What I hate about heteronormativity is that you will get the most mind-blowing, realistic, palpable chemistry between two characters of the same gender in a show and the writer/cast will bend over backwards to pretend it’s in the fans heads or make out it’s some amusing and impossible joke, yet you’ll get the dullest, most rubbish, forced, stilted ‘romance’ shoved in your face and be expected to just go with it because hey, it’s a man and a lady who are white and moderately attractive, of course it’s true love. Of bloody course. 

When I was a kid, the most thrilling thing that could happen to me was getting permission to have a friend stay the night. These sleepovers were so much fun that I was sure when I grew up I would live in a giant house with all of my friends forever. (I never wondered who would do the dishes.)

Nearly everyone I know had similar daydreams, but this is something we are supposed to grow out of, and replace with daydreams about living with a romantic partner.

This isn’t entirely going as planned for our society. It seems like every few weeks an article is circulated that inspires a giant online hand-wringing about millennials resisting committed romantic relationships, or Gen Xers continuing to have roommates. (“The millennial generation lacks the ability to love!” “Meet the people flatsharing in their 40s!”)

We’ve collectively decided that people who live with their friends have failed terribly, people who live with a partner have achieved incredible domestic success, and people who live alone or don’t centre their lives around romance are possibly just broken.

We are all encouraged to work hard to have stable lives. But at the same time, we’re encouraged to anchor our lives around the relationship that is the least stable.

It is uncomfortable to think of romantic love in those terms, but it’s not inaccurate.


Audra Williams, from this National Post article “Why living with your friends doesn’t make you a bad adult”. Really interesting and valid as an observation of the state of our society nowadays and the fact that focus on marriage as ‘success’ is totally ideological, but it also resonated with me as a defense of asexuality; and ace, aro issues. Romance does not have to rule your life.

Check out more of Audra’s work and words [right here]



We Heart: Ruby Rose on Gender Fluidity

There’s been a ton of media attention paid to Rose’s sudden stardom: BuzzFeed has seemingly endless listicles devoted to the actor, and The Huffington Post has written about Rose’s “universal sex appeal,” remarking on how “self-identified straight women” are swooning for the “androgynous” actor.

Amidst all the attention paid to her looks, it’s important to note that Rose has spoken out numerous time about important gender issues, most recently in an interview with Elle. Rose describes herself as “gender fluid” and explained what that means to her, saying:

Gender fluidity is not really feeling like you’re at one end of the spectrum or the other. For the most part, I definitely don’t identify as any gender. I’m not a guy; I don’t really feel like a woman, but obviously I was born one. So, I’m somewhere in the middle, which—in my perfect imagination—is like having the best of both sexes.

She goes on to explain how she can make the choice every day and not have to “succumb to whatever society—whether it’s work or family or friends or whoever—makes you feel like you’re supposed to be because of how you were born.”

This isn’t the first time Rose has touched on gender fluidity. A year ago, she wrote, produced and starred in “a short film about gender roles, trans and what it is like to have an identity that deviates from the status quo.” The eloquent short film captures what it’s like to transition from being uncomfortable in your own skin to freely embracing a physicality that feels authentic.

So while it’s great that viewers are embracing Rose (both on- and off-screen), perhaps they should contemplate whether continually praising her as “hot,” or commenting on how surprised they are to be attracted to her, is a tad offensive. Rose’s whole message is that she doesn’t fall into one category or another, and by focusing only on her level of attractiveness, people aren’t listening to her, they’re objectifying her.”

Read the full piece here

Photo by Eva Rinaldi
'Pink Dot' Pushes the Envelope in Singapore As State Tightens Rules - The News Lens International Edition
This year’s LGBT pride event took a baby step toward being a little more like a protest. Meanwhile, the government is trying to ban sponsorship by foreign entities of events at Hong Lim Park.
By Kirsten Han, TNL

Once a year Singapore experiences a public display of love. People don pink shirts, trousers, dresses, jumpsuits, shoes, wigs, makeup  —  you name it  —  and transform a hot, small park into a giant Pink Dot in support of the “freedom to love.” The event is essentially a less “threatening” way for the public to say they want LGBT equality in the controlled and “conservative” (or so we are told) city-state.

