Gender Discussions #4

[ellwood]

Not all men have penises and not all people with penises are men. The fact that they are using inclusive language is a good thing.
And more importantly, it's not about 'offending the woke brigade', it's about not erasing the existence of trans, non-binary and intersex people. Transphobia is rife, and with all the crappy laws that have been passed recently using inclusive language is the very least we can do.

Can I ask a genuine question about this? I totally agree that it is good to be inclusive but I think that ‘Penis-Owners’ and ‘People with vaginas’ actually just draws more attention the the differences between trans and non-trans people. It’s highlighting it because it’s not normal language to describe groups of people.

It also seems to ‘define people by their genitals’ which is something I’ve often seen trans support campaigns arguing against.

If the narrative is that trans men are just men and trans women are just women...why can’t we just say ‘men’ and ‘women’ (and non-binary / other if needed). Then whichever one you identify as, go for it, right?

 

[insectoverlords]

Can I ask a genuine question about this? I totally agree that it is good to be inclusive but I think that ‘Penis-Owners’ and ‘People with vaginas’ actually just draws more attention the the differences between trans and non-trans people. It’s highlighting it because it’s not normal language to describe groups of people.

It also seems to ‘define people by their genitals’ which is something I’ve often seen trans support campaigns arguing against.

If the narrative is that trans men are just men and trans women are just women...why can’t we just say ‘men’ and ‘women’ (and non-binary / other if needed). Then whichever one you identify as, go for it, right?

When talking about something directly related to your genitals (such as periods or sex toys) it's not about "defining people by their genitals" to use inclusive language it's just practical. It's exclusionary to say "ladies let's discuss your vagina" when not all ladies have vaginas and there's men with vaginas who would like that advice without being referred to as a woman.
ETA: while these terms might sound a little clunky at the moment to some, I think with time people will get more used to these terms and then hurrah we have more inclusive language that comfortably fits into the conversation!

 

[PeachyJam]

When talking about something directly related to your genitals (such as periods or sex toys) it's not about "defining people by their genitals" to use inclusive language it's just practical. It's exclusionary to say "ladies let's discuss your vagina" when not all ladies have vaginas and there's men with vaginas who would like that advice without being referred to as a woman.
ETA: while these terms might sound a little clunky at the moment to some, I think with time people will get more used to these terms and then hurrah we have more inclusive language that comfortably fits into the conversation!

Women have worked really hard for centuries for their rights to freedom and to not be shamed for periods and such (many parts of the world still do shame them) but now they have to be called "People with vaginas?" because of the less than 1% of the populations who identify as male and have a vagina? I know a few people who are F-M trans and I have had this discussion with them and they don't agree with using these terms. They want to be men and not a "Person with a vagina" just as much as women want to be called women. Who is actually pushing this agenda?

 

[greenvelvet]

Women have worked really hard for centuries for their rights to freedom and to not be shamed for periods and such (many parts of the world still do shame them) but now they have to be called "People with vaginas?" because of the less than 1% of the populations who identify as male and have a vagina? I know a few people who are F-M trans and I have had this discussion with them and they don't agree with using these terms. They want to be men and not a "Person with a vagina" just as much as women want to be called women. Who is actually pushing this agenda?

The term “people with vaginas” arose because the terms “female” and “male” started getting used to define gender rather than sex, IMO. If we kept “male” and “female” as purely in reference to sex and the reproductive system, it wouldn’t be such an issue to say “female reproductive health” or “sex toys for females”.

Sometimes I think trans people reject being categorised as male or female because it’s so often done to them maliciously, to taunt them over not “really” being a man or woman. This is a conflation of sex and gender*. You see it all the time on Twitter. If we don’t want to use the term “people with vaginas”, which I as a female, a woman and an SA survivor find simultaneously reductive but understandable, we need to stop the terms “female” and “male” being used in bad faith

*Radical feminists usually believe in the idea of gender as a social construct, whether they are trans-exclusive or not, which means separating gender and sex. I would define myself as a trans inclusive radical feminist. I believe that there are some issues that affect the female sex uniquely and some that affect women as a whole, and that because woman as gender is based largely around the female sex, a lot these issues are tightly intertwined.

