Saturday, July 10, 2010

Hi. My name is Julian Real and I'm Intergender. Now, what the hell does THAT mean?

[image is from here]

(For part one of this discussion, please see *here*.)

I SOOOO feel like I didn't get the memo that there was such a thing as being intergender. Did you get that memo? (And, if so, why didn't you forward it to me??) I'm utterly amazed there was this graphic in the internet, above! And there's something else later on in this post that I found out about just a little while ago.

The whole of this post was written assuming I'd invented the term myself--that's how out of the loop I am!! (And I do like coming up with new terms but usually I DO check, to make sure anything I come up with hasn't already been invented!) I'm feeling kind of silly right now. Like seeing snow for the first time and calling everyone out of their houses and apartments to see it, and all of them saying to me, "Yes. That happens every year." Anyway, here's the post:

My problem with identifying as a "man" is that I just don't feel like one. I barely felt like a boy. Or, mostly I didn't. I didn't see boys as the same group as me. I felt more kinship with girls. But what I felt was something else, not like being a girl and not like being a woman, or a boy or a man, exactly. I didn't want my genitals to show and longed to have genitals that were different, but not explainably different. The best I can do now it to say that I've wanted to have intersex genitals. In my twenties I wanted to have breasts and to not have facial hair. I wanted very much to breastfeed, if I had children with someone. I didn't and still don't want facial hair and if I could magically make it go away, it would have been long gone years and years ago, with me never missing it one bit.

I'd also get rid of most of my body hair--and I'm not an especially hairy-bodied person. It would help if society didn't make women remove so much of theirs, I suppose, because then body hair wouldn't be so associated for me with "being a man". Many women are hairy, including facially hairy, but the codes on what is acceptable are very strict in this regard, and few women I know, including lesbian feminist women, escape the mandate to shave or tweeze some hair somewhere, usually and most often on the face.

In general, I think what testosterone seems to do to males is kind of unattractive, although I don't think it's unattractive if women have higher levels of testosterone. I don't like the effects it has on men but that's partly because of associations I have with other dimensions of being a man--political ones, not physical ones. I notice this as males grow from high school through to their forties and fifties, how much their bodies and psyches change. I'm assuming that's due to testosterone, and also diet and lifestyle of course, as well as increasing years of living with certain privileges and entitlements.

Physically, more or less, across the board, men seem to get more massive with age, and I'm not speaking here of getting fatter, which is a U.S. phenomenon more than anywhere else. I mean "beefy" or "muscular" but it includes how men's skeletons change shape too. Like rib cages seeming to getting larger or broader. I am not attracted to bulky men, and I don't desire to be bulky in those ways, because it is associated for me with being like a man.

Not too long ago, I got myself down to my lowest weight ever, as an adult. I have since gained some weight back, but I am trying to get back to that lower weight. I have eating "issues" which some might call an eating disorder, but as I know people with very serious eating disorders, I don't really feel like my struggles are similar enough to their own. For one thing, I can't die from mine. They can. I am capable of getting into an anorexic-like frame of thinking and behaving, for sure. When my weight drops to a certain point, that thinking moves in. And I have to be careful then, to not let that "anorexic mind" take over.

I know that for many people with class privilege, in the West, where there is plenty of food available to be eaten, some of us limit what we eat in order to take up less room, or to not appear as adult-like. I don't want the body I had when seventeen, or fourteen, or ten. I just want the secondary sex characteristics to go away, permanently, because they don't seem or feel like me. I can barely REALLY look at myself in a mirror, because I'm confronted with this fact: that how I look isn't how I feel and that has primarily to do with secondary male sex characteristics. With matters that having different levels of various hormones would have possibly taken care of. Maybe just less testosterone. If getting "fixed" would help me achieve the body I want, I'd do it. And this isn't about cosmetic changes to suit the public. I don't imagine showing off my body no matter what it looks like.

I just would like a body that fits with my sense of who I am. Right now, and for as long as I can remember, mine isn't it, but it's not so far off that I can't tolerate it. If it were, I might be more motivated to do something about it. But I really am frightened by taking hormones and even more so by surgery. I don't trust the dominant medical establishment, including around matters of gender re-assignment, in part because they really do try and make everyone look "male" or "female" and some of us would be just fine being intersex. And, I say that as someone who didn't grow up intersex and I don't know the struggles and hardships that can come with that journey from childhood into adulthood.

