[ SECRET POST #6748 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6748 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]

[Skip Beat!]



__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]




__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #965.
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)]

DA

I think you and the original anon are going by different angles of 'performative.'

If something makes 'look! trans!!' the point of an art, then can be doing 'a performance of transness' and a performance of the author being like 'look! i draw transness! look how trans these characters are!'.

If something hides everything and simply informs viewers in the description that the characters are trans then it can be 'performative' in another way i.e. doing nothing different but acting like it did something.

Note the use here of 'can be' not 'is'.

[(Anonymous)]

It's also the thing with the overwhelming majority of trans character art that when they do draw the characters fully nude, it's always obvious they're trans because they never have bottom surgery. So if they don't draw the character fully nude, they think they still need to make it obvious the character is trans, hence the very visible, obvious scars.