You "introduced yourself" with an irrelevant attack on my appearance that was anything but sympathetic. It was the usual poorly considered lateral aggression fr

You "introduced yourself" with an irrelevant attack on my appearance that was anything but sympathetic. It was the usual poorly considered lateral aggression from someone clearly educated enough to know better. I wish you had taken the time to read what I wrote in the article- it does address many of the appearance issues you are fixated on and find so distressing. I also wish you had taken the time to contact me- I have a standing invitation pinned to the top of my Twitter profile to any woman with questions about my appearance to have a friendly private chat about it before coming to conclusions. I was brought up properly. I am respectful to more experienced, more educated women in the community who have the specific background to evaluate the impact of my appearance and presentation. If Limor Fried, Becky Stern- any of a dozen women in academia that I am in contact with told me I was hurting other women with my shenanigans and to go put some pants on. You'd see nothing but a blur as I did just that. That would be the end of it. Period. The consensus has been it hurts no one but me, and it has been argued it helps others in ways it does not help me. I am a precedent- if my appearance does not matter, then no one's does. Not butch, not femme, the large, the small, the disabled, trans- none of it is relevant. The work and personal conduct are what matters. As soon as it becomes about "I know it when I see it" people have just as much right to complain about "sexualized" clothes like even a modest skirt, high-heels, makeup. The incel community shares your concerns and would love the foot you've put in the door for them. Yes, I am aware that things have reached the point where my appearance does hurt me far more than it helps. It's a terrible "promotional" tool- all of the more successful female creators on YouTube dress far more modestly. It has closed countless doors and I do accept that. I looked this way long before I was on Western social media. It is gender expression first and foremost and important to me for reasons you would not be able to understand. I have made clear in the article you were uninterested in reading that I will not explain it- because no one should have to. My appearance being raised in a post about being unjustly targeted and endangered by media outlets is odd. How is it relevant? My work stands on its own- I have never pushed for inclusion in anything on any basis but my work. I don't think we want to say that those with an objectionable appearance during some part of their life, should be excluded from professional events during which it's neither relevant nor apparent. If someone is a furry on the weekends- that's their business. If someone wears hot pants on the weekends- that's their business. So long as they don't hurt anyone, follow the prevailing dress code of the event- that's where it ends. It's about the work- not your personal comfort with my gender expression. You- personally are uncomfortable with my appearance. That's simply as far as it goes. It's not justification for anything. Not with me, not with anyone else. I'm ok with that- you personally don't have to be comfortable with my appearance. But wrapped in however many awkward disclaimers you like, you don't get to suggest that the unreasonable conduct of others is something I should silently endure because of it. If you were to best describe what the role I serve in the community, what my "profession" is- it's literally "STEM ringer". We have a problem in STEM where pervasive stereotypes try to tie women's intelligence and competence to their gender expression. My job to fuck with that. My job is to look dim, act sharp & kick ass. My personal style IS professional.