[ SECRET POST #5593 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5593 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Malcolm in the Middle]


__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
[The Owl House]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Doctor Who (2005)]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #800.
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)]

In light of the recent "LMA was a trans man" discourse

[(Anonymous)]

Oh god really. What a bunch of bullshit. So now anybody striving for adventure and excitement outside of what social confines will allow has to be a transman? Fuck that noise.

[(Anonymous)]

not everyone "striving for adventure and excitement outside of what social confines will allow" has to be a trans man, but equally, some people from the past probably were trans men. it makes you a shitty person if you think that someone from history might have been trans. tbh I think it's kind of shitty to act like no one in the past ever was trans. and in this particular instance, it was at least drawn from a close and exhaustive reading of Alcott's writing and correspondence.

[(Anonymous)]

It really, really wasn't though. It was invented by someone who really wanted it to be true and chose to creatively misinterpret cherry-picked and in some cases incomplete quotes with zero context and zero grasp of how Victorian-era people actually understood gender and sexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

If you think the specific post is wrong, say that you disagree with the specific post is wrong. If you think the specific post is wrong for reasons specific to the specific person being discussed, don't make a general statement about how "anybody striving for adventure and excitement outside of what social confines will allow has to be a transman".

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

first of all, I'm not the person who wrote the comment you're referring to. To be fair, I should probably have signified that. But that being said, the person who is making the claims about LMA being for sure definitely 100% a trans man is talking out of his ass, which is a thing he is well-known to do on a regular basis. Also, there are actual historical figures contemporary to LMA who actually are generally accepted by historians as probably having been trans men. The "I don't care what pronouns this person used in their life, I am going to assign them new ones and disrespect their actual preferences during life" twit I am guessing either doesn't know about these folks or doesn't care because they aren't famous enough. Was LMA some flavor of queer? Could have been for sure. Definitely gives signs, by mid-19th century standards, of not being quite the perfect cishet lady. Was she absolutely positively a trans man and literally no possibility of anything else? Hells to the no, and it takes a real ignoramus to loudly declare that she was. Which the dude is, so I guess what else could we expect, really.

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I think that's absolutely fair and I don't disagree with you at all. I personally lean on the side that we shouldn't assign labels to anyone if they weren't able to adopt those labels themselves, I think it's incredibly complicated and difficult. I don't disagree with you here, and I don't necessarily agree with the original thread in the first place.

But at the same time, I don't think the original Twitter thread in question was someone saying that "anybody striving for adventure and excitement outside of what social confines will allow has to be a transman". The thread might have been right or it might have been wrong, but the person was making a fairly specific argument rooted in specific things LMA said. And I definitely don't think that any time that anyone thinks someone from the past was trans, it's because they think that anyone outside gender norms must be trans. That's BS and I totally disagree with that suggestion.

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT I dunno. I have definitely seen that assumption more and more.

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

yea the pressing issues of our times are definitely too many people being mislabeled as trans

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. But what else is new.

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

It is, in fact, a significant and important issue of our time that more than 50% of the population is still being stereotyped to such a degree that, when they display characteristics not in keeping with said stereotyping, they are often speculated to be not actually women.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's fair to say someone who wouldn't be trans by Victorian standards would or could be considered trans by today's. We regularly use modern language and values to talk about other things in the past that wouldn't have been talked about in the same way at the time. But as always, it's different for trans people, because that's where you choose to draw the line about respecting historical differences, despite there being zero Victorians around to be hear and be offended by being talked about with standards that don't match theirs.

[(Anonymous)]

This 100%

[(Anonymous)]

It makes you a shitty person to assume all women who aren't cookie cutter stereotypes must be experiencing gender dysphoria. Fucks sake.

[(Anonymous)]

Who assumed that? Which post assumed that? What statement that anyone made suggested that all women who aren't cookie cutter stereotypes must be experience gender dysphoria? Where did someone make that statement? What are you talking about?

[(Anonymous)]

There are definitely sections of fandom that assume this.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Those sections of fandom are kids playing with gender. In a while they'll figure out the consensus of the trans community at large, which is that gender norms need not be conformed to whether you're cis or trans. I know plenty of butch trans women and femme trans men and nonbinary people who appear to conform to either binary gender. And do you know what the same handwringers who use your "trans is forcing gender-nonconforming cis people to transition" strawman have to say about them? That they're faking and don't need to be trans since they already conform to their birth-assigned gender presentation. So yeah. Wrap your head around that one.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

You acknowledge those people exist yet also call it a strawman. Uh... huh. Okay. You have a good day now, you hear.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt

You’re being so disingenuous and obtuse it’s actually crazy. Did you actually think this was a gotcha?

They said that a minority of people you’re describing exist. But also saying that the sweeping generalizations people like you make that it’s a constants problem, and the falsehood that “trans is forcing gender-nonconforming cis people to transition" is the strawman. Just admit you don’t actually know what a strawman is and couldn’t be bothered to Google it.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

+1000000

[(Anonymous)]

"there are definitely people out there somewhere who said this" is such a strange way to justify someone going off for no reason

[(Anonymous)]

This ^^^^


Like, they strongly imply someone in the thread said this directly, and when called out and told to prove it, they instead responded “well someone somewhere probably said it, so take that!”.

[(Anonymous)]

lol no, piss off with your religious dogma

[(Anonymous)]

How is what they’re saying religious dogma? It’s fine if you disagree with them, because I don’t think I really agree with them either. But what’s religious about it?