[ 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

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)]

Like, a cis man dressing up in a dress to try and evade police notice is not the same thing as pretending to be legitimately transgender, and I bet that's most of the "hundreds" of supposed trans women assaulting women.

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.