[ SECRET POST #5321 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5321 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #762.
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)]

It’s pretty disingenuous to pretend that this contention is only coming up in arguments where people are in disagreement over the factual nature of the statement. Like come on, you know it’s the follow-up argument, the “There are biological differences between cis and trans women AND…” that’s controversial.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it's not disingenuous simply because I am here and presenting this contention with no caveats.

Besides, even if this fact gets misused by some to present ideological arguments, it doesn't change its basic fundamental truth and it's ridiculous to pretend it does.

[(Anonymous)]

You’re flat out wrong though. The statement is not by itself controversial so there’s nothing “amazing” about it. It’s the context in which it finds itself utilized that creates controversy. So you’re being disingenuous or embarrassingly naive, either way no cookie.

We’re not at a medical conference listening to a surgeon specialized in gender reassignment saying, “Biological differences in cis and trans women have implications for post-op care,” and somehow that becomes an issue. We’re on the Internet where 9 times out of 10 this sentence is a not-even-subtle dogwhistle for frothing bigotry. And transphobes didn’t invent it! Bigots of all stripes have always tried to Trojan horse their bullshit in conversations with normies using innocuous-sounding, even factual(!) statements that act as a prelude to what they’re REALLY trying to say.

[(Anonymous)]

And yet I have presented it as a factual statement, with no other context and yet here you are jumping at shadows.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

You're not going to respond to anyone's well-written points? Just continue to repeat, I was just saying ad nauseum?