[ SECRET POST #4738 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4738 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Full of spoilers tomorrow.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #678.
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

[(Anonymous)]

I really want to know why the "biological differences" matter so much. I really do. I do not in my daily life give two shits what anyone around me looks like naked. I'm not checking panties in the public bathroom. We already have laws protecting EVERYONE from predation and indecency in places like locker rooms and bathrooms (and anyone is free to report bad behavior). Biology. Doesn't. Matter.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt

For example the insistence of some trans women that they totally menstruate and thus know exactly what biological women go through. Or expect to get appointments with gynecologists for no reason when biological women already have trouble getting appointments. So yes, in some cases, biology DOES matter.

[(Anonymous)]

None of that has any impact whatsoever on me as a cis woman. I've literally never had a problem getting gyno appointments and if I did, a microscopic percentage of transwomen wouldn't make a difference--better access to healthcare for everyone would. Besides that, what goes on in a doctor's office has exactly zero bearing on my opinion of someone. So again, why does someone's DNA matter to you personally?

[hey_hey_hey]

https://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/2136499.html?thread=1034534835#cmt1034534835

[(Anonymous)]

Transwomen are women. Women-only spaces are for women. I don't know where we're losing you.

I have close female friends whose biology keeps them from eating food I like, and whose socialization has little in common with my own--do we need to have conversations and shaming about that too? As has been stated multiple times in these threads, biology exists--it just doesn't matter in a social context as much as transphobes like you seem to think it does.

Also regarding athletes: are we going to start policing other people with biological advantages, like Michael Phelps? What about cis women like Caster Semenya who has been subjected to truly awful treatment in every way because her natural testosterone level happens to be high? There is a greater conversation to be had here but pinning it all on the existence and treatment of trans people is a scapegoat and nothing more.

[hey_hey_hey]

Why do people keep bringing up Michael Phelps when people voice concerns about transwomen participating in sports. He's competing against other elite male athletes, it's apples and oranges.

I'll listen to actual competitive female athletes over someone who says it doesn't affect them one way or the other. But they're just a bunch of bitter Betties, cause biology doesn't matter, right?

[(Anonymous)]

Part of the reason that Michael Phelps is an elite athlete is because he has intrinsic biological genetic advantages over his competitors. And it's not really clear how to draw a bright line between one kind of biological genetic advantage and another. A significant part of what elite athletics is testing is the biological genetic differences between competitors. The way that we differentiate different classes of competitors is based on what's most useful and productive for the sport in question, on what we regard as a fair division. And there's no real compelling reason to think that trans women athletes have an unfair structural competitive advantage derived simply from the fact of their being trans, so there's simply no justification for differentiating them as a class of competitor. The mere fact of having a biological genetic difference between two competitors is not in itself enough to justify differentiating, and a trans athlete winning a competition is not enough to justify concluding that they won because of an unfair competitive advantage.

[(Anonymous)]

So what about Semenya then? Bullshit genetic testing has made things worse for her, not better.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd turn this question around. Why is there such a need for biological similarity between cis and trans? My assumption is that it stems from the notion that to be equal, one must be the same as the other. Kind of like how society tends to praise women who are "one of the guys". Since I absoultely loathe the notion that to be a good woman, I'd have to emulate men, I don't understand why transpeople should have to fit into the cis category. Let trans be trans (and the same with inters, non-binaries, etc.)


But I disagree with your last sentiment. Biology does matter. Were there not different sexes, there would be no gender dysphoria. If men and women were exactly the same, there would be no feeling of being born into the wrong body.

[(Anonymous)]

What the fuck point are you trying to make

[(Anonymous)]

I asked a question to which you clearly don't have an answer. No need to be rude.

[(Anonymous)]

A cis woman being less feminine in order to be "one of the guys" has jack shit to do with a trans woman having to be MORE feminine to be afforded basic respect. Rather than compare it to yourself having to emulate a man, imagine that everyone around you outright referred to you, a woman, as a man, all day every day.

Also gender =/= sex.