All this is to say that trans men very often have female reproductive systems and need to receive female reproductive care. They are affected by the stigma and discrimination surrounding female sexual and reproductive health and well-being (the lack of research into e.g. endometriosis or PCOS). And as the language used in a context can signal to a person whether they will be safe and welcome, in order to make sure trans men feel safe and welcome in accessing vital health-care, I do think it’s important to use inclusive language. So again, it’s frustrating that the term “female” has been weaponised in this context, apparently out of malice and to nobody’s benefit. Sorry for posting this in this thread, but as this has come up a few times, that’s my two cents on this

 

[greenvelvet]

hello, the above posts have been moved here from the Zoella thread by a mod. If they seem out of pace with this thread, that’s because they are.

 

[thatstupidcat]

hello, the above posts have been moved here from the Zoella thread by a mod. If they seem out of pace with this thread, that’s because they are.

Welcome to the thread Green - good stuff on your posts. Always happy to see the trans-inclusive side as long as it is well-intentioned and in good faith.

Any visitor from the “trans inclusive“ side of the aisle traditionally just swan in over here to insult everyone who is faintly gender critical and signal the tit out of their own virtue, before squawking off.

As much as I enjoy the collective Sugg and Deyes threads, it’s hard to say anything more meaningful than “Zoella is a barren hag whose boyfriend hates her” and “Alfie Deyes, the Tory Horse”.

So whenever you want to post something more thought out, come over here.

 

[greenvelvet]

Welcome to the thread Green - good stuff on your posts. Always happy to see the trans-inclusive side as long as it is well-intentioned and in good faith.

Any visitor from the “trans inclusive“ side of the aisle traditionally just swan in over here to insult everyone who is faintly gender critical and signal the tit out of their own virtue, before squawking off.

As much as I enjoy the collective Sugg and Deyes threads, it’s hard to say anything more meaningful than “Zoella is a barren hag whose boyfriend hates her” and “Alfie Deyes, the Tory Horse”.

So whenever you want to post something more thought out, come over here.

Thanks! I'm trying to figure out my own perspective on all this gender stuff (!) so I will probably peep in every so often. It's so hard to word things properly though so I will probably be quiet. Case in point - I tried to give an example of my views just now, but couldn't do it! Love a good challenge, though, it's probably good for my brain. Just not when I'm at work...!!!

the Zoe one gets crazy misogynistic sometimes. I do like a gossip - this is Tattle - but I'm not interested in shaming anyone for not having a kid yet, especially when the women in my family tend to have kids in their thirties!! Sympathy for her because she wants them, yes, shaming because she's getting "old" (she isn't), no!

 

[Falkor]

Hannah Mouncey is threatening to sue the AFL's governing body for not allowing her to play at the top level of the women's divisions.

Transgender Aussie Rules Player Hannah Mouncey Threatens To Sue AFL For Her Right To Play

Mouncey was prevented from entering the AFLW draft back in 2017 due to her 'strength, stamina or physique'.

www.sportbible.com

The article has lifted this picture from her Instagram, which I think is actually a fairly good representation of why there might be safety concerns about Hannah playing in the women's leagues.

 

[thatstupidcat]

Thanks! I'm trying to figure out my own perspective on all this gender stuff (!) so I will probably peep in every so often. It's so hard to word things properly though so I will probably be quiet. Case in point - I tried to give an example of my views just now, but couldn't do it! Love a good challenge, though, it's probably good for my brain. Just not when I'm at work...!!!

the Zoe one gets crazy misogynistic sometimes. I do like a gossip - this is Tattle - but I'm not interested in shaming anyone for not having a kid yet, especially when the women in my family tend to have kids in their thirties!! Sympathy for her because she wants them, yes, shaming because she's getting "old" (she isn't), no!

You know, that’s pretty true - there does seem like there is an unspoken “yeah, she’s rich and famous but she aint got kids and her boyfriend doesn’t like her, what a skinny loser arf arf”.

And you only have to chip in when you want to and keep in mind the other posters here often link to information and data (like Falkor just did over the Oz football issue) so take a look when you want.

We all try to keep the discussion evidence not “feelz” based, and even a room full of scientists can draw somewhat different conclusions from the same thing and it is great to look at the different viewpoints.

 

[Zenchick101]

The term “people with vaginas” arose because the terms “female” and “male” started getting used to define gender rather than sex, IMO. If we kept “male” and “female” as purely in reference to sex and the reproductive system, it wouldn’t be such an issue to say “female reproductive health” or “sex toys for females”.

