[ SECRET POST #2297 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2297 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #328.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This comment smells of wankbait to me, but all the same: transphobia is analogous to homophobia, and is generally characterized by an aversion and/or hostility towards trans* people, and/or hostility to the concept. I don't think aesthetics enter into it?

[(Anonymous)]

OK, fair enough.

[wldcatsprstr_14]

I know people would immediately jump to 'transphobe!' if someone said that a trans* person was unattractive, especially if they were referring to a transwoman, and no matter how sincerely the person just meant 'they aren't attractive to me,' you couldn't convince them it was the truth. So aesthetics does factor into the label being thrown around.

[(Anonymous)]

And if that's the case, it automatically renders the label moot.

[(Anonymous)]

I would it it poses a risk of rendering the label moot. A word doesn't lose meaning just because some people misuse it sometimes. If most people misuse it most of the time, then it's not very useful or it starts to mean something else, but some people overapplying it doesn't make the concept worthless.

[sugar_spun]

Something being moot is not something being pointless. It means that it makes it up for debate. I don't know if the other anon meant it the right way, but still.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I think there's a difference between saying you think someone is unattractive/that you're not attracted to them and saying you think they're grotesque. They're both subjective aesthetic judgements, but one is a lot more loaded than the other.

[elephantinegrace]

(I'm hoping that asking this question doesn't automatically make people jump down my throat.) Is there a reason for writing "trans*" as opposed to "trans?" Because I've always done the second, but I don't want to be making some sort of insult.

[(Anonymous)]

The reason I use it is it seems to be the custom now. *shrug* Hopefully someone better-informed than me can share.

[(Anonymous)]

Trans* is more inclusive. It covers both transsexual and transgender (and possible other variations too). Just how veg*n stands for both vegan and vegetarian. The * functions as a wildcard.

[(Anonymous)]

...I refuse to believe veg*n stands for both vegan and vegetarian. That's an abuse of an asterisk right there. :/

[(Anonymous)]

I'm gonna have to agree with this. Asterisk at the end reads as a wildcard. Asterisk in the middle reads as a censor, so now it just looks like "vegan" is a bad word. Maybe go with "veg'n" instead? Bit of apostrophe abuse, but since that actually is supposed to be used when letters are being omitted, it's more of a conveniently ambiguous loophole than anything.