[ SECRET POST #2769 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2769 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #396.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, claiming to know that a child you never met is trans is a bad thing. Assuming nobody is ever trans, vehemently arguing against suggestions that someone (even a child you never met) may be trans is also bad. Because they might be. This argument has nothing to do with transness, it's about leaving celebrities' kids to grow up in peace. If a shitty newspaper clutches it's pearls over a girl liking boy toys it's ok to suggest that trans people exist and don't deserve the pearl clutching.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't argue against the idea that the child may be trans. I would argue against any suggestion that the child IS trans or any attempt to use any kind of distantly-perceived information as evidence one way or the other. I think there's a distinction there.