[ SECRET POST #6328 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6328 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________













































02. [SPOILERS for Civil War (2024)]





__________________________________________________



03. [SPOILERS for Ghost of Tsushima]




__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Detective Conan]
[WARNING for discussion of incest]




__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of sex with a minor/statutory rape]




__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of domestic violence]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of JKR/transphobia]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]




































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #904.
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)]

Your last bit is the sticking point. It is totally logical and fine to say *you* can't anymore. It is insane to make the jump Secret!OP did and say if you enjoy Harry Potter still you are a transphobe etc etc etc

[philstar22]

I do agree with that. Honestly, for me it depends. Someone who says I get that she's transphobic but I still like Potter anyway, sure. Someone who doesn't care that she's transphobic or even says she isn't transphobic? Then I'm judging.

[(Anonymous)]

This definition of transphobia is now making anyone who cares about biological women's rights to safe spaces a transphobe. The word is losing all meaning.
You don't want a biological male and his penis in a women's only changing room? Transphobic.
You don't want to play against a rugby team with two transwomen and get badly injured? Transphobic.
You don't think saying you're a woman and doing nothing to alter your body in any way and using that identity to barge into female spaces - not just toilets but domestic refuges - is questionable at best? Transphobic.
You don't think 6 six year olds should be taught they can change into the opposite sex? Transphobic.
You call a biological man 'he' and not 'they'? Transphobic.

We're now at the stage of people saying "If I'm transphobic, so what?" because the pendulum has swung too far and it's going to hurt a lot coming back much harder than it needed to.

[philstar22]

Yes, actually. Every single one of those is transphobic. Also, gender and sex are not the same thing, so yes, biological sex and someone's gender can differ. Emphasizing someone's biology over everything else is transphobic.

And frankly, as a cis woman, I find it insulting to be defined by my biological parts too. I am more than just my sex organs.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
At least half of those things are not transphobic.
And it's funny you bring up that you don't like being defined by your biological parts because that's exactly what's happening in a lot of "gender inclusive" discourse. Women keep disappearing in discussions about medical issues, getting replaced by terms like "uterus havers" or "people who menstruate" (just two examples) while nothing at all of the sort happens in regards to men's health issues.

[(Anonymous)]

1. I've likely shared a changing room with a transwoman in my lifetime, I have neither been able to tell or been bothered by it, the only way you could tell is if you did a genital check on every person going inside, which is far worse and more invasive! And if you think 'well it will only catch the OBVIOUS men' there are cis women who look like men, they will and do get punished the most by these absurd rules even though they belong in these places by the assertions of people like you. But those women getting hurt or targeted is fine and dandy, what a wonderful pro-woman person you all are.

2. I love the idea you have that women's rugby is somehow not just as violent as the mens, transwomen being on those teams is not going to make is more dangerous.

3. Public toilets are public, I've had cis-men come into women's toilets before because the men's was out of use or just full, this was not a remote issue. Also I'm form the EU a lot of our toilets are unisex with urinals and some stalls, it's not an issue.

4. Six year olds are being taught that if they don't feel like themselves it's okay to explore that, some of them may realise their trans, other may realise they're cis or something in between

5. We should call anyone what we like then? Are you a cis woman? I'm going to call you he from now on just because I don't personally feel like I should be calling you she, and you can't complain about it because it's what I want to do and feel I should call you. Your feelings don't matter and this shouldn't upset you on any level because it's just a word. Even though calling people by preferred names/pronouns isn't hard and plenty of people with nicknames or names they like better get called what they want. My uncle doesn't like his chosen name, he uses his second as his first, but I guess I should call him by his first because 'that's what he was originally called'.

A lot of what you seem to be so up in arms against is just basic human decency that I'm sure you're all too happy to do for cis people, but when it comes to trans people suddenly becomes just too much! And too hard! And too difficult!! Which sure is a way of telling me how utterly inconsiderate you are, what a badge of honour anon.