Sometimes I think trans people reject being categorised as male or female because it’s so often done to them maliciously, to taunt them over not “really” being a man or woman. This is a conflation of sex and gender*. You see it all the time on Twitter. If we don’t want to use the term “people with vaginas”, which I as a female, a woman and an SA survivor find simultaneously reductive but understandable, we need to stop the terms “female” and “male” being used in bad faith

*Radical feminists usually believe in the idea of gender as a social construct, whether they are trans-exclusive or not, which means separating gender and sex. I would define myself as a trans inclusive radical feminist. I believe that there are some issues that affect the female sex uniquely and some that affect women as a whole, and that because woman as gender is based largely around the female sex, a lot these issues are tightly intertwined.

All this is to say that trans men very often have female reproductive systems and need to receive female reproductive care. They are affected by the stigma and discrimination surrounding female sexual and reproductive health and well-being (the lack of research into e.g. endometriosis or PCOS). And as the language used in a context can signal to a person whether they will be safe and welcome, in order to make sure trans men feel safe and welcome in accessing vital health-care, I do think it’s important to use inclusive language. So again, it’s frustrating that the term “female” has been weaponised in this context, apparently out of malice and to nobody’s benefit. Sorry for posting this in this thread, but as this has come up a few times, that’s my two cents on this

Hi and welcome! other opinions are always welcome and I believe that if we are able to be civil we can understand each other better and also it's good to have our views challenged. unless we're talking about trans men, I honestly do not think trans women belong in feminism which I guess makes me more attracted to radical feminism? I tend to see liberal feminism as more easily accepting of this. I've pondered the question a really long time, and I just don't. First feminism=females , second the oppression of women goes back since the start of time. The idea that gender and sex are seperate really became a thing thanks to Simone Beauvoir (I think) in the last 50 years. If we look back, women have always been oppressed because we are females, women are the "weaker sex", women are emotional, women are only good for raising babies and having babies, the weaker sex isn't capable of ruling a country, women used as bargaining chips by their male relatives to be wives and create foreign alliances - throughout history this is some quick notes of how we were lesser then men because of what we were born as nothing more then objects and baby-making machines.

Even in our recent history, if we're raped it's because we didn't cover our body well enough, we're physically weaker then men on average. Whichever period of history I look in to (in various countries) just seems that we were denied rights and treated differently based on our physical reality as the opposite sex and the gender stereotypes - the whole gender identity thing seems to come from that. I could dress differently and try to look manly but I'll still be seen as very female and be treated as such.

Do I see trans women as women? eh not really I'm sorry if that offends you. My whole life has been shaped around my sex and how people me as a women as a result, and I keep reading that other women have the same experience. Do they identify more with a feminine societal role and reject the idea of what being a man typically is? I think so. I've recently seen a few people try to invent an inclusive language in french (my first language) and I didn't understand anything, it's a gendered language so it sounds really off. Is inclusive language necessary? I don't see the point honestly, I mean if "having sex seperated bathrooms is not going to stop predators" then how is inclusive language going to make people feel safe? Some of these rules are becomin company/work mandates, play along or lose your job. the same people will be working there. Also why not have Trans-men/women/other genders + Men/Women instead of the whole walking vaginas schtik? that would seem like a compromise, include everyone and no one is offended being reduced to genitals.

I think it's also interesting to look into the romantic aspect of it (dating and the like) - but I'll leave that for another post.

 

[Doc]

Hannah Mouncey is threatening to sue the AFL's governing body for not allowing her to play at the top level of the women's divisions.

Transgender Aussie Rules Player Hannah Mouncey Threatens To Sue AFL For Her Right To Play

Mouncey was prevented from entering the AFLW draft back in 2017 due to her 'strength, stamina or physique'.

www.sportbible.com

The article has lifted this picture from her Instagram, which I think is actually a fairly good representation of why there might be safety concerns about Hannah playing in the women's leagues.

If there are sex specific sports - and for good reason - then surely it’s down to whether your body has the biology to produce eggs or sperm, rather than what you identify as?

This is what frustrates me the most - gender is more than just what you identify as or “dress up” as. It has far reaching implications because of male biological advantage.

 

[SqualorVictoria]

This is an excellent thread

 

[sheleg]

"not all ladies have vaginas and there's men with vaginas"

But this just isn't true. You can't say incorrect stuff and just expect it to fly because some people might feel excluded or 'invalidated'.

 

[maytoseptember]

"not all ladies have vaginas and there's men with vaginas"

But this just isn't true. You can't say incorrect stuff and just expect it to fly because some people might feel excluded or 'invalidated'.

