case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2012-10-27 03:37 pm

[ SECRET POST #2125 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2125 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 124 secrets from Secret Submission Post #304.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat x 4 and counting. Bets? ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 07:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I understand the Roseanne transphobia/Twitter wank (that I refuse to get into), but who are the guys on the right?
ellie_oops: (Default)

[personal profile] ellie_oops 2012-10-27 08:05 pm (UTC)(link)
The creators of South Park.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 08:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks!

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 07:58 pm (UTC)(link)
No idea about Roseanne's transwank, but I'm not surprised to hear of it considering that unless you say the exact right thing in the exact right context, you're going to offend gender queer people. Even then. (OH YOU SPELLED TRANS WRONG! FUCK YOOOOOOOOOU!!!!!)

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 08:03 pm (UTC)(link)
(DA) I first saw this on Tumblr, but I am too lazy to find my more SJW-inclined friends' reblogs on the wank. I know this comm isn't fond of ONTD, but a lot of Tumblr wank makes it on the site, and here's a post from there about it: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/73083271.html

Personally, I have no clue on what anyone's trying to prove in this wank.

ellie_oops: (Default)

[personal profile] ellie_oops 2012-10-27 08:42 pm (UTC)(link)
ONTD is fickle, I think it depends on who's online when a story gets posted.

There was literally a post about Kelly Clarkson saying she wasn't a "hardcore feminist," and the discussion was about how feminism often gets a bad rap and how some feminists give feminism a bad name. Then there was another post where Taylor Swift said pretty much the same thing and she was a horrrrrrible person.
ellie_oops: (Default)

[personal profile] ellie_oops 2012-10-27 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Roseanne doesn't believe that transsexuals shouldn't have the same rights.

But I haven't seen South Park in years so I'm not too clear on what that is about. But South Park is an equal opportunity offender, so it wouldn't surprise me.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)
NA

What does South Park have to do with Roseanne? Was she on South Park and made a trans joke? It's South Park. Next week they'll be making jokes about Cartman going on a strict diet of shit. It's what they do.

(no subject)

[personal profile] ellie_oops - 2012-10-27 20:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] shinyhappypanic - 2012-10-27 21:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] ellie_oops - 2012-10-27 22:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sondheimmcgeek - 2012-10-27 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 21:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 21:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 21:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 10:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 00:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 21:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 21:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 04:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 04:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 04:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 14:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 16:48 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 09:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah I don't know about Matt and Trey ever coming out and saying something seriously like Roseanne did, I know they make jokes on their show and it is kind of obvious that even though they have a "we make fun of everything" I could believe they're transphobic (and on top of that I sometimes think they hate women in general.)

But I still like all of them to a certain extent. It's hard to find a celebrity that's never said or done anything problematic, they're just people.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 09:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Serious question: how is Roseanne's views about pre-op trans considered transphobic? I had never heard the word before but I assume it is kinda like homophobic where there isn't any real phobia and it is just that the so-called phobic person doesn't like a certain group because they're in that group. If the comments are right that she's talking about pre-op trans, then it seems like she doesn't have a problem with trans people, just a view about pre-op trans people that the SJWs don't like.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 09:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, she basically says that she can say who can or cannot be called a woman based on their genitalia, completely bypassing the fact that what you have between your legs doesn't define who you are. Considering that getting surgery is not always easy for trans people (some countries still require sterilisation before a complete sex change), and that not everyone is either a man or a woman and everything is not always black and white, her tweets are hurtful.

She's not saying that she hates trans people, per say, but her lack of knowledge led her to make extremely hurtful comments.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
" (some countries still require sterilisation before a complete sex change)"

Ok. I'm confused. While requiring anyone to be sterilized is kind of horrible, doesn't the operation itself render the sex organs incapable of reproduction?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 00:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] maverickz3r0 - 2012-10-28 07:33 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2012-10-28 04:26 am (UTC)(link)
ayrt

Thank you for your answer. I hadn't considered much of that (this isn't an issue I have much experience with) and I didn't know that about the sterilization. That's barbaric!

