[ SECRET POST #5825 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5825 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
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

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

it's very hard to tell whether this opinion is sincere or whether it's calculated to be provocative. if it is sincere, it's absolutely both morally wrong and factually ridiculous to characterize objections to transphobia as "reveling in misogyny".

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

And here lies the crux of the problem. Objecting to transphobia in and of itself is obviously not wrong and is not what I'm referring to. It's the way that it's wielded by a great many people in the most vitriolic poisonous misogynistic way possible.

Just as there's nothing wrong with being concerned for your own safety based on previous experience. It's when you let that blind you to other issues nd turn you against another group of people that it becomes a problem.

Both sides are FUCKING ANNOYING and so entrenched in their own hate it's ridiculous.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

When the post says "the side that gleefully takes every opportunity to revel in their rampant misogyny", that is a blanket statement. That is not saying "well, it's reasonable to object to JKR's transphobia but some people go too far and object to it for misogynist reasons". That is simply not what the post said.

I also disagree with the underlying assertion that people being misogynist, let alone misogynist in "the most vitriologic poisonous way possible", is really a significant part of the reaction to JKR at all. I am sure that there are some people who are misogynist about it. But I really think that it's so marginal and secondary to the actual conversation that people have that there's no real justification for even bringing it up. It's certainly not the main impetus for peoples' objections to JKR.

There's kind of an asymmetry here. On the one hand, you want to give people on the anti-trans side of the argument the maximum credit possible for being concerned about their safety based on previous experience - when that's very much a secondary consideration for the whole movement based on their actions and statements. On the other hand, you want to tar everyone objecting to transphobia as misogynists, when it really *isn't* the primary consideration driving them.

In the end, I just don't think there's any good justification for framing the debate that way.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

It's certainly not the main impetus for peoples' objections to JKR.

No, but it certainly is driving the level of reaction. If you don't see the gleeful misogyny in many people's reactions to JKR, or just in people using TERF as a pejorative if you have even a slightly different opinion to them then I can't help you.

As for trans safety, yes that's a concern. When you have two groups whose safety can only be guarded at cost to the other group though - that's a difficult situation. One that requires discussion. What we're instead seeing though is instant vilification of any woman who has concerns.

(frozen comment)

[philstar22]

No. The safety of trans people is not a threat to women. That's a complete lie.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

But it is. Allowing men to self-indentify as women means you can't properly safeguard women's spaces, rights, and privilages from fakes and pervs. How do you tell a 'genuine' trans identifying man from a supposed fake?

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Which part of TERF is objectionable to you?

TERF is literally just an acronym for Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminist. A major tenant of radical feminism is the idea that all men are and will always be threats to women. Radical feminists who extend this reasoning to trans people, and cite "the safety of cis women" any and every time the rights of trans individuals are under discussion are, by definition, trans-exclusive radical feminists.

Or is it just the practice of it being used descriptively and insultingly at once?

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

This.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

This completely!

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

You're right and you should say it. *fistbump*

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, they’re wrong and being disingenuous. Just because they could say it doesn’t mean they should.