go any further.

I’m not saying that all non-binary characters should be defined by their gender, have a spotlight placed on it, or anything like that. I just happened to notice that WTNV goes about establishing such characters in a way that is quite different from the current norm.

For anyone who complains about Ruby and Sapphire being considered lesbians

While it’s true that gems are technically genderless, they still do choose to take on the form of females the majority of the time. Amethyst has actually taken a male form a couple of times in canon (Purple Puma), which was confirmed in the Guide to the Crystal Gems.

Canonically, they DO go by the female gender pronoun, aside from Steven. That is not something the fandom has placed on them. We know that characters are not limited to the she/her and he/him pronouns, as the Crewniverse confirmed that Stevonnie uses they/them - so genderfluid and non-binary characters are canon. Yet the gems do not view themselves as non-binary, they view themselves as female. Even Homeworld gems choose to take on a gender, so this seems to be a common trait of gems.

Since they use the she/her pronouns, they are considered lesbians by a lot of fans. Even if they identified as genderless all the time, they would still be homosexual, as homosexuality is attraction to the same gender. Just as a human born with male body parts can identify as female, so too can gems. If a person such as that dates a female, is that a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship? Is the relationship not valid as a lesbian relationship because of some silly body parts? It’s really all up to the people that form and make up the relationship to decide, not any outside party. Not only that, but lack of sexual organs or sex does not make a relationship less valid either. I hope that’s not all you think validates a relationship.

Gems have love, and gems have romance. Gems can be in a romantic relationship even if it is not physical in the human way. They have the concept of being in a long term relationship, even if their relationships are not based around the same traits that make up a human relationship. It’s still love, it’s still romance, it’s still valid as a relationship. Just as not all human relationships are the same, neither are gem relationships. They still exist, and they still matter.

The point of Steven Universe is to be relatable. As the Crewniverse has stated, if someone sees them as lesbians, than they can be. If someone else sees them as good friends, then they can also be that. Fusion is left ambiguous on purpose. Everyone can take their own meaning of the relationship, and it’s still valid. What you personally get from the show, what it means to you, and how you see it, are most important. How someone else sees it is also just as valid and important to them, even if you don’t agree, and even if it’s not how you perceive the show.