Is this woman a transphobe?

[SpookyFrank]

This is just flannel. I told you that I found women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.

The words were written by a woman though. Isn't defending a woman's right to express herself as she chooses a good thing?

 

[hitmouse]

I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.

Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy?

View attachment 290009

And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?

Seriously, when did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.

What about trans men? Do they get a say in how they're described, or are they just to be told that they have women's bodies and to shut up about it?

 

[Edie]

The words were written by a woman though. Isn't defending a woman's right to express herself as she chooses a good thing?

Some women also think abortion should be illegal Frank. Do you defend that position?

 

[spanglechick]

If the writer is referring to both cis women, and trans men, why shouldn’t they use inclusive, accurate language?

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

That abolition of the word woman in full:

"Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria"

Interesting isn't it?

When they talk about our physical needs we are relegated to "bodies with vaginas". Yet, when they talk about hysteria, and pain, and emotion.. suddenly we are women again.

Almost like we've been redefined as feelings... In a medical publication of all things.

 

[Edie]

I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.

View attachment 290021
View attachment 290022
View attachment 290024


What about trans men? Do they get a say in how they're described, or are they just to be told that they have women's bodies and to shut up about it?

Well I’m glad that you, a man, don’t find it a shock horror moment. That’s the end of the matter I guess.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Some women also think abortion should be illegal Frank. Do you defend that position?

I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.

 

[Edie]

I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.

Is that your understanding? If so I’d duck out at this point before you say anything else.

 

[SpookyFrank]

E2a: removed.

 

[Athos]

It's a spectacularly crass headline in the current environment; I can't help but wonder whether it was naive or a deliberate thumbing of the nose.

Apart from the fact that many women clearly find it offensive (as its dehumanising and shows a double standard when men aren't referred to in an equivalent way), it's scientifically nonsensical - many female animals could be described as "bodies with vaginas."

Even something like "cis women and other people with vaginas" would be less offensive, whilst still being accurate and inclusive (especially if an equivalent phrase was used when referring to men's health).

 

[Edie]

.

 

[Edie]

It's a spectacularly crass headline in the current environment; I can't help but wonder whether it was naive or a deliberate thumbing of the nose.

Apart from the fact that many women clearly find it offensive (as its dehumanising and shows a double standard when men aren't referred to in an equivalent way), it's scientifically nonsensical - many female animals could be described as "bodies with vaginas."

Even something like "cis women and other people with vaginas" would be less offensive, whilst still being accurate and inclusive (especially if an equivalent phrase was used when referring to men's health).

Women and female bodied people would be better. I don’t see how naming the vagina is appropriate or even medically correct when discussing menstruation, you menstruate when you have a uterus and are of reproductive age.

 

[hitmouse]

Interesting isn't it?

When they talk about our physical needs we are relegated to "bodies with vaginas". Yet, when they talk about hysteria, and pain, and emotion.. suddenly we are women again.

Almost like we've been redefined as feelings... In a medical publication of all things.

So if you try to make a feminist critique of the way those things have been constructed, mentioning the fact that those stereotypes exist makes you a sexist. Wonderful stuff.

Considering the article is about menstruation I don't think they are likely to be referring to trans men. And yet this has ended up in a 'transphobia' thread.

Isn't it that they're trying to be inclusive of all people who menstruate, which would include some trans men among others?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Isn't it that they're trying to be inclusive of all people who menstruate, which would include some trans men among others?

Yes I can see I've tied myself in a knot there. Will edit post.

 

[SpookyFrank]

.

 

[Athos]

Women and female bodied people would be better. I don’t see how naming the vagina is appropriate or even medically correct when discussing menstruation, you menstruate when you have a uterus and are of reproductive age.

Yeah, or that (though still imperfect as it'd include trans women, who don't share the biology referred to). I think the vagina reference was probably a segue to the Vagina Museum. But anything would've been better than the original!

 

[SpookyFrank]

Is that your understanding? If so I’d duck out at this point before you say anything else.

Why what are you going to accuse me of next? Joining the taliban?

 

[Knotted]

I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.

View attachment 290021
View attachment 290022
View attachment 290024


What about trans men? Do they get a say in how they're described, or are they just to be told that they have women's bodies and to shut up about it?

The weirdest thing is that according to this moral panic it is that it is not supposed to be acknowledge that trans men may have female genitals still. Bizarre effort to shield gendered language from any perceived threat (and it is only perceived) by people calling themselves gender critical!

 

[Knotted]

The word "woman" is not going anywhere of course. There is no threat to gendered language, it might just not be used in every occasion. The horror!!

 

[Sue]

I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.

But you did (just about) concede Edie's point about the headline.

I might question the wisdom of the editor who chose that sentence fragment, stripped of context, for the cover of a journal.

As a wider point, some of the men on this thread might want to have a think about how they're coming across because it's pretty embarrassing really.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

This, skimming through it,

Cancer Screening — QTHC

CANCER SCREENING

ourhealthyeg.ca

seems to be doing its best with the language.

 

[Edie]

Why what are you going to accuse me of next? Joining the taliban?

Yes Frank. Jfc And cancel Christmas whilst your at it.

 

[Shechemite]

Bizarre effort to shield gendered language

Like referring to dysphoric males as trans women? That sort of shielding of gendered language?

 

[Athos]

SpookyFrank Knotted hitmouse given the objectification of women in our society, can you really not empathise with women who find it dehumanising to be described as "bodies with a vagina", especially absent comparable epithets for men? Don't you agree that it would've been relatively easy to have come up with a better choice of words, that would still have been trans inclusive and fit for purpose?

 

[SpookyFrank]

As a wider point, some of the men on this thread might want to have a think about how they're coming across because it's pretty embarrassing really.

I'd be embarassed about extrapolating a universal social trend from the contents of an article I'd not even read but we're all different I suppose.

 

[Sue]

I'd be embarassed about extrapolating a universal social trend from the contents of an article I'd not even read but we're all different I suppose.

I'd be embarrassed if I was coming across as a patronising mansplainy twat but yeah, guess we are all different.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'd be embarrassed if I was coming across as a patronising mansplainy twat but yeah, guess we are all different.

And the men patiently telling the woman writing for a prestigious medical journal that she got it wrong and should try a bit harder next time, those are not patronising mansplainy twats?

 

[Sue]

And the men patiently telling the woman writing for a prestigious medical journal that she got it wrong and should try a bit harder next time, those are not patronising mansplainy twats?

Ah, I didn't realise we knew the sex of the editor who came up with that headline so I stand corrected.

Anyway, this feels a bit pointless so whatever.

 

[Knotted]

Like referring to dysphoric males as trans women? That sort of shielding of gendered language?

That may look like a gotcha to you, but actually yes you are right. Gendered language is just a thing that's going to continue existing and if some women are really concerned about it going away, they are not going to get push back from most trans people.

 

[Shechemite]

Right