[ SECRET POST #2286 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2286 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #327.
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

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is, by using "real men" to differentiate someone who was born biologically male and someone whose trans, *does* actually mean you're saying that their identity as a male is invalid. It isn't 'real', which isn't true.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I get what you're saying. It is confusing either way... would "real male" be any better, or the same? Or "traditional male"? I just feel there needs to be some distinction between "man in body" and "man in spirit"... personally, myself, for my own peace of mind. I'm not suggesting that anything I propose needs to be the rule for everyone.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Honestly, I'd just use biological male, since what you're referring to is someone who was born biologically male, and the terms already in use so there'd be less confusion attached to it. But it's really up to you.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[caecilia]

"cis"

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

The average person offline, and possibly online, is not familiar with that term.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[caecilia]

they can open a dictionary

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

Shocking as it may be, dictionaries do not generally contain definitions of prefixes. They contain definitions of actual words.

Instead of being a total jackass about it, when someone asks you what a word means online or in real life, you could, quite possibly, tell them what it means instead of telling them to open a dictionary, or (jesus christ) directing them to the pinnacle of douchebaggery that is LMGTFY.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

uh, I dunno what kinda shitty dictionaries you use, but all the ones I've ever looked in do define things like prefixes and suffixes.

now, an actual objection would be that many dictionaries probably don't have this definition of cis in them yet.

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cis

cis
adjective \ˈsis\
Definition of CIS
: characterized by having certain atoms or groups of atoms on the same side of the longitudinal axis of a double bond or of the plane of a ring in a molecule

Re: I might be too old-fashioned for all this

[(Anonymous)]

win