LGBT equality has long been a controversial issue in Singapore. S377A of the Singapore Penal Code continues to criminalize sex between men, essentially criminalizing gay men in Singapore. Efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the law in the courts failed in 2014.

First launched in 2009, Pink Dot is the closest thing Singapore has to a Pride parade. Firmly pitched as a family event, it positions itself as fun and accessible. This approach has paid off: attendence has grown year on year, with as many as 28,000 people showing up last year. Organizers gave up counting this year, as the turnout had already exceeded the capacity of Hong Lim Park — the only space in Singapore where public demonstrations are allowed without a police permit.

For this year’s event, held on June 5, Pink Dot decided to make a move to the use of 5,000 placards instead of the little pink lights that have marked previous incarnations of the rally/mass picnic. It allowed people to write their own messages, to insert their own voices into the movement. Many wrote about love, but many others also wrote about rights, about equality and justice. In its own way, the use of placards took Pink Dot a baby step toward being a little more like a protest: a demand for change rather than a suggestion.

But this is Singapore

Only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) could hold placards; anything else would breach the rules of Speakers Corner, the only place in the country where people  —  I mean, Singaporeans and PRs  —  can gather for a cause. I wasn’t able to be there, but heard from people who were at the scene that identity cards were zealously checked, and multiple reminders about foreign participation issued. One non-resident friend was told that even if he were to hold on to a placard for someone, he could not hold it above his head. Another friend, a PR, had to vouch for his two little girls, too young to have ICs, before they were allowed their own placards. One Singaporean said she was required to write her message on her placard in front of the organizers so they could be aware of what she was writing.

I’m not pointing this out to blame the Pink Dot organizers. They are, after all, trying to make things work within the confines of the law. And the police have been known to investigate incidences of foreigners participating in activities at Hong Lim Park.

But set against the backdrop of events in the week before Pink Dot, it becomes a reminder of the constraints that everyone in Singapore operates under.

Three people were interrogated for hours last Tuesday, as part of police investigations into alleged breaches of Cooling-Off Day rules. Another person was interrogated, also for hours, on Wednesday. The homes/offices of all four were then searched, their electronic devices seized, thus giving the authorities access to their personal private data. All four were activists and/or bloggers.

The police did not need warrants for any of this

Breaking the Cooling-Off Day rules is an arrestable offence — the police can arrest, search and seize whatever they think they need for their investigations without the need for a warrant.

Add this to the list of worrying due process issues we have in Singapore; as we have all learned, there is no right to almost immediate or early access to legal counsel  —  the police only need to give an accused person access to his or her lawyer within a “reasonable time.” We were reminded of this by the heartbreaking case of Benjamin Lim. There is also no requirement for statements to be recorded verbatim. (I previously raised these issues in an op-ed here.)

The investigation of Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung (and members of The Independent Singapore), with the consequent knowledge that the police has the power to search your home and seize your personal electronic devices over a Facebook post posted at a particular time, brings a chilling effect that goes far beyond just those investigated. It makes you wonder what other offences don’t require warrants to arrest, search, or seize. It makes you wonder what the police are looking for when they look into one’s personal devices. It makes you wonder if your social media accounts, your chats with friends, your work and data are safe. It makes you feel like the state is so powerful, and you so very small.

And so you decide the best way is to not tempt fate, to not get into any trouble at all. Or give anyone any excuse to accuse you of having done anything. This is kind of like how the Pink Dot organizers were so, so careful to make sure the rules were followed to the letter.

New restrictions

But even Pink Dot’s best efforts to operate within the state’s confines haven’t paid off. Days after the event, the government announced it will take measures to prevent foreign entities from funding, supporting or influencing events held in Hong Lim Park — essentially putting an end to the sponsorship from corporations like Google, Barclays and Facebook that make Pink Dot possible.

There are many different causes in Singapore, but everyone operates under the same constraints: getting data from the state is near-impossible, public gatherings are banned except for a small, easily-forgettable corner of Singapore, the worry about being accused of having some ill-defined political agenda, or worse, interference from foreign elements. Add to that the fear, suddenly made more real by the past week’s events, that somehow more sinister motives will be attributed to one’s activities, and that “They” will do something about it.