On the matter of degrees of inner distress or dissonance: I object to "being transgender" being determined by non-transgender people. I object to non-transgender people telling me, "You're not like what I understand transgender people to be, and so you're not transgender." I'm willing and eager to discuss my experiences with other transgender or intergender people, to compare notes, to discuss the stresses and the ways of coping.

Some might call me genderqueer, and for a time, for a few years, I called myself that. But now, for me, that term is too class, race, and era-specific. I associate it with a very particular white, middle or upper middle class, academically trained sub-culture, and I'm not actively part of that sub-culture. Maybe if I were, I'd be okay with that term.

I suspect I'm under the umbrella of being "transgender" but am not what dominant society tells me that means. "Transgender", according to dominant media, implies or assumes the desire in someone to move from one point to another along a supposedly linear spectrum of gendered being. This might go from being female-assigned at birth, raised as a girl and then being a woman. Or being male-assigned at birth, raised as a boy, then being a man, to becoming a woman. That's how it is presented, and the more the "finished" person appears to be their new gender, the more successful the process is understood to be, by talk show hosts, for example. Most people I know who are transgender who have had lots of hormone injections and many surgeries, do not really pass, to me. They appear "transgender" and I wish society were okay with people not fitting into what "men" and "women" are supposed to look like. I know some non-transgender people whose gender presentation--physically, not in terms of adornment or attire--is not what dominant society most welcomes and wants of its citizens. And that is a particular struggle that is not mine.

Once, though, a four year old girl looked up a me, as she stood near her mother who was selecting items off a shelf. She stared and then tugged on her mother's clothes and said, "Mommy, is he a boy or a girl?" The woman was embarrassed and seemed to want to apologise, or maybe she did. But it made my day. I felt like that little girl was the only one who has seen me as I want to be seen. Curiously, she used the term "he"--"Is HE a boy or a girl", so I think she registered my maleness on some level. But she also saw something else.

Most transgender-ignorant people assume that being transgender means one goes from being man to being a woman, or from being a woman to being a man. That's not true of most transgender people I know, and I question "transgender" as the term for what they are, but of course they are entitled to name themselves, and I am not entitled to name anyone else's subjective experience of genderedness and selfhood.

One female-bodied person I know, who is not intersex, identifies as transgender and prefers to go by male pronouns. Is it the fact of using male pronouns that makes them transgender? Because, basically, they are genderqueer, and may well be intergender, not transgender. But "intergender" hasn't been an option, and my experience is we make due with the categories that are available to us, that are enforced or generated against the weight of dominant society. This person has not been transitioning at all over the years I've known them. Not at all. Nor do they speak about "transitioning". To me, if there's no "transition", you're not transgender. You're possibly intergender or genderqueer, but I think there is currently a kind of internal peer pressure within some queer communities to identify as either queer or transgender, or both.

I see transgender reality as existing against the force of dominant society. I know some non-trans people believe transgender people are choosing to reinforce gender stereotypes, but I don't think this is the central matter in being transgender. I think the central matter is "feeling like oneself" both subjectively and when looking in the mirror, and possibly also when interacting socially. It's achieving a kind of internal-external, psychic-social harmony in basic being where before there was greater dissonance and dissociation. The degrees to which transgender folks assimilate is both a function of the pressures of dominant society to do so, and the desire to avoid a kind of scrutiny that is especially painful, as one has already invested a lot of energy in trying to pass relatively unnoticed in a world where one feels like one doesn't fit, psychologically and physically, and in other ways. So blaming transgender people for trying to pass is, to me, an expression of transphobia or, a term I prefer, transgender bigotry.

Another transgender person I know who is has lived life up until recently as a girl then a woman, is taking hormones, is experiencing voice changes and looks forward to the time when their voice isn't registered by others as "gender-nonspecific". And they are looking forward passing as a man. We have had some discussion about this: about this matter of wanting to be able to pass as one socially mandated and enforced gender or the other, in the gender hierarchy/binary that exists in the West. This should not be dismissed as insignificant to the decision to transition in ways media stereotypes transgender people transitioning. Without an enforced gender binary, someone might feel "done" transitioning" with less effort or procedures done, or they might not feel the same need to transition in the same ways.

