[ SECRET POST #5433 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5433 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #778.
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: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Those are anecdotal examples though. Things like this do happen, but trans people don’t like it when these people insist that anyone who doesn’t fit gender stereotypes completely are really trans either, because trans people know that there’s much more to being trans than not fitting stereotypes. And that simplifying the trans experience to that can be more insulting than helpful a majority of the time.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

However, trans people are not a monolith but a community and some transpeople are really good at pattern recognition and identifying positive representation.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

That’s not contradictory to what I was saying. Part of what I was trying to say that the bad representation that the anon I was talking to was referring to is easy to spot because trans people aren’t a monolith.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Your bad representation is other trans people's good representation. Stop trying to take ownership of an entire diverse community.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I’m not trying to say anything like what you’re implying. The anon I was talking to said that most every adaptation that turned a character who was previously cis into a trans person, specifically tomboys into trans men for their examples, was based on nothing but gender stereotypes. And they seemed to imply that that was wrong of productions to do in and of itself. I was attempting to say that the bad representation that they’re talking about aren’t as ubiquitous as they think. And that the truly bad representations out there that are actively harmful(which really aren’t that plentiful) would obviously be easy to spot by trans people. So it just felt a bit unintentionally concern-troll like of them to take anecdotal experiences of a couple of characters that they felt were made trans in adaptations based on gender stereotypes, and act like it’s bad representation that happens all the time. Because if it was bad rep, it would have been unanimously pointed out to be.

(They also state the position that people will jump down others throats for not reading these characters as trans, and that’s a whole other thing I can’t speak to, because I’ve never personally seen that for any of these characters).

I’m not literally saying these examples, or any examples really, bad representation. And I’m definitely not trying to speak over trans people about what is good or bad rep.

I’m not trying to take ownership over a diverse community. I was just disagreeing with someone who thought every tomboy was being adapted into a trans man. Or that a character who was previously cis being adapted as trans was based on just gender stereotypes just because that character was characterized as a tomboy, because there is definitely many other completely valid reasons to adapt these characters as trans. And I was also stating to them that it’s a bit short-sighted to say adapting characters as trans in general is always based on gender stereotypes.

I wasn’t using any examples to call something bad representation, or alluding to anything. Much less calling the characters of George or Will from Mallory Towers bad representation. I even agreed whole heartedly with the anon who said that there’s a strong case for George being read as a trans man, and that George would be good representation. So I really have no idea where you’re pulling any of this from about me. Where did I say anything was bad representation? Where did I imply or refer to trans people as a monolith, or imply that trans people are not a diverse community? Where did I speak over trans people, by calling anyone’s good representation bad or otherwise?

I’m not saying I didn’t word my comments badly, because that could very well be the case, I just genuinely don’t know what I said that made it seem like I was implying what you’re saying. I was trying to say that if a representation was truly and unequivocally bad and based in harmful stereotypes was out there, that it would be obvious to trans people more than anyone else out there. That wasn’t me trying to say any actual representation was bad. It was a hypothetical.

I’m sorry that I worded my comment so poorly, and that my intent wasn’t clear. I would never purposely speak over trans voices, or insult or deny representation.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, obviously I can't give actual evidence about a movie/show that doesn't even exist on account of it, you know, not existing but the anecdotal evidence shows that assuming a character would be turned trans isn't just some sort of baseless imagined thing but has actually happened with very similar character types that were written by the same author.
As for the rest of you comment... I mean, yes? But when it comes to turning characters trans, the whole "behaves like a tomboy so must be trans" literally is the only reason the people who insist George (or Will, in case of Malory Towers) is trans do it.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

“ I mean, obviously I can't give actual evidence about a movie/show that doesn't even exist on account of it, you know, not existing”

?? I don’t think I get what you’re trying to say here.

“but the anecdotal evidence shows that assuming a character would be turned trans isn't just some sort of baseless imagined thing but has actually happened with very similar character types that were written by the same author.”

Which is why I said “things like this do happen”. I never said you imagined it or were making it up. Just that these examples were too anecdotal to say that this happens all the time, because it doesn’t. Some people make it seem like this happens with every new adaptation of older works, and it’s a bit tiring.

And as the anon below put it, George at least goes beyond just being a tomboy, and is very easy to read as trans. Regardless of if that was the authorial intent. And there’s nothing wrong with having trans headcanons in general either, with any character someone feels like. It’s only really a problem when it’s done in a big production that feels more like a mean-spirited caricature of a trans person, by someone who doesn’t understand or really care about the trans experience. That’s why I was saying that trans people are more aware than anyone when a portrayal is more negative and harmful, and based on nothing but gender stereotypes, and stereotypes and misrepresentations about trans people.

But making it so trans people, and portrayals of trans people, are wrong for displaying clear femininity and/or masculinity by saying it’s always just gender stereotypes is a bit short-sighted. And is a criticism that cis people don’t get, no matter how much they display the same recognizable amount of femininity and/or masculinity. I’m not saying you’re saying all of that specifically, but others in the past on FS have said things like this a lot. And it’s part of why any discussion of trans people here gets so bad, so fast. This thread has been much better though, thankfully.

And the thing about the whole “tomboys are always being turned into trans men now” thing is that it’s more complicated than that. There are still many tomboys that have never been made into trans men in any major adaptation, for one(such as Jo from Little Women). But the other thing is that there is different types of tomboys in fiction. Many characters categorized as tomboys, using George again, read much more like possible trans men from a modern perspective, or at least as not completely cis. She actively refers to herself as a boy, and rejects femininity. There’s nothing wrong with considering her a cis tomboy still, and it’s wrong for anyone to call someone a transphobe for merely continuing to read her that way. Especially if the person reading her as a cis tomboy has not expressed anything negative to the people who read her as a trans man, and just disagree with their personal interpretation.

But it’s also not wrong to read her as a trans man. She, as well as many other characters like her from older works, was someone relatable for many trans people when they were younger and didn’t have really any good canonically trans characters to look to. And trans people who look to George as an inspiration, and portray her as a trans man aren’t trying to take her away from cis women who saw her as relatable because they were also tomboys.


“But when it comes to turning characters trans, the whole "behaves like a tomboy so must be trans" literally is the only reason the people who insist George (or Will, in case of Malory Towers) is trans do it.”

And again, George merely “behaving like a tomboy” is not the only reason people might read her as a trans man. But so what if it was? Maybe it might be more of a problem if done poorly in a major production, and done by someone who doesn’t understand or really care about trans people and their actual experiences. But just as a headcanon, nobody has to have a deeper reason than that. As long as they’re not calling people who are respectful but still read her as cis transphobes, this headcanon and it’s reasoning isn’t hurting anyone in and of itself.