Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think there's any real risk of the word 'woman' being cancelled (whatever that means). Rather, people are trying to use different language where the word 'woman' (as it's increasingly coming to be understood) wrongly excludes people. Whilst I don't buy the idea that there's some evil intent/conspiracy behind that, it is sometimes done in a crass way that many women - normal women, not just the lunatic fringe of the 'gender critical' movement - find dehumanising. I think the Lancet headline is an example of that. I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that and try to use a better form of words, rather than further polarising the situation by defending it all costs. (Though I understand the temptation to do so, given the keenness with which a loud minority of bigots latch onto such things, to pursue their dodgy agenda.)
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
The great man has spoken. He has dismissed women's silly, irrational worries. And done it in a condescending way, just to remind us how silly we are.
Nothing more to be said.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Most of us have grown up with a simple biological understanding of the terms men and women, equating to male and female, and which we extend to every other species on the planet. If people are unhappy with that could they please provide us with a definition of e.g. 'woman' which is workable and we can all agree to use?
It’s beautiful that your assumption was immediately that Edie the woman is a nurse rather than a doctor.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
A nurse that’s coming across badly
mentalchik
"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit."
you do of course realise how patronising that sounds ?
Is Edie not a nurse? I thought she'd posted pictures of herself wearing a nurse's uniform on the threads here about working in healthcare during Covid?
No it doesn't work like that.... everyone is in different situations and contexts, with different histories, needs and priorities, and it is very messy and complex, it is a slowly evolving process rather than something with a neat quick fix and everyone is going to continually get it wrong. even if there was one single "correct answer", which there definitely isn't, then it would be awful if it was just imposed on everyone top down. It needs to be ongoing, neverending dialogue
mentalchik
"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit."
This question of language is very interesting as i have yet to even hear the term 'cis' used in my everyday life (and i mix with hundreds of people in my job)....as of yet these terms are reserved purely on the internet ime...there is a huge disconnect
Last edited:
Have you ever read a copy?
If you actually had you'd know why it isn't. Sorry.
I don’t know what pictures you’ve seen.
mentalchik
"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit."
What's that got to do with anything ? i was commenting on how the tone of your comment could be perceived
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
I should stop digging now.
But maybe a doctor might read it, hmm?
Vastly more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse, yes.
I think you should maybe concentrate on how you're coming across tbh as this really isn't good:
(For full disclosure, I've never read The Lancet. I do quite often look through The BMJ though and read a few articles. I am not a medical professional of any kind
.)
Last edited:
Looby
Well-Known Member
You are assuming that the poster is a nurse and not a doctor. I think people are wondering if this is because she is a woman.
Oh my God how much rope do you need before you just bow out of something gracefully? You’ve patronisingly assumed the woman with an interest in medicine must be a nurse rather than a doctor, you’ve patronisingly assumed that people who aren’t doctors wouldn’t read The Lancet (which again is not particularly valid, and referring to what is “more likely” for a group of people is irrelevant when you’re talking about the act of one specific individual) and even when the errors of both these assumptions are pointed out, you still want to double down on them?
Looby
Well-Known Member
Well, if you’ve got the point and are still going then you can’t be helped.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I mean this is also pretty condescending.
What's worse than being condescending though is saying shit like 'the word woman is being cancelled' and not bothering to specify what that means in real terms, who is doing it, how they're doing it or why they're doing it. If anyone has anything on any of those points I'm all ears. Because so far we've got two tweets to go on and that's about it.
ice-is-forming
I was born naked, shameless & fucking outrageous..
Oo you've quoted me. I've honestly never seen this happening irl, but I'm in Hicksville , where 75% of people couldn't explain what the word misogyny means fwiw, and therefore it's all still pretty old skool sexist.
But I read urban and the www and there's no smoke without fire. And many women I admire here seem bothered by it so...
I certainly think there's room for considered discussion on all this, and I'm really not the one to be having it. But there's corners of the internet that find some expression on here that want to take this down some knee jerk culture war direction and I hate that that doesn't get much push back and that it has driven trans posters away. At the centre of this recent row is a woman using certain language to describe women's bodies in the context of women's health and it's here on a thread about transphobia and the outrage turned up to 11 and to me it looks like trans people are under fire again - because that's certainly what's happening with this story elsewhere. And it's true that nobody is listening to each other and that there's lots of mansplaining going on (and probably from me as well) but that was always going to be the outcome. I should probably just leave it up to smokedout to deal with, but it's got to be lonely for them.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Who are the "cool" ones?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Trans and cis women have left over this, which is a shame. And you're right that sometimes we're at risk of going down the polarised culture war route, which is why we need a bit more nuances and empathy and less defensiveness on both 'sides.' Like, when Edie explained that she felt dehumanised and objectified by that language, blokes sneering, mocking, patronising, and making unsupported allegations, rather than conceding there might have been a trans-inclusive wording that didn't reduce women to "bodies with vaginas."
First impressions on something are difficult to get over. If you see this on the front cover of the Lancet or you see it in a twitter war then you might get the impression that the phrase "bodies with vaginas" is being substituted for the word "women" and it's this political correctness with a weird dehumanising bent and that it mirrors objectifying language. I totally understand that impression, it's not difficult to understand, so you don't need to explain it to me.
However it is very plain that Edie has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It isn't a substitution of "bodies with vaginas" for "women", and it's plain that it isn't in context. When the author says "bodies" they mean "bodies", it's about human anatomy not humans, it's not a euphemism it's not even political correctness gawn mad. Maybe there's a debate about how to best talk about human bodies and women's bodies in particular and about editorial decisions in the Lancet (leave me out of that!), but please let the medical profession talk about bodies - it's kind of their thing.
Similar threads