Another myth about being transgender is that it is ONLY a subjective thing. That it is ONLY how one feels inside. Every transgender person I know is negotiating how they will be and be perceived in social spaces. This cannot "not matter" and it is influential as one deals with so many other issues that can accompany being transgender. And there are tons of issues to deal with, so many more than non-transgender people realise, in my experience. So many, in fact, that I've pushed away the whole matter away, on and off, for all of my adult life. I've reconciled being in the body I have, and then I notice that it's not the body I want.

Coming out as gay, for me, was not primarily a matter of figuring out how I felt, as a male-bodied person, about other males. I grew up knowing I was attracted to other male people. But I didn't exactly feel like I was attracted to "the same gender as me". I also didn't feel heterosexual at all. I've never understood heterosexuality. And, on some level, I've never understood anyone--male, female, intersex, or transgender, being attracted to men as a group. To individuals, yes. But not to men generally. Because so many men are so inhumane in fundamental ways. So I don't gets what's all that attractive about men.

I've always been more attracted to "androgynous" men or men who don't have lots of muscles, who are slight or thin, who are not terribly athletic, and who aren't "into" dominant male activities. Acceptable dominant male activities, such as working on cars, working out at the gym, homosocially bonding over putting down women, and being into comic books, sci-fi, or men's team sports, bore me.And, I know women can be into some or all of those things too. I once knew a lesbian-feminist who was into watching football. I didn't get it at all. I know het men who are into it: I don't get it. But I like the Olympics and I do like some sports, like beach volleyball and diving. And I like chess.

Does the degree to which my interests match up with some dominant standard of what men are supposed to enjoy help determine my own sense of myself? Of course. I am intergender because, in part, a lot of my interests, values, behaviors, and attitudes are NOT shared among men I know but they are shared among a whole lot of women I know. I find women infinitely more intelligent than men. The kind of intelligence I see men valuing is one that is dissociated from social reality or any understanding that the personal is political. And the intelligence I see in men, when it is there, is also terribly influenced by the many things Dr. Marimba Ani writes about in Yurugu. Things like "objectivity" and "rationality" and "logic". OMFG: the men that want to argue in those terms!!! I just want to give a copy of Yurugu to them and say, "Let's talk after you understand THIS book." Because if they can't understand that book, they aren't very intelligent. And if they can't understand what feminists are writing about, they aren't very intelligent. And if they are white but don't know what it means to be white, then they aren't very intelligent. That's how I see it.

Social, interpersonal, and emotional intelligence is very valued by me, but not so much by most men I know. So that's part of me feeling intergender. Residing somewhere between what society offers as the two genders is where I live, with a fair amount of male privilege and plenty of male entitlements. But the entitlements and privileges alone do not a gender make. That's something it has taken me a few years to work through, because my non-biological understanding of gender used to go like this: if you were raised with and maintain male privileges, you're a boy or a man. If you weren't, you're a girl or a woman. Or, if you were stigmatised negatively and seen as inferior and socially subordinated due to your gender, you were a girl or a woman. If not, you were a boy or a man.

I was seen and treated by many in my family of origin as an intergender child. I know they didn't have language for it, and it has taken me until last night for ME to have language for what I am that feels truest to my experiences, physical and emotional, internal and social, personal and political.

Wouldn't you know... I just Googled "intergender" to see if anything came up, and most of it had to do with being intersex, or with language issues. But, kind of excitingly, there was this:

What Is Intergendered?

By: Donna Lynn Matthews, October 1998

So I'll leave you, and me, with that to read. (Click on the title just above to link to the website with the whole discussion.)

9 comments:

Patti said...

To me, that means that you don't want to be held to nor seen as belonging to a stereotypical gender "norm". As I read your piece, what was going through my mind is effectively summed up in this line:
"Without an enforced gender binary, someone might feel "done" transitioning" with less effort or procedures done, or they might not feel the same need to transition in the same ways."
Society/civilization (sorry, I giggle a little saying or thinking 'civilization', as I think that 'civilized' people are far more savage than the 'savages' they feel they need to tame or exterminate) imposes and enforces, not only in codified law but also in unwritten acts of shunning, shaming, etc., notions about "maleness" and "femaleness" (which is then termed "masculinity" and "femininity") which is not only dichotomous but disingenuous. Yes, there are biological and physical differences between male and female for purpose of procreation, but there are biological and physical differences between all members of the similar sex (I hesitate to say "same sex" as that, to me, is reinforcing the notion of complete opposites). "Gendering" of male and female, though not completely denying that there are these differences between members of the similar sex, deemphasize these similar sex differences while overemphasizing the differences between each similar sex pair to the point where we refer to male and female as "opposite sex". If a being who was alien to our world heard about it and came to visit, they would probably expect to find a world where ALL males were physically stronger than ALL females, where ALL males were taller than ALL females, etc.

