fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6006 ]

[ SECRET POST #6006 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6006 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[From]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Youtube channel "Hello Future Me"]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Monark]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Across the Spiderverse]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for transphobia/standard JKR stuff]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #858.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What a silly thing to be confused by. Finding out the creator of something I loved is actually a piece of shit would put me off that media and no longer want to support that person or their content. Knowing that the creator of Rurouni Kenshin was convicted of owning and distributing real child porn has soured the whole series for me and I will never check it out. Lots of people object to supporting Ender’s Game because the author is a massive homophobe. That’s an extremely reasonable position to take.

It’s also not a matter of “simply disagreeing”, she has made her entire personality be about attacking a marginalized group. I doubt you would consider any of this nuts if you replaced JKR’s transphobia with racism.

It's not really transPHOBIA, you just call it that.
And it is not equivalent to racism.

AYRT

AFAIK, This isn't true. Rowling thinks women should continue to be able to call themselves women, (instead of convoluted, demeaning terms like menstruators or uterus-havers) and continue to forbid men from following them into spaces that they need to get away from abusive men, like rape crisis centers. That's all it took to set off this uproar against her.

She even posted an article about medical violence that women and girls experience in hospitals (pregnancy, pain that is not taken seriously, etc) and tons or TRAs came with "oh but what about us?".

That doesn't surprise me at all. Just a few days ago, she linked to an article that decries abortion restrictions in Britain, which presumably none of the people upthread have seen because they're shunnning her.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230614192614/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/06/14/jailing-mothers-for-abortion-despicable/

Oh noes, being inclusive is... bad? I hate to break it to you, but there are MEN, with XY chromosomes and who have fathered children and EVERYTHING, who have gone into the hospital for abdomen pain only to find out it was an ovary or uterus...

https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-goes-to-hospital-with-stomach-ache-gets-uterus-removed/
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/25/man-admitted-to-hospital-for-kidney-stone-discovers-hes-a-woman
https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/doctors-remove-uterus-ovaries-from-22-year-old-man-s-body-in-udaipur/story-Ot9Gx6KtLGvyVRs0uHdUeM.html

And for fun, a woman with testicular cancer:
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/woman-finds-out-she-is-a-man-during-treatment-at-kolkata-hospital-6477258/

You're not "breaking anything" to me, you're just being condescending. You're also presenting evidence in an incredibly misleading way: these are birth defects affecting internal organs, not "surprise reveals of being the opposite gender." Despite the clickbait titles.

They're not birth defects, they're natural variation of the human genome. They happen a lot more frequently than you think that that doesn't even include people who are born obviously intersex. They are PEOPLE with ovaries, and PEOPLE with uterus', and PEOPLE with testicles. Unless the point of being so unhappy at medical inclusivity is that you don't think they're people?

I am a person. I am a person with a uterus. I am also a woman. Someone calling me a person with a uterus does not make me NOT a woman. But it does affirm that I am a PERSON. And I have no problem with that. Why do you?

AYRT

Being born with six fingers is not a "natural variation of the human genome," and neither is being born with additional organs. Look up what it's like to actually live with these conditions and you will realize that very quickly. And you're talking to someone who both loved to find out about things that were out of the ordinary, as a kid, and got enough information to realize that being an albino or being double-jointed or having your heart on the wrong side or being one of a pair of conjoined twins *or so many other things that are highly unusual but not completely impossible* tend to come with a lot of inherent drawbacks. Of course it doesn't make the people who have them less as people, but what you're arguing is like saying that someone with chicken pox just has a distinctive epithelial experience of the world. What you're ignoring is significant in ways that make what you focus on seem really dishonest.

JK wasn't preventing anyone from calling themselves a person with a uterus if they wanted to. She was objecting to a trend of women being accused of being hate-mongers if they said "woman" and meant "part of the sex that can get pregnant." Or any number of other things that self ID, hormones, or a surgery don't change. She spoke up expressly because trans activists were alleging that any definition of "woman" that distinguished between someone who was born that way and someone who wasn't was somehow infringing on their (percieved) human right to claim every aspect of womanhood for themselves. And that anything a trans woman didn't have was irrelevant and should not be mentioned in polite society anymore. Like any self-respecting feminist, that argument did not convince her. It doesn't convince me, either.

