Hello, I'm not trying to start an argument- just inform. Your DNI doesn't align up with your beliefs, specifically when you talk about fictionkins. It confuses me, because I have read through your profile, you have a list of kins. It is perfectly fine if you don't agree with kinning, but I believe you misunderstand what it is, because you're using the terms. The definition of kinning has gotten very watered down, much like the term headcanon, used in fandom spaces incorrectly all the time. I believe that because of this, you may have misunderstood the true meaning of it. Kinning isn't simply deeply relating to a character, but instead it is a spiritual belief containing multiverses and reincarnation. Maybe some better terms for you are synpath or mirrorlink? Synpath is heavily relating to a character without identifying as them, and mirrorlink is seeing yourself as a character without the spiritual belief of being them. This page explains what kinning is in more detail, I can give other resources if you like too. https://kinninginformation.carrd.co/#

u re so cute. i wanna eat u /j

ty for the pearl YOUR PONIES ARE LOVELY I LOVE THE COLORS YOU USE

why am i on your dni list

tinkiee tinkle tinkkle

Hiii youre very nice and I enjoy talking to you!

(pt 2 bc atabook said it was too long) you also compared this to racebending (if i wasn't reading it incorrectly. regardless, i would like to bring this up), but the two aren't equivalent. race and gender identity function differently in both fiction and real life. changing a character's race often risks erasing the cultural or historical context that defines them, while imagining a character as trans rarely alters the narrative's cultural meaning. it's an interpretation of internal experience, not of heritage. as for your point about "mockery revealing absurdity" thing—i do think it's worth asking who that actually helps. mocking people for their (harmless) interpretations doesn't promote critical thought as much as you would probably think it does; it would only do much as to isolate the people who might have engaged in real discussion. i understand that while using satire to point out genuine hypocrisy or information may be helpful in some cases, it crosses into something ridicule rather than critique when the targets are mostly harmless fans finding comfort in something. you also mentioned that your trans friends do not like the idea of trans headcanons either—and that's totally fine! not every trans person will relate or enjoy that type of interpretation, just as not every neurodivergent person connects with neurodivergent headcanons. but disliking something personally doesn't mean its inherently wrong or disrespectful for others to enjoy. identity-based experiences aren't monolithic, and i honestly think that's where the distinction of this lies. and finally, i'd like to touch on your definition of a headcanon as a "theory consistent with source material." that's a more academic take, but fandom culture doesn't really operate like that anymore i'm afraid. headcanons often exist precisely because canon is open-ended—they're personal interpretations. calling them "inconsistent" isn't really a critique methinks, it's just a misunderstanding of their purpose. i genuinely do agree that we should be careful not to spread stereotypes or misinformation about marginalized groups. but, that said, i also think we should avoid policing harmless creativity when it comes from a place of identity or love for the said thing. empathy and respect can go both ways—you can critique harmful trends without mocking people who are just expressing themselves. of course, before i end this i just wanted to add that i also agree that some headcanons are clumsy, awful or just misinformed—especially when they flatten real experiences into stereotypes. however, the issue lies in how they're done, not in the concept itself. a poorly researched headcanon isn't proof that all of them are harmful. anyway, i just wanted to share another angle on this like i've said—not to argue, no but to add nuance to the conversation. i think your core point about "responsibility in interpretation" is interesting, but i also believe that kindness and curiosity can go further than what mockery can do when we're trying to get others to reflect. thank you. take care, and have a good day/night!

hii, so, i saw your reply to an anonymous message from the 10th of october and i just wanted to add onto it even if i am not the anon. i can tell you're very passionate about this topic and i genuinely respect that. to me, you clearly value the logic and consistency in how people interpret media, and i think that that's an important quality to have. that said, i want to offer a different perspective, because while some of the points you have made do in fact make sense in certain contexts, others seem to generalize too much about what headcanons are supposed to be and what they mean as a representation for people. please do not take this as a personal attack, i do not mean to discuss this with you with any hostility whatsoever and would just like to give you my opinion. i respect yours as much as i hope you would respect mine. if i'm not mistaken, you said that trans headcanons are harmful or "self-indulgent," but that would assume every fan creates them for shallow or selfish reasons—and i personally don't think that's very fair. for many trans and queer people, interpreting a character as transgender doesn't have the reason of it being to rewrite canon or reducing the mentioned experiences as just labels; to them, it's finding themselves in stories where they otherwise wouldn't exist. media representation even today is still quite limited, and headcanons help people feel seen and connected. a headcanon such as a character being transgender doesn't necessarily erase the character's original identity either—it adds a layer of possibility, if you know what i mean by that. for example, someone might imagine a character as trans because they see parallels between that character and their own experiences. i wouldn't say that would be the equivalent of them having the means to do it for mockery or self-absorption, no? resonance is a better term.

kethh :sob: i had so mchfun in dandy si miss you sleep well kittencheeks yawwwnnn doool yawwn honk mimimi

oh yah i came here to say i missed u but iwas so rock hard at the new layoit anyway sorry for spamming your ata i just miss u oki mwa mwaaa

theres no formal greeting or normal compliment NOTHING is normal about the way i feel about your art and THE NEW ATA LAYOUT IS SOFUCKING PRETTYY IM FREAKING OUT

MEMEMAAMANMAMA ok so what I mean is, oh mama your art is so fucking cute so fucking pretty especially when its sigzai how the hell are you doin tg that can i take a FAT bite out of you

JEKEKJWKM,NWAJKBAHAHA

OH MY GOD.. IM HARD WTF UR NEW ATABOOK IS SO CUTEE EKEKEKE

I just wanted to say that you’re absolutely right about the issue of blackwashing, and everything else you mentioned. To put it simply: if I were to depict a character like Black Panther as a white man, I’d be instantly labelled a racist and cancelled. Yet when characters of other races are redrawn as black, it’s suddenly seen as progressive and praiseworthy. The double standard is astounding. If genuine representation matters, then create new characters who embody that representation. Altering an established character’s race, culture, or heritage merely for the sake of appeasing certain sensitivities doesn’t make you inclusive, it makes you hypocritical. Just as no one would want to see African characters portrayed with white skin, we also don’t want to see Asian or white characters reimagined with distinctly black features. It’s as straightforward as that. The issue isn’t about race, it’s about artistic integrity. Characters are built within specific cultural and historical contexts that give them meaning. When you overwrite those elements to serve a modern narrative of inclusivity, you erase the authenticity that made those characters resonant in the first place. True diversity doesn’t come from repainting existing art, it comes from having the creativity and respect to build something new. I've had enough with performative inclusivity, use some common sense instead.