Society/civilization does not encourage us to be true to how we feel within ourselves but, rather, to stay true to how society/civilization SAYS we are supposed to feel and act within our gendered roles in order to fulfill the roles that society/civilization has prescribed for us so that said society/civilization can move forward and not stagnate (move forward and become what , exactly, isn't made all that clear, IMHO).

To quote from the 'What Is Intergendered?' for which you have provided a link:
"Society does it's best to see that we all are cisgendered, so as to not upset the apparent 'natural' order of things."
Reading the above brought to mind a treatise, written by Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr., that I read not too long ago, and would like to share one of his amazing insights into our need to naturally and necessarily suffer patriarchy. The title of said piece is called "Suffering Patriarchy", and for those who would like to suffer (though it is laden with unintentionally comic relief)through reading it, it is available for perusal here:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/chapters/Chapter01.html
Now, on to the amazing insight that I discovered in above-mentioned treatise:
"Although Patriarchy was in fact an artificial creation invented my mankind, it established a structured ‘natural order’ between man and woman and the community"
Sooooooo, we need an artificial creation invented by mankind in order to establish a natural order. Makes sense to me!!! Only humans would need an artificial creation in order to establish natural order. We are indeed superior beings.

Julian Real said...

Hi Patti,

I'll admit to only scanning Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr.'s tract, "Suffering Patriarchy". From what he seems to be stating, he means MEN suffering patriarchy, as fathers who don't get enough custody of their children.

So blah to that. When men learn to be humane, they might become appropriate full-time parents. Until such time, I believe women should control who parents children, not male supremacist courts.

And, the point you highlight may be found in LOTS of early 1970s feminist work, written 25 or more years earlier than his book, so I'll avoid his work, as it is waaaaay to pro-father's rights for my taste.

See, for example, the middle section of Woman Hating, by Andrea Dworkin, on the reality but untruth of gender dualism. She sums it up with much fewer words and more honesty about patriarchy's harm to women than Mr. Cheney.

I think that my being intergender is saying what you state, "that means that you don't want to be held nor seen as belonging to a stereotypical gender 'norm'." BUT, my experience goes way beyond that in several ways.

First, I don't get to control how others view me, and how others view me is part of who I am, like it or not. So, for example, if I'm following a woman on a street at night, it matters NOT AT ALL what my subjective sense of self is; I have male privilege and power in that instance to cause her to have fear she wouldn't have if I were, in social fact, a woman.

I'm sort of opposed to a politic of "all that matters is my subjective experience of myself and I'm going to make everyone abide by that" because I don't see selfhood as primarily subjective. I see it as primarily institutionally enforced, mandated, made compulsory, etc.

What it does is make men and make women. And, once made, there they are. For some of us, there is are varying levels of not feeling okay about that--for many reasons.

So, some women reject heteropatriarchal norms and exist as lesbian feminists. And some women reject it for a somewhat different set of reasons, and just don't wear corporately manufactured "ladies' wear".

What I experience is related to both of those realities but is something else as well. For me it's not just "the role" and "the norm" that is problematic. As Dworkin stated, it is that an untruth is being passed off as the only reality, and a naturalised one or God-ordained one at that. And so we are all made to contort ourselves one way or another to fit better into something false but enforced.

Julian Real said...

Hi Patti,

I'll admit to only scanning Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr.'s tract, "Suffering Patriarchy". From what he seems to be stating, he means MEN suffering patriarchy, as fathers who don't get enough custody of their children.

So blah to that. When men learn to be humane, they might become appropriate full-time parents. Until such time, I believe women should control who parents children, not male supremacist courts.

And, the point you highlight may be found in LOTS of early 1970s feminist work, written 25 or more years earlier than his book, so I'll avoid his work, as it is waaaaay to pro-father's rights for my taste.