When seen like this, it seems silly that many groups in Singaporean society  —  be it civil society, NGOs, arts or academia, among others  —  work so strictly on their pet issue, and only that. One might say Pink Dot has nothing to do with the investigations into Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung, or that the death penalty is not connected to gender equality, or that migrant workers’ rights are a separate issue from Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund, but the truth is that there are so many points of commonality, so many shared challenges and obstacles.

Take matters like police powers and due process, for instance. Migrant rights activists are already taking issue with police investigations concerning migrant workers. Death penalty activists like myself have heard alarming stories about police processes, as told by death row inmates to their family members. The LGBT equality movement should be concerned about Roy and Soh Lung’s investigation, because, guess what, S377A is also an arrestable offence. (Sure, the government might now say that S377A is not enforced, but as long as it remains on the books it could be enforced, just like the police could search your home, seize your property and even arrest you if an investigation were to be launched.)

The oppression of one, if tolerated, can easily become the oppression of all

I love Pink Dot, not because it motivates me to speak out for LGBT equality  —  I was already inclined to do so anyway  —  but because of the people and the atmosphere. To be surrounded by so many who are so ready to include, to accept, to love you for who you are. To feel free to simply soak in everything, to take a breath in a country that is often literally and figuratively too stuffy for you to do so.

But we shouldn’t feel like this only one day of the year; it is our right to feel like this every day of the year. We need more solidarity, more cooperation to get there. It is only when we are together that we are strong.

P.S. Again because this is Singapore, I feel like I need to add this postscript to say that I am not advocating for the overthrow/voting out of the People’s Action Party (PAP), lest the conversation be derailed by such accusations. I am specifically addressing problematic issues with police procedures, as well as the restriction of democratic rights. Voting out the PAP may be one way to bring about change, but I think it more important and productive to focus on protecting and promoting everyone’s political and human rights, regardless of the political party we are dealing with.

i understand why people are referring to the orlando shooting as a “lgbtqia+ issue” but it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth to obfuscate that this is very specifically about gay men, a thing that happened to gay men, because of them being gay men, and primarily gay men of colour at that. this happened because the shooter saw two men kissing. that’s what this is about. there are definitely wider reaching implications and room for more discussion about anti-lgbt violence as a whole but this shouldn’t be treated as some sort of statistical contribution to a general pool of hatecrime data (as no hate crime should be to be perfectly fucking honest), this was the worst shooting in US history and 50 people are dead because one guy was disgusted enough by having to see gay men openly express affection to eachother that he decided to try and kill as many of them as he could. don’t generalize that. that’s fucking important 

fuck your Oppression Olympics

if you want to base your personal identity as part of the LGBTQIA community on the oppression that you face, be my guest. however, do not for a second think that you get to base my or anyone else’s identity as part of the LGBTQIA community on the oppression that any of us face.

as if you even fucking know the oppression that i or anyone else face(s).

as if everything that i am or anyone else is in relation to the LGBTQIA community could even be boiled down to the oppression that any of us face.

seriously. fuck you.

as a black person who is also non-binary, queer and ace it is so incredibly mindfucking to me how some people on this site insist on trying to boil the connection that i or anyone else has with the LGBTQIA community down to oppression. fucking oppression. and not just oppression, presumed oppression.

how the fuck anyone even thinks that is okay is beyond me. it’s not fucking okay.

stay the hell away from me with your use of my oppression and the oppression of others as a tool to further your own personal opinion.

stay the hell away from me if you fail to even realize that that is exactly what you are doing when you host or take part in The Oppression Olympics™ to try and keep someone out of this community that is just as much mine as it is yours.

I feel some kind of way about all these straight people who suddenly all “stand with the LGBTQ community.” Is that because ya’ll think the shooting was carried about by a Muslim follower of ISIS? It’s a tragedy if you can blame it on another hated minority, but yesterday people were setting off bombs in Target bathrooms and attacking people suspected of being trans. Yesterday people were defending the right of business owners to discriminate against same-sex couples. Yesterday people were defending and vowing to support homophobic companies like Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A. Yesterday the laws still reflected a fundamental lack of protections for LGBTQ people. Same as today. But we’re now all one family? One community? One people? An attack on one is an attack on all? Mmmhmm. As Marsha would say..

Originally posted by diamonds-and-froot

It’s Not About ‘Opinions’. It never was.