[(Anonymous)]

My feelings are: you care more about fiction than real world minorities, and that... Doesn't make you a safe person to me!

[(Anonymous)]

Hm. For one thing, I think there are SO many ways to care about and support trans people other than... IDK, removing your Hogwarts house from your profile, I guess...? I am not sure what exactly we are arguing about here, as I think materially benefiting an author (e.g. buying their next book, buying official HP merchandise, even checking out their books from a library) is completely different from merely signalling you're a fan of that author's works (e.g. wearing HP merchandise you already own, writing HP fic, putting your Hogwarts house in your profile). (I recognize some people view the latter as leading indirectly to the former, and I also just disagree that indirect effect is something I should care about.) The secret mentioned the Hogwarts house in bio thing, but the subthread OP mentioned profit, so I'm not sure.

But assuming we're talking about the latter, non-financial category here, when evaluating whether I "feel safe" around someone, why would I put more weight on someone removing their Hogwarts house from their bio or swearing off HP fic over things like: is this person trans; does this person advocate for trans people in their workplaces; does this person volunteer for or donate to trans activist groups; does this person donate to funds for trans people's surgery; does this person put a trans rights flag in their bio or wear a pin; does this person reblog humanizing and educational resources about trans people; is this person a good friend to the trans people in their life; etc. Why the heck would someone's feelings on Harry Potter (the work of fiction) trump their actual identity, behavior, or allyship/advocacy when I'm trying to evaluate how much they care about real world minorities?

Second, I don't even think making people feel safe should be a goal I value very highly. Now don't get me wrong. I WOULD like every one of my trans friends to feel safe around me; even more, I would like them to live in a world where they can actually BE safe, where they don't have to worry about who they can trust and who they can't. So I do care about whether people feel safe and I am never going to go out of my way to make someone feel scared, anxious, or unsafe, and if there's anything simple I can do to make them feel safer, I will do it.

But also: I am just not a dangerous person and if someone thinks I am, then I don't really think that's worth my time correcting. I can't really control whether someone (especially someone on the internet) THINKS I am an unsafe person or not; it's not something I can change just by changing my own behavior because ultimately, if someone thinks I am unsafe, that is their own choice and I don't have a say in it. So while I care about feelings of safety, I am not going to stake my sense of self or my behavior on other people's feelings of safety, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Especially because a lot of people use "I feel unsafe" as a way to control other people's behavior and harm other people through exaggerated claims of danger and unsafety (ironically, a HUGE part of the anti-trans campaigns right now is using feelings of unsafety to justify denying trans women the right to access resources and spaces normally made available to women). A person ALWAYS has the option to say that they "feel unsafe" around someone. Are they ACTUALLY unsafe is what people should care about. Feelings of safety in fandom are important, but there are way too many exaggerated claims of harm (which go on to be used to justify inflicting harm on other people) for me to prioritize them above actual concrete harms. Is someone with a Hogwarts house in their bio actually spreading transphobic disinformation, supporting transphobic legislation in their offline lives, rationalizing JKR's transphobia, or behaving demonstrably callously towards trans people in their social circles? Or are you assuming they do because they still participate in Harry Potter fandom? People can have very different relationships to Harry Potter even while being dismayed at what JKR continues to do with her Harry Potter money.

(I mean... even the monetary argument is a bit iffy to me, because JKR ALREADY made her Harry Potter money. It's very difficult to spend a billion dollars over a lifetime -- she's going to be rich and funding transphobic causes left and right for the rest of her life regardless of what people do right now. I absolutely do understand feeling "dirty" for financially benefiting her in any way and I personally can't bring myself to support her, but also I am just not a big Harry Potter fan; I am making very little sacrifice by boycotting everything she's involved in. But if I were a big fan, I still think I would feel much less guilty about adding a drop to JKR's already extremely sizable funds than I would in failing to support trans causes in other ways.)