At least on my instance, the top right hand corner on all thumbnails has a little symbol that shows if it is a "link picture" or an "expandable picture."

The link symbol looks like a box with an arrow, the picture symbol is the generic white outline hills and sun symbol it seems like many places use for images.

Doesn't really answer your question directly, but it might help?

I have no interest in further talking to someone who brings up what the article counters with zero counterpoints, and just insists the original point progressively louder.

(Edit: Total comment rehaul to better explain my position, but similar sentiment.)

Passive violence only ever pretends to be peace. It is not.

You did not engage with the article's core argument. Nor did you engage with me explaining it to you. Nor did I expect you to.

I haven't stated my opinion on the article. I merely pointed out that you can't read.

If I wrote out a list of things I am interested in regarding my appearance that are gendered by society, I would think I was "a girl." However, in practice, it was incredibly bad for me and being forced as such was a constant drain on me.

None of these stories are proof, but slowly realizing the sheer number of them from my past did indicate exploring was worthwhile:

• I could not see myself growing into an old woman. I used to think that was only because I did not think I would live long enough to be as such.
  But the fact is, when first asked about it, the thought of growing into an old man actually sounded a bit nice.
• I told every boyfriend I have ever had that I "might be trans" and asked them if they'd still stay with me as a man. It was very serious and very nonserious all at the same time.
• I clung to masculine presentation, even if it often still felt wrong, because "masculine woman" felt closer to the "femme genderfluid man" I somewhat unconsciously wanted to be than "feminine woman."
• When I first played a man in a TTRPG game, it was incredibly fun in a way that is hard to describe. Something like, just... comfortable, for the first time.
• In preschool I demanded that the teachers use a male name and refer to me in character with male pronouns. This was not a one-off occurrence. I was very upset when they did not comply.
• When I was older, when people mistook me for a man I would feel relief. When they "corrected" themselves I would go back to being miserable.
• People using "ma'am" on me would make me extremely uncomfortable. Hearing the word "she" used for me made me oddly angry.
• I hated people looking at me and perceiving me, and, worst of all, desiring me.

All of these were difficult to see at the time. Difficult to see all at the same time. It is hard to tell if you are miserable when you are constantly miserable. It takes perspective to put it all together. It takes self-examination, experimentation, experience. You are stuck in your own head, after all.

I did not feel like I was in the wrong body. I felt like I was trapped in expectations of what I could do to my body.

I won't regret any of it even if I suddenly decide to "transition back." My life is a journey and I will do whatever feels right for me. My body is my own. It's done me so much good to be able to explore who I am.

My suggestion to those questioning is generally to "try out" your gender of choice somewhere completely inconsequential. Video games, a temporary account, etc. Quietly following trans spaces for a while can give some perspective as well.

I don't care if I "know for certain" that I'm trans. I think trying to answer that question as some kind of solid certainty can often run counter to the entirety of being trans.

I'm happier in a testosterone-based system, I am comfortable in a way that I never was, and life feels like I have a future now. I made changes that made my life better, and only changes that made my life better.

Trans just happens to be an accurate label. Labels are tools, shortcuts in communication. Not prisons.

Is it not violent for a child to go to bed hungry in the richest country in the world? I think that is violent. But that type of violence is so institutionalized that it becomes a part of our way of life. (...) And that again is because the oppressor makes his violence a part of the functioning society. (...)

Now, I think the biggest problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. (...) once we see what the primary task of the liberal is, then we can see the necessity of not wasting time with him. His primary role is to stop confrontation. Because the liberal assumes a priori that a confrontation is not going to solve the problem. (...)

I think that history has shown that confrontation in many cases has resolved quite a number of problems (...) In many cases, stopping confrontation really means prolonging suffering.

The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. (...)

You cannot engage with the article in good faith without addressing the point that the system engages in passive but pervasive constant violence against minorities.

When you say you do not want to legitimize violence, you ignore their point that violence is nonetheless happening, and will not change through politely requesting those in charge, currently enabling or actively doing the violence, to stop it please. They are actively rewarded by inflicting violence on others through material gains. They have no good reason to stop, since it is already clear pesky morals are not getting in the way.

You state "we should just get rid of exceptions," but you have no actual proposal for convincing those with no reason to be convinced, e.g. the people in power. We are not in a void where everyone starts off on equal footing. We are in a world where pervasive violence is quietly carried out every minute of every day.

Police violence, overseas wars, cutting minorities off from basic needs, these are all things that quiet lawful protests and "voting really hard" have not budged.

Your argument is not at all engaging with this article's content.

My point is less to convince you to suddenly engage in good faith than to point out to onlookers how you are not. My suggestion to those onlookers is to read the actual article themselves, as it makes for some interesting reflection, regardless of agreement with it.

What on earth is crust-punk by the way?

music genre:
punk rock but with extreme metal elements, bassy and dirty (also known as stenchcore)

a type of punk person: panhandling, squatting, and/or homeless punk person who is homeless often by choice (also known as gutter punks)

(they also tend to be associated with each other)

another example of an "older" -punk, if it interests anyone, is splatterpunk, used primarily in the 80's ^^

definitely rebellious counterculture in its roots as well. very simplified summary is some authors felt stifled that horror was increasingly getting very "literary" and threw everything extreme at the wall

(decent article from 1991 explaining it: here )