TranSOnly / TS0

设计这样一个带有强烈社群亚文化色彩、且参赛者生理状态极其多样化的“整活”比赛，最核心的原则就是“分类讨论，公平竞技，娱乐为主”。既然群体的身体状态差异巨大，传统的单一评判标准肯定行不通。 为了确保比赛既有趣又能照顾到所有人的情况，可以参考传统体育赛事的“量级”和“残奥会/特奥会”的分类理念，设计如下赛制规则： ### 一、 参赛资格与防“炸鱼”机制（反串核查） 针对你提到的“其实不是MtF而是男人但是也参赛”的情况，这在电竞里叫“炸鱼”（Smurfing），用顺性别男性的原生优势来降维打击，会破坏比赛生态。 * **赛区隔离：** 设立一个独立的“特邀表演赛区”（或称“顺男跨界交流组”）。大方承认他们的参与热情，但成绩不计入MtF主榜单。 * **赛前身份Q&A（防伪认证）：** 强制要求参赛者回答几个只有社群内部才会懂的“黑话”或常识（例如：螺内酯的副作用是什么？《辐射：新维加斯》的游戏时长是多少？宜家鲨鱼叫什么名字？）。答错或查百度的，自动流放至“表演赛区”。 ### 二、 核心赛道划分（Divisions） 为了绝对公平，必须根据医疗干预程度划分不同的赛区。 **1. 原生组 (Pre-HRT / No HRT)** * **人员画像：** 尚未开始激素治疗，或因为各种原因不打算进行HRT的MtF。 * **评判重点：** 既然生理上保留了原生状态，就按最传统的指标进行，但需加入“女性化穿搭/打理”作为附加分（如除毛精细度、是否搭配过膝袜等），以区别于普通男性的审美。 **2. 蜕变组 (HRT Division)** * **人员画像：** 正在进行激素治疗的选手。 * **细分规则：** 根据HRT时长（如1年以下、1-3年、3年以上）细分，因为激素会导致不同程度的萎缩和形态改变。 * **评判重点：** 这一组不拼宏伟程度，拼的是“可爱度”、“粉嫩度”以及“形态的柔和化改变”。可以设立一个特色奖项：“最佳反差/萎缩奖”（需提供用药前后的对比）。 **3. 名宿纪念组 (Post-SRS / 术后组)** * **人员画像：** 已经完成性别重置手术，物理意义上已经没有该器官的选手。 * **参赛方式（历史影像档）：** 允许她们提交术前的历史影像资料参赛，作为“退役名宿”参与评奖。 * **特色玩法（幻想赛道）：** 如果不想用旧图，可以举办“赛博牛子/意念牛子”文学创作大赛，用文字或绘画描述自己曾经或理想中的状态。 **4. 薛定谔组 (FtMtF)** * **人员画像：** 经历过女性向男性（FtM）跨性别过程，又重新认同为女性的选手。 * **分类处理：** * 如果只经历了睾酮（T）带来的底部生长（Bottom growth），按形态学可并入“蜕变组”的一个特殊子类。 * 如果经历过阴茎成形术（Phalloplasty），这属于科技与狠活，应直接设立“赛博朋克/生物黑客定制组”，重点评判手术工艺、外观定制和科技感。 ### 三、 综合评分标准（不唯尺寸论） 如果用男性的标准（大、粗）来评判MtF的比赛，就失去了社群意义。评分维度应多元化： * **Aesthetic（美学分）：** 皮肤的保养、除毛的干净程度、整体形态的柔美感。 * **Presentation（展示分）：** 构图、打光、背景布置。如果有标志性的社群元素（如Blåhaj鲨鱼、电竞椅、条纹袜、Choker），直接获得加权分数。 * **Vibe（气质分）：** 整体照片传达出的“反差萌”或独有的MtF气质。 ### 四、 违规与禁忌 * **严禁网图：** 必须有特定的验证手势（例如手里捏着一张写有参赛ID和当天的日期的纸条）。 * **严禁身材/性别焦虑霸凌：** 比赛的初衷是消解身体焦虑，任何对其他选手形态的恶意攻击直接取消参赛资格。 --- 如果真的要举办这样一个比赛，你觉得评委团应该由哪些人组成会比较有公信力？是全权交由社群内部投票，还是需要邀请一些特定的“特邀嘉宾”？

对不起我再也不搞抽象了✋😭🤚 声明：本视频仅记录一名身体健康的跨性别女性性别肯定疗法241天的精子状态光学显微镜目视观察现象，不构成任何引导、宣传、医疗建议。请大家在执业医师指导下进行专业治疗。

发布视频 播放量:1.90万 弹幕:4 评论:201 点赞:324 投币:38 收藏:317 转发:261 发布日期:2026-05-08 14:04:25

Don’t tag someone as trans just to prove your stock-photo library knows what Pride Month is. Search any major stock platform and you’ll see the genre immediately: transgender woman smiling at home, transgender person using a phone, thoughtful transgender woman, trans woman with her boyfriend, transgender woman standing in front of a wall and apparently carrying the entire burden of representation by herself. And sure, sometimes the tag makes sense. If the image is about transition, healthcare, Pride, community, discrimination, chosen family, or trans visibility, then “transgender” is not random metadata. It is context. But when the image is just a woman reading on a sofa, a woman texting by an ATM, a woman looking thoughtful near a window, the label starts to feel less like context and more like a little institutional cough: “Ahem. Before you treat this as a normal woman, please consult the keyword field.” That is not visibility. That is the database equivalent of outing someone in a caption. Stock libraries love to sell diversity as a searchable feature. Gay couple. Queer friends. Non-binary person. Transgender woman. The tags sit there like tidy little identity drawers, ready for brands, HR departments, NGOs, and earnest blog editors who need “inclusive imagery” before lunch. But people are not props for your metadata strategy. If an image shows a relationship, tag the relationship. If it shows a Pride march, tag the march. If it shows trans healthcare, tag that. If it shows a woman existing in an ordinary room, maybe the useful word is not “transgender.” Maybe the useful word is “woman.” The awkwardness is especially sharp for trans people who pass. When a trans woman appears simply as a woman, insisting on labeling her “transgender woman” can read less like affirmation and more like correction. It says: “Yes, woman, technically, but don’t miss the special category.” It turns recognition into a footnote. And if the tag disappears, what happens? Catastrophe? Does representation collapse? Does the algorithm burst into flames? No. The image becomes what it already was: a person in a photograph. A woman. A man. Someone at home, at work, in love, bored, tired, beautiful, badly lit, over-retouched, pretending to enjoy a salad in the grand tradition of stock photography. The better question is not “Can we see trans people?” Of course we can. We should. The question is: must every trans person be made legible as trans at all times, even when the image itself is not about transness? There is a difference between visibility and surveillance. There is a difference between representation and labeling someone like a specimen. There is a difference between saying “trans people exist in ordinary life” and saying “this ordinary life must be indexed under trans.” You can include trans people without making transness the headline. You can photograph queer life without turning every body into a glossary entry. You can see trans people without trying to see through them. Sometimes the most respectful tag is the one that knows when to shut up.