[ 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)]

Trans activists want to make it possible for transwomen to get away with sexual assault, though. That's the real goal of all this fuss they're kicking up over bathroom bills. Case in point: all the activists defending known sexual predators like Synthia China Blast, solely because she is a transwoman.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

That's an outright lie, and you know it.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Not really. It's the logical conclusion of cotton ceiling rhetoric. Transwomen think they're entitled to "cis" womens' bodies. Gee. Kind of like men, huh?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

You do realize that men are, in fact, prosecuted for sexual assault, right? Despite thinking they have a right to women's bodies? Despite being the majority of law makers?

Why in the fuck do you think trans women, who are severely marginalized and absolutely not a majority of law makers, would be any less likely to be prosecuted?

PS a cis man lurking in a ladies' room so he can rape someone is not a trans woman.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

You do realize that men are, in fact, prosecuted for sexual assault, right?

Not nearly as often as they should be.

Why in the fuck do you think trans women [...] would be any less likely to be prosecuted?

In the current climate, they aren't, thank god. But if the cotton ceiling crowd has their way, that's gonna change. You might think I'm being uncharitable in assuming trans activists will actively campaign to make allowances for trans predators, but here's the thing; they support predators in their communities. They defend predators in their communities. In some case, they even go so far as to deny those predators are "real" trans people, much like you're doing right now, with this remark:

PS a cis man lurking in a ladies' room so he can rape someone is not a trans woman.

Perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

I'll stop being suspicious of the trans community's motives when they get their fucking act together and stop making excuses for rapists and pedophiles. The harmful actions of a predator should not be defended, excused, or allowed simply because that predator happens to be trans.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Saying a cis man is not a trans woman is no closer to a No True Scotsman fallacy than saying a German man is not a Scottish woman.

Except, of course, in the minds of bigotted trolls desperate to deny that trans women are women.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

"A transwoman who assaulted someone in a bathroom must actually be a cis man in disguise, because a real transwoman would never do that, therefore all predators are cis men."

This is what you're saying. How is that not a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Trans activists want to make it possible for transwomen to get away with sexual assault, though. That's the real goal of all this fuss they're kicking up over bathroom bills.

That's not goddamn true and you should be ashamed for saying it.

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Like I said to the other anon in this thread, I'll stop being suspicious of the trans community's motives when they get their fucking act together and stop making excuses for rapists and pedophiles.

Re: some food for thought

[feotakahari]

Who the fuck is "the trans community"? Is L.B. Lee the trans community? Is Pervocracy the trans community? What person or people would need to call out rapists any more than they already do in order for you to consider "the trans community" to be against rape?

Re: some food for thought

[(Anonymous)]

Motherfucker. No matter how angry you are about rapists and pedophiles in the trans community, that still does not make your statement true or acceptable in the slightest.