Listen. I’m done arguing about ‘opinions’ and ‘positions’ about who does and doesn’t belong in ‘the community.’ And here’s why:

Because THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS were being made about me 20 years ago, that I don’t experience homophobia (correct, I experience biphobia) and that trans people shouldn’t be included.

Hell, you go back 30 or 40 years and you get the argument that lesbians shouldn’t be included.

If history has shown anything about us as a community and as a movement, it is that those who adopt a prescriptivist and a restrictivist viewpoint are on the wrong side of the movement and the wrong side of history.

Every. Single. Time.

So if you want that to be you, then you go right ahead.

I remember all too well having this exact. Same. Shit. Said to me.

It is STILL said to me, just more softly, more gently, couched as ‘you don’t really experience biphobia, you experience homophobia LITE’

So, nah, bro.

I don’t accept it. It’s repackaged biphobia and transphobia and if you want to be a bigot on the wrong side of the movement, you go ahead.

As for me and mine, no thanks. I will no longer even debate this repackaged bullshit.

“fighting homophobia and transphobia” my big fat white ass, y’all conveniently forget ‘Drop the T’ still exists

If you don’t like being told you’re a bigot, try not being a bigot. If this post makes you uncomfortable with how easy it is to switch out the active descriptors and make your shit biphobic and transphobic, then good, I’ve done my job.

I’m tired of being nice while people turn around casually and use the same language that for decades was used to tell me that bi people aren’t part of “the community”, only now I’m supposed to be grateful that I’ve been accepted as long as I join hands against the current group that’s being gatekept?

Like are you kidding? Seriously?

Over and over and over – and rightly so – we talk about how we are not going to accept someone’s ‘opinion’ on whether or not LGBTQIPA – MOGAI – Queer people exist, whether they belong, whether they have rights, when that comes from a group outside the community. We say that ‘I don’t have to give the time of day to an “opinion” that denies my right to rights, that denies my right to belong. That’s on you, that’s on your bigotry, not on me. I don’t need to accept that opinion, and I don’t need to debate it.’ 

And that’s correct. That’s exactly what we should do.

So why, then, are we even having this discussion? Why am I supposed to respect ‘opinions’ that are centered on things that would not be accepted if they came from outside the community?

That is, by the way, a rhetorical question. I do not accept those opinions, because if you sit down and really genuinely think about the arguments the ace-exclusionary folks put forward, not only are they repackaged biphobia and transphobia, but they’re TERF-rephrasings, and they’re easily tweaked to be anti-trans bathroom-bill arguments. 

And if you’re okay with that, then you’re probably not someone who actually respects me. 

A lot of the time, I can brush off these anti-ace things, and how very much they echo the things that I have had thrown at me for the last two decades. They come from angry kids. They come from people far away from me. But today it came from someone who I considered a good acquaintance, if not a friend. And it felt… really horrible. It felt really, really personal.

Because, yeah, on some level, it is. If you can sit here and listen to your bi and trans friends say ‘this is what was deployed against us, and it bothers and hurts us’ and you’re still saying ‘nah, bro, but really, we only want the aces we think are okay’, all I hear is echoes of ‘get out of Pride, you bi bitch, you’re not with a woman, you don’t belong here, you’re het-partnered.’ All I feel is being slapped for not disclosing my bisexuality to the lesbian who’d been flirting with me, like my bisexuality was a disease. 

And no, I’m not okay with that. How could I be?

I’ll be back tomorrow. I came back online expressly to take down the other posts and move the text into its own post.

This isn’t something I want to debate. If you think it’s okay to repackage biphobia against ace people, what you’re saying is ‘stay where we tell you, or we’ll come back to you.’


Tomorrow in the LGBTQ+ Student Resource Center: Union Room 211 at 7PM!  Come out for the first Ace Spectrum of the semester! Ace Spectrum is a discussion group that focuses on the experiences of people who fall anywhere on the asexual spectrum and/or the aromantic spectrum, and provides a forum in which people can share their experiences, learn from one another, and connect with a community. Ace Spectrum is a safe space for those who identify somewhere on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrum. This includes people anywhere on the ace spectrum, whether or not they are aromantic, as well as those who are aromantic but not on the ace spectrum.

