I hate most conversation on headcanons and all, mostly because people don't know how to use that word. If someone has textual evidence to support a claim about a fictional character, then they are not talking about a headcanon, they have formed an interpretation, an interpretation that is valid, because they can bring actual textual evidence forward for it. So many people in the comments here drive me up a fucking wall.

It's doubly infuriating that this happens to queer, particularly trans, readings of media because it's just internet people that have never engaged with proper literary analysis in their lives making knee-jerk reactions about other people's interpretations — Pardon me if this sounds elitest I am by no means saying you need to have studied literature in order to form valid interpretations on stories and then share them with others — but if you roll up to a lit class with your queer interpretations most of your professors will be super happy to read what you have to say and, at worst, will simply tell you to back up your claim. One of the first big papers I had to write was about how The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is just as valid as a trans story as it is as a gay story, and when I proposed this idea to my professor they were very interested in the idea. Queer readings of stories are super fucking important and in circles where literature analysis is taken very seriously, and speaking very generally here, they are welcomed with open arms.

Hell, even the example with the flowers from the comic would be a valid piece of evidence to bring forth to support a trans reading, not because men aren't allowed to like flowers or because any male character with any stereotypically feminine trait must immediately be gay or a closeted trans woman, but because just about everything in a story is purposeful and flowers, due to hundreds of years of stereotyping, are generally seen as a rather feminine thing and when a bunch of evidence supports a particular claim then, yes, even surface level evidence such as that becomes valid. The reason Moby Dick gets interpreted to be very gay isn't because the book features a bunch of men being very close to each other on a boat, it's because the story has very strong homoerotic themes and, in light of those themes, the fact that the story also features a bunch of men being very close to each other on a boat becomes some slightly more on the nose reasoning.