[ SECRET POST #4106 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4106 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #588.
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

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/edh6yWR.png

[(Anonymous)]

Because it is fucking social media so they show shit that is just friends of friends of friends. Or trending. Or whatever new metrics they are using that day.

[(Anonymous)]

OK, so then which of the 578 people that she follows on Twitter were liking the tweet in question so that it would show up on her feed, and why does she follow those people

[(Anonymous)]

It's almost like she might not know every single thing about every single person she follows, or something?

I mean not to defend her, because she does defend some shitty pieces of work (like... Johnny Depp) and has a habit of blocking people on Twitter who disagree with her, but y'know. It happens.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know man, could have been someone who mostly just posts funny shit. You have never followed someone (or been friends) with someone who seems cool until that one time they do/post something shitty?

[(Anonymous)]

Or she could have been following someone who was criticizing the tweet, and she accidentally favorited the wrong thing while viewing the full thread. It happens to me sometimes... though normally I immediately notice. And normally it's not favoriting the wrong political tweet, it's favoriting the wrong "the signs as..." meme or whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

It's possible. I'm not saying it's not possible. But it does require another layer of explanation and complexity and makes it just a little harder to believe, you know.

[(Anonymous)]

no it doesn't. You sound like a crazy person.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, what can I say to that?

[(Anonymous)]

+1 jfc

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe if you have a twitter follow list in the low double digits, but most people who have several hundred people friended do not, in fact, do an in-depth search of those people's histories to see if they have ever said or retweeted something offensive before adding them.

At most, they skim the most recent few tweets to make sure there isn't any porn or outright batshit fuckery.

[tree_and_leaf]

I dunno, I've followed a bunch of people who have slowly revealed themselves to be massive transphobes, even though they were also funny, interesting, and otherwise progressive people (Hadley Freeman, I'm looking at you in great disappointment). I've unfollowed as I've caught it, but I'm not on Twitter 24/7 and I don't read through people's timelines to see everything they've ever posted....

I don't think JKR following someone who subsequently turned out to be a transphobe is any less plausible than 'accidentally liking' one of their posts - if anything, it's somewhat more so.

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of agree. I want to extend her the benefit of the doubt but it strains credulity a little. And also, frankly, she's a UK soft-left Guardian feminist which means she's in an extremely high-risk group for transphobia to begin with.

[(Anonymous)]

As a left-identifying feminist who reads the Guardian, I'm sincerely curious about this reasoning.

[(Anonymous)]

A high number of the opinion writers, columnists, and journalists who identify as feminist and who write for the Guardian or similarly-positioned outlets (IE New Statesman) turn out to be sympathetic to TERFs and/or "gender critical".

Notable examples include Hadley Freeman, Julie Bindel, Sarah Ditum, Helen Lewis, Suzanne Moore, Catherine Bennett, and Jess Phillips.

[(Anonymous)]

DA Oh god yes, there's so many writers in the Guardian who are TERFs, it's gross. I love many things about the Guardian, but I really hope whoever is in editorial that encourages this particular group moves on soon. Hadley Freeman's latest column was really nasty.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I think it was an honest mistake in that JKR seems a little clueless and tone deaf...kinda like her take on wizardry outside of the UK. I suspect she skimmed the tweet and favorited it either without reading the last bit or without grasping that it was transphobic, much in the same way she didn't realize how dumb and racist some of her history of magic stuff was.

[(Anonymous)]

Most people are transphobic, though. Nothing new here.

[(Anonymous)]

Do tell.

[raspberryrain]

As annoyed as I am by women who think transwomen enjoy any 'bro' solidarity, you and @shonfaye sound to me like you're massively overreacting. It is possible to like a tweet because it's 85% sympathetic, which this one was, without catching the full implications.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, please. As if some of those tweets weren't correct.

I'm not down for the hostile tone and language of the tweets, but I agree with what a lot of the are saying. The MtT movement has been pissing me off. Don't even get me started on the things so many people from that group found offensive and trans-exclusionary on International Womans Day.

[(Anonymous)]

It does kind of bother me that women can't even discuss their uterus' or assert that women have vaginas without being screamed at as being trans-exclusionary. It just seems like yet another facet of life shaming women for their biology. I only recently discovered what TERF stands for, but apparently even having these concerns labels you a TERF and that makes you worth not listening to/evil by default. Like there's no room for discussion. Like I get that trans women face a whole other arena of societal bullshit and immense difficulties, but there's gotta be a way to include them without actively hurling shit at cis women for making "vagina rallies".

[(Anonymous)]

Talking about uteruses and vaginas is fine. The problem comes when you assert that those things are universally identical with being a woman. And sure, some of the discourse and criticism around that is perhaps more pointed than it needs to be, and a lot of people who are doing that stuff really aren't thinking about the issue at all one way or another.

But, like, at the end of the day, I don't think that there is a way to actually assert that all women have vaginas without being trans-exclusionary. It's a fundamental contradiction. There is a real and inescapable sense in which saying that all women have vaginas is trans-exclusionary, whether or not people intentionally mean it that way. I don't think you can really choose both sides on that one - either trans women are women, or they're not. No amount of talking around the issue is going to alter that.

And I really don't think that any part of this critique is about shaming women for their biology and I'm not sure where that idea even comes from.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you serious? You can't see the cis woman biology shaming inherent in derailing every conversation about reproductive rights or periods or breastfeeding by jumping in and claiming that calling these things women's rights issues makes you trans-exclusionary? There is a vocal segment of the trans community that likes to dismiss these issues as unimportant because they don't affect them, and unfortunately they use the same language that women hear all the time from politicians who don't think they should have to support some pregnant woman's prenatal care because after all, they can't get pregnant.

So, here's the thing -- if you only care about the parts of women's rights that affect you directly, then you don't care about women's rights. You care about your rights. That doesn't make you less of a woman, but it makes you less of a person.

[(Anonymous)]

And I really don't think that any part of this critique is about shaming women for their biology

That's exactly what it is though? They're now unable to talk about issues that intrinsically only affect those who have these biological traits without getting shouted down by the women who don't share these biological traits. It's no different than the centuries of bullshit and control cis male politicians have had over women's biology. I think it's bullshit that in women-centric circles, you can't even mention vaginas or periods or reproductive rights without getting demonized for not including women with penises.