This week we will be discussing asexual and aromantic erasure. All are welcome, but please be respectful of the space
How one Malaysian went from having a gun in his face to the director of the NY Gay Pride
KUALA LUMPUR, July 9 — Now, Julian Sanjivan is a 34-year-old Malaysian who directed the New York edition of this year’s Gay Pride parade, arguably the largest ever in the history of the annual march. But it was not so long ago that he had

Now, Julian Sanjivan is a 34-year-old Malaysian who directed the New York edition of this year’s Gay Pride parade, arguably the largest ever in the history of the annual march.

But it was not so long ago that he had still been in Malaysia, where his sexual orientation made him the target of discrimination, harassment, and alleged violence by the authorities.

“…I was surrounded and harassed by a group of policemen who pointed a gun to my face and threatened to use it for merely voicing my rights,” he told Malay Mail Online during an interview.

“They laughed, mocked and called me derogatory terms in the Malay language for being gay. All this happened very close to my work place.”

For the gay man then living in Muslim-majority Malaysia that is intolerant of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities, the incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Sanjivan packed his belongings and moved to the United States four years ago, in search of the tolerance he did not find at home.

There, he became the first Malaysian to be accepted as a fellow in the Community Solutions Program that was funded by the US State Department.

He was chosen due to the recognition he had gained for his work with Malaysian non-profit PT Foundation, which deals with HIV education, awareness, support and care for the most at-risk populations affected by the disease.

But it was not until he heard news from back home that authorities were clamping down on LGBT rights movements that he decided to stay on in the US. He applied for asylum, which was granted by the US government last year.

“When the government decided to give the organisers of Seksualiti Merdeka a very difficult time, it went downhill from there for the LGBT community in Malaysia,” he said.

The annual festival to promote sexuality rights began in 2008 and was banned by police in 2011, after Muslim groups alleged that it promoted homosexuality and sexual promiscuity.

The organisers attempted to challenge the ban through judicial review, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2012, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2013.

Sanjivan said, however, that it was the message from the highest echelons of the government regarding the LGBT community that cemented his decision to stay abroad, when Putrajaya blamed the group for local HIV cases and said it needed to be “nipped in the bud”.

But he explained that his choice to remain in the US was not about escaping the discrimination at home; rather, Sanjivan said it was his mission to make the rest of the world see the plight of the community here.

“That was the turning point and I vowed to myself that I will let the world know the human rights violations the LGBT community faced back in Malaysia,” he added.

“Now, I have the platform to do just that.”

The Petaling Jaya native currently residing in New York was last year elected as a member of the Executive Board of Heritage of Pride, which gave him the responsibility to organise this year’s parade in New York City.

From his new vantage point, he said the biggest issue for the LGBT community in Malaysia was that its legal environment criminalised their behaviour.

Although homosexual behaviour is not illegal per se, Malaysia has colonial era laws that criminalise anal and oral sex as carnal intercourse against the order of nature, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Shariah laws also prohibit cross-dressing, which is the violation most often used to detain and prosecute Muslim transgenders who, according to a 2014 Human Rights Watch report, are regularly harassed and abused by local religious enforcers.

“This is made worse by regressing government policies and decisions that violate basic human rights that curtails the freedom of speech and inability to express one’s true identity without fear,” Sanjivan added.

Muslim-majority Malaysia vehemently objects to the perceived rise in LGBT activities, which it deems to be an assault against Islam together with growing calls for greater civil liberties.

LGBT communities are regularly denounced in sermons, together with other groups and ideologies that local religious authorities consider to be unacceptable.

The LGBTQIA+ community was attacked last night when someone opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida last night. 50 people are dead and the total is expected to rise. This is being called the biggest terrorist attack in America since 9/11 and the biggest mass shooting.

This was targeted, this was not a random act of violence. Our community was attacked during a month that was suppose to be for our pride, our happiness. Instead, we are dealt this.

Blood (O+ and - mostly) is needed. Use to find a donation center. If you can, please try to help.

I can’t express how sad and angry I am. This shit is real. We are STILL being killed. Homophobia didn’t end with same sex marriage being legalized. After this and Christina Grimmie’s recent death, this should show America that we need stricter gun control.

My thoughts are with the victims, families, and friends of the people we lost last night.

