[ SECRET POST #3541 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3541 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #506.
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

some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/27/i-didnt-believe-feminists-until-the-trans-lobby-attacked-me/

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Excerpt from the above:

"There is virtually no data (news reports, stats from the U.S. Bureau of Justice, or any kind of verifiable documentation) to support the pervasive claim that trans people are at increased risk for sexual violence when forced to use the “wrong” bathroom. Nada.

Yet there’s an urgency in their messaging: “Those who deny bathroom access will literally have blood on their hands” is a common sentiment. I’ve actually been called an “accessory to murder” for my position on this issue. But trans people are not being murdered, raped, or assaulted as a result of being forced into the “wrong” bathroom. It’s a manipulation that reeks of the very thing we women are constantly accused of doing: fear mongering.

Conversely, there are literally hundreds of documented reports of sexual crimes against women in bathrooms, especially by men who either dressed or pretended to identify as women. Hundreds. Why the discrepancy? Why doesn’t this matter? Of the 20 million Americans who have experienced attempted or completed rape, 17 million of them are women. In Washington State, 98 percent of people convicted of felony sex offenses are anatomical males."

bonus examples of male entitlement in action:

http://ophelias-revenge.tumblr.com/post/149886362269/eatsmenshearts-feministxmermaid
http://anti--princess.tumblr.com/post/150164361211/girlgastly-lesbian-lizards-dogbian-what

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe people would have "blood on their hands" by enforcing biological gender bathrooms.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the fact that these people think it's acceptable to sacrifice the freedoms of a minority group for perceived safety of a larger group.

How many of those men in women's bathrooms were pretending to be trans? How many of those men would have not gone in if trans people were not allowed? My guess is very few and denying trans people will not do anything to solve the problem.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Literally HUNDREDS! HUNDREDS! Hundreds guys! And their sources seem to be youtube videos and anecdotes. So, awesome!

And those sex crimes are DEFINITELY due to bathrooms. It isn't like other countries that use gender neutral bathrooms have almost no issue or problem from said use.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

I have to run, so I'm not going to get too in depth, but I want to make two broad points.

One, I think the account of how trans people are harmed by being forced into the wrong bathroom is fairly clear and straightforward. First, it's intrinsically persecution (in which respect see below). Second, it is an obvious avenue for harassment and violence. So just writing that off is a little frustrating.

Two, I think there's a certain disingenuousness to this line of argument. Because there's basically two things to argue about: one, ought trans women be allowed in female spaces - or more broadly, are trans women women? And two, what are the safety trade offs? And those are separate. And it really feels like you're couching your argument on the second level because you know everybody disagrees with the other half, and so you're kind of trying to smuggle it in there sneakily. And, you know, talk about women's health but in a way that constantly calls into question the broader legitimacy of trans people. And its bullshit. If you want to make the argument that cis men will sneak into women's bathrooms and assault them, you can make that argument without shitting on trans people. If you think trans women are particularly violent you can even make that argument. I don't think people would really agree with either argument but at least it'd be more straightforward than this tangled mess of insinuation. I think it's an incorrect framework based on incorrect, bigotry assumptions and I reject it.

Also to clarify I am using the general "you" here, instead of saying "the piece" or something. Please forgive me.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

I gave up junk food, thanks.

^ warning: discussion of rape

[(Anonymous)]

Re: some food for thought

[philstar22]

There are no cases of trans women attacking cis women in bathrooms. Not a single one.

Re: some food for thought

[sparrow_lately]

+100

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

This is a very easily disproved lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

I can provide more examples, if you like. The ones cited in that video are just the tip of the iceberg.

but why does queer peoples' safety and comfort make you upset OP

[(Anonymous)]

how come

Re: but why does queer peoples' safety and comfort make you upset OP

[(Anonymous)]

1. Queer is a slur. Stop it.
2. Why does biological females' safety and comfort make transwomen upset?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Could you explain how banning trans women will deter cis men from continuing to do this?

Didn't they do this before the trans issue ever came up at all, anyway?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

If you tell people to not commit a crime, it is 100% sure to stop the crime. That is why I have a sign on my door that says, "No robbers allows in here."

Thus, if you ban trans people from not sing certain bathrooms, criminals who want to sexually assault women or whatnot will not do it. Because...the laws says they can't.

Re: some food for thought

[kallanda_lee]

I'm having issues with the fact that the "source" is a youtube video.

Trans people are one of the groups at highest risk for violence, isolation and suicide. This is not directly linked to the bathroom issue, but it's yet another way of making their daily life more shitty.

Now, I'm sure that in the entire history of humanity, there have been cases of men crossdressing to assault women.

However, I would not call trans people in the bathroom one of my top 100 safety concerns. It's somewhere below "being struck by lighting" and "drowning in my soup plate".

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Yep.

Also, if I am assaulted in a public restroom, the fact I'm being attacked in and of itself is the issue, and I'd be upset about that regardless of the gender of the person attacking me.

In all seriousness, what makes bathrooms any more dangerous than any other semi-public place?

[sparrow_lately]

Nothing. This is transphobia with the gloves barely on and it's lazy and shitty to pretend it's about protecting people.

Re: In all seriousness, what makes bathrooms any more dangerous than any other semi-public place?

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

Re: In all seriousness, what makes bathrooms any more dangerous than any other semi-public place?

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

And people insisting on transgender people using the "right" bathroom won't be satisfied either way. If transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they identify as, those "use the right bathroom" people get all upset.

But if transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they were born with, those people are still going to freak out because they're still going to make outlandish assumptions about someone in drag sneaking in, or complain about how the transgender person "doesn't look male enough" or "doesn't look female enough", in their view, to be there.

It's just total scare tactic BS, plain and simple.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

OP is a stupid self victimized transphobe and doesn't deserve anyone listening to them.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

sometimes I wonder what's wrong with trolls like you

what gives, OP? who hurt you? why are you such a dick? surely this doesn't make you feel better?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not reading this thing or watching the supposed "proof" youtube video, but as a cis woman, I give no fucks about who's using the bathroom with me so long as they're in there to piss, shit, change pads or tampons or empty mooncups, change babies, wash their hands, touch up their makeup, or get away from a disappointing date. I would not care if a cis guy in a dress wanted to do any of those things in a bathroom, I wouldn't care if other cis women did, or trans women.

I would be angry and possibly traumatized if anyone committed sexual assault in a bathroom I was in. But that's because it's sexual assault, not because of who's doing it. Creepy dudes committing assault in bathrooms is likely to be a problem no matter what the law says about them. And I really doubt banning trans people from using their bathrooms of choice is about protecting cis people from perverts and not transphobia.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

I find it interesting that people in your corner seem to think that someone already methodically planning to commit violent sexual assault will be somehow deterred by a law governing who's allowed to use which bathroom. Do you also believe that anti-trespassing laws prevent premeditated murder?

I mean, even leaving aside the transphobia inherent in your argument, even leaving aside the fact that even if every single account of crossdressing bathroom rapists is factual they would, if all committed in one year, account for a meagre fraction of a percent of sexual assaults committed in that year, that line of reasoning is just stupid. These guys are already planning to accost and rape someone, they're not going to stop and say "oh, wait, but this is the women's bathroom, I'm not allowed to go in".

Re: some food for thought

[feotakahari]

Sometimes I wonder if the people who think I should be terrified of transsexuals are the same people who think I should be terrified of Muslims. They seem to have a very similar playbook.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Fuck off.