Imagine thinking your spouse is a sexy secret agent for decades only to find out he’s a restaurant critic for fat tire boy magazine
Better yet imagine a real spy getting in trouble and mistaking a restaurant critic for a fellow agent. But the critic takes their job very seriously and won’t reveal themselves and so gets pulled into some kind of huge dangerous conspiracy whilst continuing to take notes on the quality of every restaurant they almost get shot in.
danny fenton:
-wears a shirt to the water park
-accidentally uses the womens restroom
-“i would tell you to use the mens room but i dont think you qualify”
-chest occasionally bulges in his ghost suit
-is a trans boy
reblog this make cis people mad that im “ruining their childhood”
stable clone of him was a younger girl named danni
the series is literally about him keeping his identity a secret from his parents,believing that if they found out they’d stop loving him as their child and even kill him.
said identity is only known by his closest friends and others in the “community”.
After his college-age sister accidentally walks in on him altering his appearance and thereby learns his identity, she becomes clumsily obsessed with protecting him and being an ally.
Sam was able to disguise herself as him effortlessly.
👏🏼Danny 👏🏼 fenton 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 trans 👏🏼
Reblog to make trans people feel represented and Elmer Hartman get angry.
In defense of your English professor, the problem with using they/them as a replacement for he/she/him/her is the difference between using a plural vs a singular pronoun. English is an (unfortunately) messy language, and those distinctions are rhetorically important to make. A better substitution would be to use singular gender-neutral pronouns instead of tossing in pronouns that are meant to be plural. Granted, people have made those pronouns, but they're not widely used.
Remember when Stephen Hawking was more worried about inequality under capitalism than artificial intelligence in a Reddit AMA and people started telling him to read an economics 101 book? Wild. Anyways rip Steve
“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
“
