Is this woman a transphobe?

[hitmouse]

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?

But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?

People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?

 

[Brainaddict]

Shon Faye's book sounds interesting: Shon Faye wants a “deeper conversation” about trans liberation

 

[belboid]

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.

And trans people find your language dehumanising. Why do you have that entitlement?

 

[Knotted]

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?

Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.

I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.

I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.

 

[bimble]

That edited RBG quote actually made me laugh, in a hollow kind of way.

 

[SpookyFrank]

People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?

They chose to post the cover alone with no context or link to the offending article at any rate. Cash money says it's pasted from a facebook group.

 

[Santino]

Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.

I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.

I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.

This you?

I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!

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!

 

[Athos]

But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?

People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?

I don't know when or where those quotes are from, but I see that The Lancet referred to "Men's Health" very recently, which does seem to suggest an inconsistency of approach.

You'd have to ask Edie why she raised it.

But you've really ducked the main substance of my post:

"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?"

Because it seems to me that it wouldn't be hard to find a wording that's trans inclusive and takes into account the feelings of women who are offended by dehumanising terms. And I wonder why anyone would choose not to do so. Its like it's become a point of principle to concede nothing to 'the other side', which polarisation makes progress difficult.

For the record, I don't think there's some great conspiracy to do away with the word 'woman', or even that it should have been substituted for 'bodies with vaginas' in the headline in question.

 

[Athos]

Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.

I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.

I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.

I agree with much of that. But, given the social context - medicine doesn't operate in a vacuum - don't you think it would've been quite easy to say something like 'cis women, trans men, and non-binary people with a vagina', rather than "bodies with a vagina" (and use similar in the recent headline about men's health), and avoid further polarisation around this issue?

 

[hitmouse]

I don't know when or where those quotes are from, but I see that The Lancet referred to "Men's Health" very recently, which does seem to suggest an inconsistency of approach.

As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".

You'd have to ask Edie why she raised it.

But you've really ducked the main substance of my post:

"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?"

Because it seems to me that it wouldn't be hard to find a wording that's trans inclusive and takes into account the feelings of women who are offended by dehumanising terms. And I wonder why anyone would choose not to do so. Its like it's become a point of principle to concede nothing to 'the other side', which polarisation makes progress difficult.

I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.

 

[Edie]

And trans people find your language dehumanising. Why do you have that entitlement?

What language have I used that is dehumanising?

 

[Athos]

As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".

I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.

Of course there are hardliners who will settle for nothing less than terminology that reflects their ideology i.e. that all people, and only people, with a vagina are women, and that no other descriptor should be used for them. But they're a tiny, if loud, minority. The danger is of driving others into their hands by not empathising with their reasonable objections to dehumanising language. That group could quite easily have been assuaged by the sort of wording I suggested, which was also trans inclusive and fit for the purpose of a discussion about female biology. For the editors not to have done so was crass.

 

[smokedout]

But comparable epithets do clearly exist t

But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?

People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?

If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings. I suspect any disparity is largely because trans women don't tend to need physical sex specific healthcare to the same extent, whereas trans men/afab non binary people have been more successful in asserting their needs in things like reproductive and maternity healthcare.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings.

But those instances aren't reposted all over the shop by people with an axe to grind.

It's a funny one isn't it? This upset me, so I'm going to share it with everyone I can find so they can be similarly upset. The Lancet is a specialist publication, people aren't going to see it on the shelf at the newsagent while they're looking for the grot mags. And anyone who bought it to actually read would most likely read more than the one sentence on the cover. And if that sentence was really so heinous, better you'd think to deny it the oxygen of publicity that these flash-in-the-pan chip-wrapper medical journals so desperately crave than to post it on 'things to make you angry while you're on the toilet' or whatever.

 

[Athos]

If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings. I suspect any disparity is laregly because trans women don't tend to need physical sex specific healthcare to the same extent, whereas trans men/afab non binary people have been more successful in asserting their needs in things like reproductive and maternity healthcare.

Even 'people with a vagina' would've been better than 'bodies with a vagina.' It is literally dehumanising; a female animal is a body with a vagina.

 

[two sheds]

or 'anyone with a vagina'?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

What language have I used that is dehumanising?

I'm curious about that too.

 

[kabbes]

People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?

Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?

 

[hitmouse]

Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?

I mean, it's not like the Lancet is that regularly discussed on here outside of specialist healthcare-related threads? Unless there's a "why the Lancet is going down the pan" thread that I'd missed?

 

[Sweet FA]

This isn't a healthcare related thread?

 

[Athos]

I mean, it's not like the Lancet is that regularly discussed on here outside of specialist healthcare-related threads? Unless there's a "why the Lancet is going down the pan" thread that I'd missed?

This is (or has become) a thread about trans issues, to which the question of the medical community's attitude towards trans inclusive language (and any unintended consequences thereof) is entirely germane.

 

[JimW]

As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".

I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.

That appears to be a readers' letter rather than The Lancet's own editorial.

 

[Gromit]

View attachment 290007

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

Some deny non cis pre-op women are in fact women.
The sentence above is trying to say 'women' without using the word 'women' so as to exclude some who identify as women. My guess.

Could have just said cis women.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?

Or the front cover at least.

 

[Athos]

Could have just said cis women.

No, because some trans men and non-binary people also have a vagina.

 

[Gromit]

No, because trans men and some non-binary people also have a vagina.

Oh yeah. Good spot.

 

[Steel Icarus]

That appears to be a readers' letter rather than The Lancet's own editorial.

Dear Lancet

I always thought the letters in your publication were made up, until one day I saw a doctor broken down at the side of the road...

 

[8ball]

View attachment 290007

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted. Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.

But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me.

Edit: I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.

 

[_Russ_]

I have a problem with the whole 'phobic' thing, I don't like Right wing extremists but nobody would call me right wing extemeist-phobic
It seems to be a shorthand for 'you're not allowed to dislike (insert something you're supposed to like) so Im calling you names

What I, trying to say is if someone doesnt like homosexuals then that's their problem (or quality depending on your view), calling them phobic is nonsense, it might be better called hatred something which is a basic human attribute, not a nice one but its there.

I have no hatred for any sexual preference btw I just can't handle the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to
be recognised as such

 

[smokedout]

You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted. Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.

But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me.

Edit: I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.

If it is the word bodies that is causing offence then surely that equally dehumanising to trans men and non binary people with vaginas too? I suspect there would have been just as much outrage if it had said people with a vagina.