I'm not gonna get into the science with you, because it's obvious you don't know anything about human sex variation. There are currently FOUR recognized human sexes by science. So I'm just gonna leave that there, cause I don't have the time or energy to educate you.

She was objecting to a trend of women being accused of being hate-mongers if they said "woman" and meant "part of the sex that can get pregnant."

If I were an infertile woman, I'd be fucking pissed too. Saying that only someone who can get pregnant is a woman is fucking MEAN. There is NO definition of "woman" that completely includes all AFAB and excludes all transwomen. NONE. By trying, you're telling a significant portion of the population of AFAB people that they're NOT WOMEN even though they have been born a woman, identified as a woman, and been treated as a woman their entire lives. All people are asking is that you don't be fucking mean to people.

Like any self-respecting feminist, that argument did not convince her. It doesn't convince me, either.

I guess she, and you, aren't very good feminist because that IS GENDER ESSENTIALISM. "Oh, you're NOT A WOMAN unless you can GET PREGNANT and saying you are is offensive to meeeeeee." Grow the fuck up. Millions of child-bearing aged AFAB WOMEN can't get pregnant. WOMEN post menopause can't get pregnant. WOMEN who have had some life saving medical treatments can't get pregnant. Saying that those WOMEN aren't women because icky trans people also fall under that definition is not only positively BITCHY, it's also wrong.

No one is saying you can't call yourself a woman. We just want the language of those in AUTHORITY to acknowledge human variation. Hence, "people with uteruses" instead of women. Because there are women WITHOUT UTERUSES, who won't need whatever screening is being offered. Because, you know, they were born without one, or they had to have it removed because of cancer, or they're trans. All of them are WOMEN.

But go off feeling all righteous when absolutely nothing is being taken away from you but it makes other people feel more included and more comfortable.

I've seen different numbers quoted as the correct amount of human sexes. But I have not seen these taken especially seriously by any scientific discipline aside from sociology.

"Those words are so mean!!" is a weak misdirection. Recognizing that women are the only people who can get pregnant and determining what all needs to happen so that they can keep control over their fertility (including taking steps to make it harder for men to rape women) has nothing to do with hurting the hypothetical feelings of infertile women. And plenty of women who are not risking pregnancy when they have sex care about avoiding situations where they could be raped for other reasons. This is why you run into resistance when trans activists propose that whether you have a penis or a uterus should make no difference in access to women's spaces. From women who are otherwise friendly to trans people.

It's narrow-minded of you to assume anyone who disagrees with you is choosing their political opinions out of a sense of self-interest. Regardless of how public policy changes, the chances of JK Rowling ever needing the services of a women-only rape crisis shelter are miniscule. When she funds one, and states that women should not be shamed out of asserting that gender-segregated facilities support their safety, she's looking out for other women.

Recognizing that women are the only people who can get pregnant

Untrue. There's been at least one man who has been pregnant. Granted, YOU don't think he's a man, but he does, and he presents himself as a man and fills that role in society. So what you think doesn't matter.

"Those words are so mean!!" is a weak misdirection.

It's not a misdirect at all. I was saying that not only are you wrong, you're also an asshole. Though research has come to conclude that being an asshole comes first, and then you build your worldview around it, so I don't have much hope for you. There was a recent article about how taking MDMA can make assholes realize that other people exist and have feelings though, so maybe give that a try?

It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. Disagreeing with me on politics does not make anyone "a piece of shit."

I've lived in a very conservative part of the US, and had no sympathy for their various dogmas, and I remember how various atheist adult friends felt like the very concrete price for being honest about their lack of belief in that city was that a lot of people would avoid their small business, or try to get them screwed over at their job, because Evangelicals thought they had a moral imperative to only patronize "Christian" establishments and outright make trouble for unbelievers.

As ineffective as it is against an actual millionaire like JK, I think it's crazy-damaging that "they should starve because I don't approve of their beliefs" has been popularized as a way for people who aren't conservative wingnuts to treat each other in fandom. The fact that someone can't buy food without a job should not mean that their customers own them. That's not any more enlightened than a society where their employer acts like they absolutely own them. Which is unfortunately also all too common!

Unless you're voting for a politician, the thing that person is promising to do is NOT represent you. Much less "for the rest of their life."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #6006 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject