
There's so much you've said here and I think it really demonstrates a pattern of thinking.
- Men getting mugged to: nobody's denying that, but I suspect it's less common than you're making it out to be.
- Relatives being inappropriate: maybe it'd be 3% worse for you, but that's a big leap to say "eh, it's bad enough already" for everyone.
- Catcalling: yeah, cause you're not going to be catcalled. You're also unlikely to ever see me on the street, but I see myself on the street all the time, this is just a sampling bias effectively. Catcalling might not be super common, but if you pass a hundred men a day...
- Friends: that does suck. That's not a gendered problem though.
- Rejection: Not all men handle rejection poorly, but if 1% do and 100 talk to me, I have a 65% chance at least 1 of them is. You also ask for constructive criticism, but that's not really how this works. All I can say is why I don't think it'll work, like telling you I'm gay, that's not criticism.
- Stomping down women's voices: dude, it's not some big display, it's the little things that implicitly tell women their voice is lesser. Ever been implicitly called stupid or untrustworthy? Given constant jabs? Congrats, you know what it feels like too, but for women it's frequently gendered. See that xkcd comic about "girls are bad at bad".
- Talking behind the back: you bring up 2 anecdotes as if they disprove women being gossiped about with no evidence. If you suspected that latter woman was having an affair the manager without evidence then you're still part of the problem, so I hope you did actually have evidence beyond suspicious shifts.
Anyway, it just seems like you downplay anything that doesn't happen literally 100% of the time and play oppression olympics. I'm not saying your life is automatically great just by being a man, and men do face some unique issues, but let's not pretend any of that means women have it fine, actually.

Be a double bottom bayon

The mirror was nice to me!

You can be lesbian and not like penis, but being lesbian does not imply that. A lesbian cis woman might be with a trans woman and then that's not a very effective birth control anymore, but she's still lesbian.

I don't think the looks people give scale linearly with how nonconforming you are, so you're probably already near peak look from others.

pacman -S hormone-utils
If only

Oh no, where is this happening so I can... avoid that place? /s

They have a hormonal advantage (not having to deal with the wrong hormones (usually)), so obviously not! /s

Bracket!!! :D :3

I think the word for it is "strate". Idk the etymology, but it sounds kinda weird. The things people are into these days...

My gf sent me this <3

I've had to fluff up what I say to explicitly say "I don't mean [x], I'm not implying [y]", but I can't cover everything and so I still get hostility, it's very frustrating.
I've noticed that people (including me) try to build a mental model of your beliefs very quickly, so without much context to base it on they usually base it on stereotypes (e.g. nitpicking a science claim is the sort of thing a science denier would do, therefore you're probably that even if you just noticed a tiny incorrect detail and that's it). It doesn't help that over text, if you wanted to get that context and not make assumptions about others, you're going to have to spend a lot of time writing questions and waiting multiple back-and-forths for answers to inform your next questions.
Another thing I've noticed is that most disagreements online are arguments about something where facts are just pawns to be played to win. I'm sure most of us have seen this play out, and usually if someone gets obviously proven wrong they just pull out the next fact and move goalposts, because most people don't like "losing". So if you say something like "I think you're wrong because [x]", you look exactly like the people arguing who have an implicit agenda. And I can't blame people for assuming that, because if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt you lose sooo much time to the ~80% of arguers with a hidden agenda.

over fitting, but people

That's because I had gender with your dad! >:3

Thank you Kaity! <3

This is some "all lives matter" BS

If you've been made to feel lesser by society, having trust issues is likely. Getting clear confirmation that someone isn't going to do that to you is a good thing, actually. It's the same reason explicitly safe spaces are a thing, because the default is to be uncertain. And trust is super important for therapy.

Made with AI? Really? What would GNU think?

I think someone saying they're not a girl probably isn't a girl. Let's not override their will.

Children are subhuman I guess. Just puppets played by their parents.

Simple Sabotage rule


A guide for US government employees for the next 4 years, the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual
Some more ideas:


Panic on webp upload
json
{"data":{"files":null,"msg":"Task panicked"},"state":"success"}
Every webp I've tried causes this error, but then works if I convert to png.
Reproduction steps:
- Download random webp from front page
- Create post
- Upload webp image

egg🪽irl



Double bottom rule


A diagram of a "bottom meson" (composed of an unknown quark "q" and an antibottom quark) with an arrow labeled ":3" pointing to a "double bottom Baryon" (composed of an unknown quark "q" and 2 bottom quarks).
Image taken from figure 1 of this article

Both rule


Two (presumably) girls lying in bed holding hands and looking at each other. The one on the left, labeled "Me" has shoulder-length hair, an uncomfortable :| expression, and is wearing a black hoodie, grey jeans, and sneakers. The one on the right, labeled "Also me" has longer hair, a subtle smile, a blush, and is wearing a dress and high heels.
Edited from this post, on which I commented "I wanna be both".

Half Rule 2


Half Life 2: Episode 1, Direct Intervention
λ