Yes, dear.
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
No one is arguing that. That would be unbelievably crass. Cruel even.
And yet you seem to think trans men actively want to be called bodies with vaginas and that this was the reason for The Lancet cover.
In reality, I think most trans women would prefer trans inclusive language such as people (not bodies) with a prostate in healthcare settings only, just as trans men in healthcare settings might prefer to be called people with a vagina than being referred to as women. But more importantly, accurate and trans inclusive language within healthcare saves lives and prevents medical staff making errors due to uncertainty or lack of understanding of trans people. But hey, we know cis people's feelings are more important than trans people's lives.
I don’t think anyone wants to be called ‘bodies with vaginas’. It’s completely dehumanising, completely deaf to women’s history of objectification, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’ve even got to this point.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's not a zero sum game; there's no need for the two to be in conflict. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to use wording that's trans inclusive but doesn't dehumanise or objectify women.
And a culture of objectifying/dehumanising women leads to thousands of murders, rapes, and assaults (including of trans women); it's a bit crass to dismiss concern about that as "cis people's feelings."
What a cheap shot. That’s the measure of you. Two bodies with vaginas die every week in the uk at the hands of bodies with penises so don’t go giving me that shit.
Well not directly, no. But if you hold a mirror to some of the arguments then they actually are.
Or perhaps you have called this wrong and The Lancet cover had nothing at all to do with attempting to use trans inclusive language.
FWIW (which I am aware is fuck-all), I don’t think the Lancet’s headline has anything to do whatsoever with trans-friendliness. I don’t think that trying to be trans-inclusive even entered the editor’s head. Instead, I think the headline merely reveals a lot about the way the medical establishment views women, which in turn is indicative of the way society in general views women. But that really isn’t anything specifically to do with trans issues. The editorial is right to be challenged but I see this as the wrong thread to do it in.
Why would they do this though? I have never once heard of any calls for trans men to be labelled bodies with vaginas in healthcare settings. Are you really suggesting The Lancet, which has been relatively neutral on the trans/GC conflict, deliberately chose that phrase, took it out of context and put it on the front cover as a provocation in the name of trans inclusion?
Athos
Well-Known Member
This is supported by the fact that, on Twitter, the author has 'liked' a number of tweets commending her for using trans inclusive language in the article.
I suspect she chose "bodies with vaginas" over the more natural/obvious "woman" to be inclusive. Which sentiment I support; just think the wording she used was crass. And the decision about the cover even more so.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Of course it's not some deliberate provocation. It's more likely that they're (a) being trans inclusive whilst (b) showing the medical community's ingrained unconscious misogyny. But, (a) did not cause (b), and (b) need not be an inevitable consequence of (a). Whilst there's an obvious nexus between the two, nobody can reasonably blame trans people for the language/editorial decisions, and, to my knowledge, nobody in this thread has.
Last edited:
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It's not even very long.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I have. It's not a bad piece, except for that one criticism about the language.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Yes. Trans-exclusionary posters on urban have used the phrases “penis people” and “penis havers” when referring to trans women.
Way to misrepresent a discussion and stir the pot.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
I have. It's an interesting article.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
0
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Are you sure?
I recall CDL using 'penis people' to refer to men; she wasn't referring to trans women, and is clearly far from trans-exclusionary. (Some also used it in their replies to her, but, again, not to refer to trans women.)
The only other instance I recall of 'penis people' being used is by Judith B, who appeared to use it to refer to men, and subsequently explicitly confirmed she wasn't referring to trans women.
I don't recall anyone here referring to trans women as 'penis-havers' either.
Have I missed something?
Last edited:
Nobody is objecting to the article. The writer of the article would not have been the person responsible for selecting the headline.
If the boot is on the other foot eh?
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Must you?
The left's obsession with the control of language can lead to unintended places.
The article is a review of an exhibition, it's not a health piece at all. Seems to me there's a theme of bodies as physical spaces and the physical space of the museum which is under threat of closure. A museum being a physical space in which objects are presented and displayed in such a way that makes you think about the cultural meaning of things, artefacts, ideas, categories etc.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You were happily arguing this earlier so not sure what the rolleyes is about.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Really? Who?
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
2 or 3 posters. Several years ago. Not sure if they even post here any more
Similar threads