See, for example, the middle section of Woman Hating, by Andrea Dworkin, on the reality but untruth of gender dualism. She sums it up with much fewer words and more honesty about patriarchy's harm to women than Mr. Cheney.

I think that my being intergender is saying what you state, "that means that you don't want to be held nor seen as belonging to a stereotypical gender 'norm'." BUT, my experience goes way beyond that in several ways.

First, I don't get to control how others view me, and how others view me is part of who I am, like it or not. So, for example, if I'm following a woman on a street at night, it matters NOT AT ALL what my subjective sense of self is; I have male privilege and power in that instance to cause her to have fear she wouldn't have if I were, in social fact, a woman.

I'm sort of opposed to a politic of "all that matters is my subjective experience of myself and I'm going to make everyone abide by that" because I don't see selfhood as primarily subjective. I see it as primarily institutionally enforced, mandated, made compulsory, etc.

What it does is make men and make women. And, once made, there they are. For some of us, there is are varying levels of not feeling okay about that--for many reasons.

So, some women reject heteropatriarchal norms and exist as lesbian feminists, also because they love women and desire to be with women. And some women reject it for a somewhat different set of reasons, and just don't wear corporately manufactured "ladies' wear".

Julian Real said...

Hi Patti,

I'll admit to only scanning Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr.'s tract, "Suffering Patriarchy". From what he seems to be stating, he means MEN suffering patriarchy, as fathers who don't get enough custody of their children.

So blah to that. When men learn to be humane, they might become appropriate full-time parents. Until such time, I believe women should control who parents children, not male supremacist courts.

And, the point you highlight may be found in LOTS of early 1970s feminist work, written 25 or more years earlier than his book, so I'll avoid his work, as it is waaaaay to pro-father's rights for my taste.

See, for example, the middle section of Woman Hating, by Andrea Dworkin, on the reality but untruth of gender dualism. She sums it up with much fewer words and more honesty about patriarchy's harm to women than Mr. Cheney.

I think that my being intergender is saying what you state, "that means that you don't want to be held nor seen as belonging to a stereotypical gender 'norm'." BUT, my experience goes way beyond that in several ways.

First, I don't get to control how others view me, and how others view me is part of who I am, like it or not. So, for example, if I'm following a woman on a street at night, it matters NOT AT ALL what my subjective sense of self is; I have male privilege and power in that instance to cause her to have fear she wouldn't have if I were, in social fact, a woman.

I'm sort of opposed to a politic of "all that matters is my subjective experience of myself and I'm going to make everyone abide by that" because I don't see selfhood as primarily subjective. I see it as primarily institutionally enforced, mandated, made compulsory, etc.

Julian Real said...

What it does is make men and make women. And, once made, there they are. For some of us, there is are varying levels of not feeling okay about that--for many reasons.

So, some women reject heteropatriarchal norms and exist as lesbian feminists. And some women reject it for a somewhat different set of reasons, and just don't wear corporately manufactured "ladies' wear".

What I experience is related to both of those realities but is something else as well. For me it's not just "the role" and "the norm" that is problematic. As Dworkin stated, it is that an untruth is being passed off as the only reality, and a naturalised one or God-ordained one at that. And so we are all made to contort ourselves one way or another to fit better into something false but enforced.

And, in my case, many people in my life don't experience me as "a man". Some do, but not all. Many people I've known have told me I just don't seem like "a man" to them, and that's beyond my own subjectivity, so that's the place that is beyond what "I want". It's partly a social reality that is beyond my control--much the way some het men get "read" as gay. Now, the homophobic ones may not appreciate that, and the non-homophobic ones might not give a damn one way or the other. But, again, how they are seen is beyond their subjective sense of themselves.

I'm trying to develop, for myself, and for my understanding of other people, a way of describing gendered reality that doesn't see it as only imposed and enforced, and only as subjective and individualistic.

Queer community, in my experience, has turned toward a VERY individualistic highly subjective sense of "identity" whereby one is what one says one is.

As many Black women have noted to me, only whites and men even THINK they can get away with that! Because no Black woman I know has a chance in hell of letting the world know "this is my experience of myself, and I want everyone to abide by that". Not a chance in hell.

So I want to be responsive to and responsible with that reality too: that what I feel like is real enough, but isn't the whole truth of who I am. Because if women fear me being twenty paces behind them on a dark street, THAT is also part of who I am.

