[ 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)]

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.