l'Otters
.
Well said on both points, thanks for speaking up from another trans inclusive feminist.
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
fwiw I think penis-people or ‘bodies with penises’ is also dehumanising and clumsy. It does not have the same history of oppression behind it though. It’s just a clumsy use of language.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Same from me too .
l'Otters
.
You reckon.
Given how often you’ve told all the men on this thread to butt out as it’s not about them. Perhaps by the same token, you wouldn’t be reliably informed as to the relative seriousness of these uses of dehumanising language.
Please continue
He looks baffled and desperately trying to parse it so he can say the right fucking thing to the media.
l'Otters
.
The post of yours which I was replying to could have just stopped at the end of the first sentence and we’d be fine.Please continue
bimble
floofy
He looks scared I thought yeah.
Could you just come out with your point please instead of half saying things.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
The people calling out this instance of similar language seemed to have no problem when it was used towards trans women in the past, is my point. And it was being used quite a lot here.
While I don’t believe the oppression of cis men is equal to the oppression of cis women, I do believe that when one side has embraced a linguistic structure explicitly to be able to refer to the genital/reproductive organs of trans people, and bracket them with the cis people who share that physiology in situations where that seems relevant, - and that this was met with no protest, it seems unreasonable if the same language is used for the explicit purpose of inclusivity and yet is met with outcry.
I am a person with a vagina. I am also a human. I am also a Caucasian. I am a Londoner. I am a teacher. I am middle aged. I am a woman. It doesn’t erase my womanhood if I’m described with a partial label that more accurately describes the group in question.
There are so many actual oppressions on women: male violence, rape culture, narrow western beauty standards, offensively gendered kids’ clothing, women’s over-representation below the poverty line, unpaid caring duties… and I’m being asked to believe that the word “woman” is under some kind of existential threat?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
He looks like that no matter what you ask him. He even got the alpaca thing wrong.
Athos
Well-Known Member
He never says anything with conviction, from the heart - always thinking through how it will play - such that, even when he does say something I would otherwise agree with, I doubt his sincerity. Hopeless.
You mean people on here have called transwomen ‘bodies or people with penises’? Or am I misunderstanding?
It very probably is and that's my point. There's benign sexism which most blokes probably don't notice even when they're doing it themselves and it's not unrelated to more hostile forms. I just think maybe the broader discussion on language might be more complicated than you think and I think it should be up to women to talk about. I think behind the noise there may be more takes on this than you might think. I don't understand your desire to pronounce on it. I'm only interested in countering the blatantly ridiculous/harmful stuff.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm aware how complex it is. Of course women should be heard, but there's no reason why men shouldn't, too, as long as that's done respectfully (which has been my issue with how some people on this thread have responded, recently). After all, gender affects all of us.
l'Otters
.
You’ve made it abundantly clear that the phrase bodies with vaginas applies to you personally and that the phrase penis haver does not. With this in mind, I don’t think you are in a position to arbitrate on the former being more harmful than the latter, or whatever it was you were trying to assert in the second and third sentences of your post.
I really don’t think it’d be wide of the mark if I were to say you have no idea what it’s like to experience dysphoria, and as such you’re in no position to dismiss that language as merely being clumsy. I wouldn’t normally be quite so blunt about such things but given you’ve been telling the cis men to butt out of this discussion altogether on a similar basis, I think it’s fair enough.
Athos
Well-Known Member
You really don't think we live in a culture which has far more of a problem with the objectification of women than of men? Seriously?
Cid
Proper break this time
Last edited:
Well, I'm not aware of how complex it is! How would I possibly know what different opinions might be lurking especially when there's so much anger that many women may not want to venture a view. And my views on it are really irrelevant. It doesn't affect me.
We have talked about it ta. Jfc.
I am a female/woman. I have never experienced gender dysphoria.
As a woman though, I absolutely am in the position to say that female objectification has been significantly worse than male objectification. It is part of sexism, and it is based on our biology.
I’m still not entirely sure of what you are getting at. You can’t possibly be arguing that sexism doesn’t exist. Are you arguing that as I have not experienced gender dysphoria I cannot object to phrases like ‘bodies with vaginas’
Shut up then. You’ve nothing interesting to say.
Well I'll say it shouldn't have been put on this thread because that made it about trans people and not about women. And I'll leave it at that.
Seems bizarre to me that some are arguing for calling of trans women 'a body with a penis' given the usual line is 'trans women are women'.
'Benign sexism'.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Christ.
Google it.
What's wrong though? Surely this is where this rather odd word policing ends up?
Similar threads