Exactly! This is the new Creationism.

 

[sephylily]

Apologies if this has already been posted but this person comes out as a transgender woman (with a beard) and then sticks a resume on the end of their viral tweet with a "help a girl out". It's really pissed me off as it just feels like they wanted attention to try and get a job where the employers can use them for inclusive points

Also, people love to say that using penis-owner or vagina-owner means no harm but it does! As someone with immigrant parents, neither of my parents would have been able to understand what penis-owner or vagina-owner means. They know man and woman and that's it. It worries me that places like Ireland using people with a cervix and people with a prostate will lead to immigrant people failing to go for cervical cancer or prostate cancer checks because they won't know they have one or the other!

 

[Doc]

Apologies if this has already been posted but this person comes out as a transgender woman (with a beard) and then sticks a resume on the end of their viral tweet with a "help a girl out". It's really pissed me off as it just feels like they wanted attention to try and get a job where the employers can use them for inclusive points

Also, people love to say that using penis-owner or vagina-owner means no harm but it does! As someone with immigrant parents, neither of my parents would have been able to understand what penis-owner or vagina-owner means. They know man and woman and that's it. It worries me that places like Ireland using people with a cervix and people with a prostate will lead to immigrant people failing to go for cervical cancer or prostate cancer checks because they won't know they have one or the other!

I’d like to see how viral a post from a biological woman would go with the exact same tweet and CV.Wont be *stunning and brave* enough.

 

[Apple In My Pie]

Apologies if this has already been posted but this person comes out as a transgender woman (with a beard) and then sticks a resume on the end of their viral tweet with a "help a girl out". It's really pissed me off as it just feels like they wanted attention to try and get a job where the employers can use them for inclusive points

Also, people love to say that using penis-owner or vagina-owner means no harm but it does! As someone with immigrant parents, neither of my parents would have been able to understand what penis-owner or vagina-owner means. They know man and woman and that's it. It worries me that places like Ireland using people with a cervix and people with a prostate will lead to immigrant people failing to go for cervical cancer or prostate cancer checks because they won't know they have one or the other!

i was going to put this thread here - the tweet that makes me grind my teeth is the one where he says ‘shout out to the women who have been in the cross fire of what I now realise to be my internalised misogyny’ !!! I mean, what the duck? Aside from it being nowhere near a genuine apology it just reads to me as ‘I will continue to be misogynistic but now I am One Of You so you can’t call me out on it ’. twit.

 

[sephylily]

i was going to put this thread here - the tweet that makes me grind my teeth is the one where he says ‘shout out to the women who have been in the cross fire of what I now realise to be my internalised misogyny’ !!! I mean, what the duck? Aside from it being nowhere near a genuine apology it just reads to me as ‘I will continue to be misogynistic but now I am One Of You so you can’t call me out on it ’. twit.

i didn't even see that bit! head.

 

[Doc]

And probability is the “women” he refers to as being such a support to him won’t be biological women... we are invisible until we are appropriated

 

[witchofwestbyfleet]

Towards the end of last year, Bridget Flack (a prominent trans activist in Melbourne) went missing and was sadly found dead. There was a big search for them before they were found, and several people on my social media feeds promoted articles about it. I read through some of these articles and thought something seemed "off", then it dawned on me what it was. They made no mention of the fact that the deceased was a transwoman - which was obvious from the photos. Some reports included quotes from the family saying that Bridget Flack had been looking for trans-friendly shelter accommodation shortly before disappearing, but the articles themselves didn't make any reference to this person being transgender. Others didn't mention it at all, and just referred to them as "a queer woman".

Understandably, there are many things I don't agree with Trans Media Watch about. I do agree when they say, in their guidelines to the press, that someone's gender identity shouldn't be brought up where it is not relevant - such as (their examples) "Transsexual is convicted of shoplifting" or "Cross-dresser wins lottery." In those examples, the person's gender is not important to the story and such a headline would be unfair; although I think the subsequent article should acknowledge the subject's biological sex. In this case, however, it was entirely relevant: Bridget Flack was openly a transwoman, prominently involved in the local trans community, and known for trans rights activism. Why pretend they weren't trans? Is it connected to how the press reports on "women" (transwomen) committing serious violent/sexual offences with no acknowledgement of their biological sex? Although in this case, the deceased did nothing wrong and it seems insulting not to acknowledge their belonging to a group of people to whom they devoted a lot of their time and energy. And of course the ubiquitous use of "queer"