Why “The Little Mermaid” Should be Remade as the First Queer Disney Film

Originally posted by sirenaprincess

“The Little Mermaid” by Hans Christian Andersen is widely believed to be an allegorical account of his unrequited love for his friend Edvard Collin. In the original story, the mermaid loves the prince, but the prince marries another woman. The Little Mermaid then spends the next three-hundred year in a sort of purgatory paying for her folly.

Originally posted by cassie-itsawildworld

The Disney version is a little more lighthearted, but a lot of the subtext is still–whether intentionally or not–present. Thus, remaking it as a queer love story actually wouldn’t change much. (Plus, there’s a perfect title for a movie with two princes: The Little Merman)

Originally posted by artrevolutionn

The following is a break-down of some of the more obvious allusions, allegories, and references to LGBTQI+ culture and life in Disney’s “The Little Mermaid.”

Firstly, Ariel is pining to be part of a world that accepts her. Her father tells her that it’s dangerous and shameful to want that. He forbids her from even thinking about it. Need I say more?

Originally posted by wonderlaaaaaand

Secondly, Ariel makes a Faustian deal with and receives guidance from a drag queen. Well, sorta. Ursula is based on the famous–or perhaps infamous–drag queen “Divine.” This isn’t exactly a compelling argument for the plot being coded queer, but it’s a fun fact.

Originally posted by aethelwin

Thirdly, Ariel gives up her voice for happiness. This one takes a bit of doing to wrap your head around, but stick with me. Ariel is so desperate for acceptance and happiness, she is willing to never express herself again fully. This mirrors the feeling of so many queer kids growing up. Ariel struggling to be accepted and only scraping by as a fish out of water is a scene that unfortunately resonates with too many queer kids.

Fourth, “Part of Your World” and its reprise are basically closeted-queer anthems to the n-th power. “What would I give to live where you are?” Too much, girl, too much.

Originally posted by classicdisney

Fifth, the ending of the movie is, quite possibly, one of the gayest things I’ve ever seen. Let’s break it down, shall we?

It starts with King Triton finally realizing and accepting his daughter’s love as legitimate. It doesn’t take much to apply this to a parent coming to terms with their child’s sexuality and/or gender identity.

We can mostly skip over Ariel’s wedding because nothing especially queer happens during it. (Although, there is something very queer about Ariel’s dress. Queer as in strange, and not in a good way. Sleeves and flared shoulders?)

Originally posted by xiaoflower

As Ariel and her dad share a teary goodbye, the chorus sings, “Now we can walk, now we can run, now we can stay all day in the sun. Just you and me, and I can be part of your world,” the last note of which is punctuated by King Triton literally shooting a rainbow across the sky. A little heavy-handed, really.

(Oh my Disney)

Think about the implications of this story, in particular, having a gay couple find a happy ending. The moral of the original story was that it’s both foolish and tragic for a man to think that he could ever find love and happiness with another man. Disney flipped the script. Love prevails, anything can happen. Everyone’s a winner. Now imagine if two princes, or two princesses, or two anybodies besides a cis-het couple got that kind of a happy ending.

Equality is an ideal. Equity is a goal.

Person A has five candies. Person B has ten. 

Equality is giving A and B both ten candies because it assumes A and B both started out with the same number. 

Equity is giving A fifteen candies, and B ten candies, because it acknowledges that A started out with less than B did. 

This is the concept that  social justice is built on. Feminism, Marxism, anti-colonialism, Civil Rights, LGBTQIA rights, etc

And ignorance of existing privilege for the sake of idealized equality is wrong.

Exciting news! I’ve revamped the Intersex Button Set!

Now all four designs are exclusively about intersex issues! It has two new designs and I also revamped the other two. Recently I was talking to a lovely intersex customer who gave input on the designs and inspired me to now bring you this cute set.

Intersex issues and rights are still majorly overlooked in LGBTQIAP* / MOGII activism. We need to pull together to raise awareness and spread the message, so please reblog this post so lots of (intersex) people can see it! (If you’re new to intersex issues, this video is a good place to start.) 

This set of buttons is for intersex people to stand up for their rights and glow with pride. You can wear them on your bag, your hat, your jacket, wherever you like!

The designs are:

  • Intersex Pride
  • My Body Doesn’t Need Fixing
  • Right to Bodily Autonomy
  • Intersex Not Intervention

To buy your own set, click here!