I hear men whine a lot about "their poor, poor lot in life always being seen as a potential rapist" and I want to yell at them, "Try going through your life being presented, represented, treated, and mistreated as men's prey and then get back to me with your woes."

Men, in mixed gender spaces, don't have to worry so much about being raped. That's part of all adult male-appearing people's experience.

What I experience is related to both of those realities but is something else as well. For me it's not just "the role" and "the norm" that is problematic. As Dworkin stated, it is that an untruth is being passed off as the only reality, and a naturalised one or God-ordained one at that. And so we are all made to contort ourselves one way or another to fit better into something false but enforced.

Julian Real said...

And, in my case, many people in my life don't experience me as "a man". Some do, but not all. Many people I've known have told me I just don't seem like "a man" to them, and that's beyond my own subjectivity, so that's the place that is beyond what "I want". It's partly a social reality that is beyond my control--much the way some het men get "read" as gay. Now, the homophobic ones may not appreciate that, and the non-homophobic ones might not give a damn one way or the other. But, again, how they are seen is beyond their subjective sense of themselves.

I'm trying to develop, for myself, and for my understanding of other people, a way of describing gendered reality that doesn't see it as only imposed and enforced, and only as subjective and individualistic.

Queer community, in my experience, has turned toward a VERY individualistic highly subjective sense of "identity" whereby one is what one says one is.

As many Black women have noted to me, only whites and men even THINK they can get away with that! Because no Black woman I know has a chance in hell of letting the world know "this is my experience of myself, and I want everyone to abide by that". Not a chance in hell.

So I want to be responsive to and responsible with that reality too: that what I feel like is real enough, but isn't the whole truth of who I am. Because if women fear me being twenty paces behind them on a dark street, THAT is also part of who I am.

I hear men whine a lot about "their poor, poor lot in life always being seen as a potential rapist" and I want to yell at them, "Try going through your life being presented, represented, treated, and mistreated as men's prey and then get back to me with your woes."

Men, in mixed gender spaces, don't have to worry so much about being raped. That's part of all adult male-appearing people's experience.

Julian Real said...

And, in my case, many people in my life don't experience me as "a man". Some do, but not all. Many people I've known have told me I just don't seem like "a man" to them, and that's beyond my own subjectivity, so that's the place that is beyond what "I want". It's partly a social reality that is beyond my control--much the way some het men get "read" as gay. Now, the homophobic ones may not appreciate that, and the non-homophobic ones might not give a damn one way or the other. But, again, how they are seen is beyond their subjective sense of themselves.

I'm trying to develop, for myself, and for my understanding of other people, a way of describing gendered reality that doesn't see it as only imposed and enforced, and only as subjective and individualistic.

Queer community, in my experience, has turned toward a VERY individualistic highly subjective sense of "identity" whereby one is what one says one is.

As many Black women have noted to me, only whites and men even THINK they can get away with that! Because no Black woman I know has a chance in hell of letting the world know "this is my experience of myself, and I want everyone to abide by that". Not a chance in hell.

So I want to be responsive to and responsible with that reality too: that what I feel like is real enough, but isn't the whole truth of who I am. Because if women fear me being twenty paces behind them on a dark street, THAT is also part of who I am.

I hear men whine a lot about "their poor, poor lot in life always being seen as a potential rapist" and I want to yell at them, "Try going through your life being presented, represented, treated, and mistreated as men's prey and then get back to me with your woes."

Men, in mixed gender spaces, don't have to worry so much about being raped. That's part of all adult male-appearing people's experience.

So, I reject individualism and complete subjectivity as a solution to the gender norms problem. I see the solution as political--uprooting and radically transforming the institutions that violently hold an untruth in place as the only natural reality.

I think we probably agree on most of this, yes?

thefeministtexican said...

I know you wrote this weeks ago, but I bookmarked it only now remembered to come back and read it. Sorry that what I'm about to say adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, but: you're awesome, you know that? :)

Julian Real said...

Hey tft!

What'd'ya mean that doesn't add anything to the conversation! I'll take that kind of addition any day of the week!! You should see the other response I got that I didn't post. Let's just say it wasn't nearly as likely to make my day, if not my week, if not my month, as your message!

It's been so great to know you and share donut stories and such. Here's to many more moments of sharing!

<3 Julian xoxo