[ SECRET POST #2937 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2937 ⌋

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, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #420.
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

[feotakahari]

I don't think this is an accurate comparison. You're talking about reflecting a possibilty in reality, not taking a male character and making him "the woman" down to the biological level.

[(Anonymous)]

I do not feel that is an accurate descriptor of what is going on in omegaverse fiction at all. And I'm not sure if it's actually relevant that it can exist in reality or not.

[(Anonymous)]

I take issue with your insistence that having children or bottoming automatically makes you "the woman," or that being "the woman" means you automatically must be "omega."

A/B/O fics with female alphas exist. If it's F/F then is the female alpha being "made the MAN"? No, it's femslash with specific dom/sub dynamics.

[feotakahari]

Hmm, I actually have to think about this one.

I wouldn't say that futa makes a character "the man." Genitals don't determine gender, as anyone who's trans will tell you. And bottoming doesn't make a character "the woman." But when you write characters who're biologically predisposed to bottoming, meant for bottoming for childbearing purposes . . . Well, that does match up to how really creepy guys write women.

I guess I'm approaching this differently than the anon. They're going "Call these characters female!" I'm going "It's fucked-up and disturbing when you call these characters female, so it doesn't stop being fucked-up and disturbing when you call these characters male."

(Nyxelestia is going to kill me for this. I tried reading your fic, I really did. I lasted five paragraphs before feeling like I was gonna throw up.)

[(Anonymous)]

Well having children makes you "the female." And there's really no getting around that -- that's what female MEANS -- to bear the offspring.

[(Anonymous)]

pornographic fanfiction is not biology class

[feotakahari]

The whole trans* movement really passed you by, didn't it?

[(Anonymous)]

Well no.

Trans is about gender.

But the word female has a definition: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

It's mostly based on anatomy/physiology, not societal roles (the way gender is).

Animals have sex but not gender. Animals are male or female. (Or hermaphroditic. Or have no sex at all depending on the animal). But they're not men or women.

I was under the impression trans was about people who want to switch gender (hence the changing of pronouns).

But when it comes to words like female, it doesn't really work. I mean, if I'm running a clinical trial, it's not gonna fly if I try to run it only with males and transwomen. Or females and transmen. I have to use males and females to see the effects on both sexes.

Or am I mistaken here?

[feotakahari]

Being trans, or any other form of genderqueer, connects to how you present in a social context. (That's not the only implication, of course, but it's the relevant one here.) We're talking about a society with additional genders and additional gender roles. If omegas can be translated at all into our gendered terms, then for societal purposes, they'd be closest to "male."

(Omegaverse writers, please don't link me your fic in which the MC identifies as female and is biologically a male omega. I don't care!)

[(Anonymous)]

You seem to be grabbing for scientific definitions of male and female sex, when they don't exist. Not in the way you seem to be thinking. Creating new life is weird and complicated and there's tons of ways to do it, or not do it.

Like worker bees are female, even though they're a different stage of female than the queen and they will most likely live and die in that stage without ever producing offspring. But should the queen die a worker will undergo metamorphosis and start producing drones since she's never gone on a mating flight.

Basically, in short, male and female are arbitrary labels we like to stick on things to make them easier to relate to, and saying that we're going to have a universe where male or female is determined by eyelash length makes as much or more sense than anything we've already got.

[(Anonymous)]

"You seem to be grabbing for scientific definitions of male and female sex"

Except…they totally do?

I'm not getting any funding for breast cancer research if I'm using male mice. I can tell you that with great certainty.

Societal definition doesn't have to equal biological definition but that doesn't mean the biological definition doesn't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

Except that's a terrible example because if you were studying breast cancer in men you'd probably be using male mice.

I'm saying you're confusing chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, morphological sex, and phenotypic sex.

[(Anonymous)]

Men get breast cancer, sweetums.

Know-it-alls suck. Know-it-alls who don't actually know what they're talking about it suck even more.

[diet_poison]

To be a bit pedantic, biological definitions of male and female DO exist.

But I don't understand peoples' insistence on shoehorning them into non-medical, purely social context (unless they're purposefully trying to completely erase the entire trans community).

[(Anonymous)]

They do, but are not nearly as clear cut as people assume.

It's a bit like defining species. Most people will agree that dogs and elephants are different species, but botonists will shank you over if a slight flower petal variation in a common plant that occurs when it grows in marshy areas makes it a new subspecies deserving of ecological protection or not. Even within humans obviously there are conditions that can result in no formation of gametes, gonadal abnormalities, chromosomal abnormalities, and so on to the point the Olympics decided there was no perfect way to define biologically male or female.

Scientists love arguing stuff like that. It makes them happy. Yes as a general rule the organism or structure that forms a small number of large reproductive cells gets labeled female and the one that makes a large number of smaller reproductive cells gets labeled male and it's a good definition. But it's still something that can go sideways in a hurry.

[(Anonymous)]

da

It's not always clear cut, absolutely, and we've certainly seen cases of "gray" between the two sides. That being said, it is fairly ... cut. This movement that biological sex is a "social construct" is taking it too far, imo. There's no point in ignoring that abnormalities exist, and not all organisms follow a male/female reproductive pattern, but frankly humans pretty much do.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's worth pointing out that it's not very clear cut since people really, REALLY seem to think that men and women are dogs and birds, when in reality it's a bit more like being two different breeds of cat. You see it all the time in popular culture. "Men don't get breast cancer!" "Why do men even have nipples?" Drawing guides that claim to be realistic but show men with dorito skeletons and women with hourglass ones, and dozens of other things.

Yes biological sex differences exist on a medical level and should be explored. They should also be done in scientific ways that account for the fact there's a great deal of biological variation within a group instead of just assuming everyone within a group will react the same, like how one of the reasons obesity is so dangerous is because medical science doesn't yet know how to account for it, so you get cases like birth control pills being prescribed that are ineffective for women with a higher percent of body fat than they tested for. It doesn't help that there's a huge movement now of 'treat the numbers, not the patient' because numbers look good on paper.

It's a bit like arguing back and forth that 'white' and 'person of color' is a social construct, vs. pointing out that Chinese people do often form differently shaped eyelids and most African Americans have more melanin than Irish Americans. Well yes, a lot do, and some don't, and at the end of the day do you want to be the person going "If you're from Africa, how come you're white?" ?

And considering the hill that anon wants to die on is "HUMAN FEMALES FIRE BABIES OUT OF THEIR GENITALS LIKE CANONS PEW PEW THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A FEMALE" Do you really want to climb up onto that hill with them?

[diet_poison]

Well medical treatment (alluding to this and your other comment) should always take the individual into account IMO. Of course there is gray area. I'm just saying that male and female are things (arguably defined by the sort of gametes you possess). Not everyone fits one category neatly, but the categories are there.

I think we're on the same page, though. Your comments are good.

[(Anonymous)]

Some male animals are the ones that bear the offspring. You really didn't know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy

[(Anonymous)]

No it doesn't! Biological reality means nothing. There's no such thing as a woman. Being a woman is nothing more than a 'feeling' a man has.