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Not positive, but I believe she was saying you're not really trans until you're post-op, and therefor are not really a man or woman if your body doesn't yet match your mind. That's transphobic.
ellie_oops: (Default)

[personal profile] ellie_oops 2012-10-27 10:12 pm (UTC)(link)
There is a "theory" among certain feminists that trans women are not "real" women and thus should not be part of the "sisterhood." Their thinking is that since they were born with a penis they will always have male privilege. Some will even go so far as to say that trans women just want to appropriate "womanhood." That they are going through all these surgeries, procedures and hormone treatments just so that they can co-op the woman's struggle.

The Roseanne debate centered around public restrooms and which rest room a trans person should use. Roseanne's argument was that a pre-op transwoman, since they have a penis should use the men's room, and that they should not be in the ladies room. The reason being that places like changing rooms and restrooms should be "safe and private places" for women. The thinking is that having a physical man in that space is harmful and dangerous to women. IMO, that thinking kind of feeds into the rhetoric of "ALL MEN ARE PERVERT RAPISTS" and "ALL MEN ARE EVIL, DIE SCUM!!!!" It also diminishes and trivializes what trans people (pre and post op) go through by saying "I don't care what you've been through, you're not a real woman."

Sorry for the teel deer, but it's a complex issue.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Erm, you do realise that vast majority women who would feel uncomfortable and unsafe about the idea of a man in the womens changing room, aren't radfems who think that all men are rapists?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:22 (UTC) - Expand

oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:41 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 00:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 00:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 01:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 01:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 02:29 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:44 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 02:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

[personal profile] lilacsigil - 2012-10-28 03:13 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 11:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: oh THAT argument

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 03:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] inkdust - 2012-10-28 03:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 09:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] inkdust - 2012-10-28 14:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] tabaqui - 2012-10-28 16:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 14:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] inkdust - 2012-10-28 14:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 04:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] maverickz3r0 - 2012-10-28 07:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 11:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 23:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sockpants - 2012-10-28 16:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 02:12 (UTC) - Expand
truxillogical: (Default)

[personal profile] truxillogical 2012-10-27 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
So not the point, but...aren't most pre-op transfolk looking to get the operation usually required to live as a year in the gender they're getting the op for? Because if that's the case, I swear that Dear Abby or Anne Landers or one of them said that it includes bathrooms too.

Also...appropriating "womanhood." Wowzers.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 09:43 pm (UTC)(link)
They got a bit of mileage out of "Mr. Garrison is a woman" but I didn't get the impression that they were being any more hostile than the countless other groups they lampooned.

I mean if you want to see them actually ATTACK something see their episodes on scientology.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Even when they poke fun at certain groups or issues, you can tell if they're supportive or derisive of them. For example, even when they make jokes about gays, they still have episodes where they say it's ok, that reparative therapy is harmful and leads to suicide, that gays should be allowed to get married, ect.

Compare that to the stem cell episode, where someone tells Christopher Reeves "Using stem cells is like playing God. You should leave nature alone. I'm saying that sometimes you need to just live with the cards you're dealt, Christopher." and he's portrayed as a crazy guy who eats fetuses.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)
There was nothing of that level in the Garrison episode, though.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-27 22:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 17:26 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2012-10-27 10:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Whenever I see posts like this, I wonder how many people can actually recognise or identify both of the people.

It's a big world, there's so many people. I imagine a lot of people the secret could apply to could potentially like one/dislike the other through their usual tastes but have no idea who they are.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-28 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
I just want to thank you all for directing me to Roseanne's wank, and even though I disagree with her, I can't help shaking my head at the people saying, "Oh I was going to vote for you but-!" because I can't help but wondering if they even knew her platform before this or even what third party she was with.

Still bet people think it was the Green Party.

(Anonymous) 2012-10-28 04:48 am (UTC)(link)
Rosanne is a president candidate? I don't understand how this works. I thought America just had two parties and they do the primary in them and then a general election with those winners.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-28 05:24 (UTC) - Expand
ellie_oops: (Default)

[personal profile] ellie_oops 2012-10-28 08:52 am (UTC)(link)
I had seen that too and it made me scratch my head. It's scary how many people cast their votes without having knowledge of the issues. Like, "oh, Roseanne is running for fun, I'm gonna vote for her."