[ SECRET POST #3531 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3531 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #505.
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

Re: Seemingly progressive things that actually sound skeevy

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see any reason why it would be impossible for a kid not to display any particular identification as one gender or another. Defining that as "non-binary" is questionable but not, I don't think, intrinsically harmful. I'm not saying it's necessarily being executed in a great way, but, like, it's not some kind of horrible awful thing.

Using the kids' real name is probably shady.

Re: Seemingly progressive things that actually sound skeevy

[(Anonymous)]

Thing is: most kids don't really identify strongly as any gender at age 4 or under and I do think shipping them off to a genderqueer summer camp with counselors that apparently drank a bit too much of the tumblr kool aid can absolutely be harmful.

Re: Seemingly progressive things that actually sound skeevy

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not necessarily defending the specific implementation of the camp, just that I'm not sure it's as completely insane as people seem to be reacting.

(I'd also, to be honest, really want to examine the ages and shit for myself before drawing a conclusion)