#tl;dr: you can read min how you want and you can also describe your gender how you want

[neuxue]

Non-binary Min? She's just a girl who doesn't like wearing dresses. I'm sure plenty of women can sympathize with such a thing. Also, why did we bother fighting for 40 years to say that "women aren't just stereotypes! Embrace other forms of femininity!" if we were just going to turn around and say "If you're not identical to the stereotypical female, you're actually a trans-male or non-binary"? Can't we just have non-feminine women and call them women? Without drastic surgeries or fake genders?

One of the beautiful things about fiction is that there doesn't have to be one right answer to everything. The same story can resonate very differently with different readers for different reasons. The same character can be relatable to different people in different ways. A single person can hold entirely contradictory interpretations simultaneously of a particular story or character or element therein, if both happen to be interesting or compelling to them for whatever reason.

No two people are going to have the exact same experience reading the same story, because they come to it each with their own contexts and lenses and interests. Even the same person isn't necessarily going to have the same experience reading the same story every time they read it, whether because a reread reveals different things than a first-time read or because they're reading it for fun rather than for a literature class assignment or because they're reading it as an adult rather than as a child or because they're focusing on a different character or, or, or.

And within that there's space for all different kinds of engagement with the text, from casual reading to in-depth analysis to adaptation to research to producing transformative works to... the list goes on. There will be variation even within any of those categories, and perhaps more so across them - and I think that's something to love about stories, that in this way they become more than the sum of their parts, that they can hold such a range of appeal, that they can serve as starting points for conversation or expansion of thought - or for pure enjoyment and entertainment, or any combination thereof.

All this to say: you can read Min in the way that most resonates with you, or in the way that makes the story most satisfying to you, and other readers can do the same. And those readings may turn out to be different, but they don't have to impinge on one another. What you find relatable or compelling about Min and what someone else find relatable or compelling about Min can be different - or can be the same elements of her character but for different reasons.

One person may find Min most relatable/compelling when read as a cis woman who dresses in a way not defined by her society as typically feminine. Another person may find Min most relatable/compelling when read as non-binary and exploring what form of gender expression feels most right. A third person... you get the idea.

Or maybe it's not about relatability at all. A reader can also look at Min and not necessarily see or want to see their own experience, but might still find it interesting to read her from different angles - and sometimes the same person will read her differently at different times, or might just straight-up read her as all-of-the-above-and-then-some, all at once. Sure, some of those readings might be contradictory, but she's a fictional character unconstrained by such petty notions as reality. The cat is both dead and alive, until you open the box and a dragon steps out.

All of those readings are possible, and how one person reads Min doesn't have to dictate how another person does. Even on things where there's an explicit canonical statement, that's what transformative works are for.

I'm not going to tell you you can't read Min as a cis woman who just dislikes wearing dresses. Nor am I going to tell someone else they can't read Min as a trans woman finding her own level of comfort with expressing femininity.

To then follow this ask into the realm of reality...

Just as people can read the same character in different ways, and those readings don't have to interfere with one another, people can express and define their gender and relationship to their gender in different ways, and that doesn't have to impact on your gender and expression thereof.

Fighting for women to be able to embrace non-stereotypical forms of femininity is a goal that works in concert with, not in opposition to, fighting for a broader understanding of gender, identity, and expression. I'm not going to say it's 'all about' any one thing, but one of the large areas of overlap is the entire idea that gender isn't a rigid set of stereotypes someone has to fit into.

The very question you posed, of "Can't we just have non-feminine women and call them women?" is surely predicated on this: the idea that 'femininity' and 'being a woman' are not necessarily one and the same. Following that through to a logical conclusion suggests that presentation/ appearance/ conformity to a particular standard or stereotype is not equivalent to gender, and thus permits this more inclusive perspective of both gender and presentation.

Breaking down that rigidity benefits everyone by not trying to force someone - whatever their gender - into a box that doesn't fit them.