Thoughts on MNHQ's response to the Spartacus thread

The fact this tiny minority need disgustingly offensive language used towards half the population to be "comfortable" is worrying at best

BUT These terms are then expected to be used by everyone else.

Are they though?

People either have mistakenly or are deliberately misquoting or misunderstanding the purpose of this text, which was for trans people to talk about safe sex in terms that they are comfortable with. as said up thread. It is great they are doing what they can to be inclusive. BUT These terms are then expected to be used by everyone else. This causes confusion. If the general population doesn't use these terms then they are labelled transphobic and not inclusive.

Take the feminist gathering 'night of 1000 vaginas' and the controversy that caused. www.salon.com/2014/01/31/the_fight_over_the_v_word/

Should we really rename that even 'night of a 1000 front holes'?

The cupcake incident mentioned several pages back. Should that have been an 'ice your own front hole' event because Activists kicked up a fuss about vagina apparently not being inclusive.

Reassigning a woman's vagina as a "front hole"

But they aren't doing that. They are referring to trans mens vaginas. NOT womens.

I will never refer to my vagina as a front hole. But they are not asking for that. People either have mistakenly or are deliberately misquoting or misunderstanding the purpose of this text, which was for trans people to talk about safe sex in terms that they are comfortable with.

Reassigning a woman's vagina as a "front hole" tells you everything you need to know about the misogyny rampant in the trans movement. It reveals that 1) they have no understanding of female biology because as others have said, the urethra is actually first 2) also a vagina is not a "hole" 3) the see the vagina's purpose as nothing but a "hole" to be fucked

Revolting

Even if you didn't start as a misogynist, you would be after constantly being exposed to this hate filled garbage.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent science, therapy, psychology practice? yes, studies are needed. annecdotal evidence is a bit wishy washy. Implies transition is a cure but clearly some trans people are still unhappy with their outcome.

That's interesting about the vagina issue for her. It's what my once trans friend said too. He couldn't figure out that argument/logic. I think you are right. It is misinformation and that leaflet is terrible especially coming from a medical centre.

I found the literature and doctrine impossible to argue with, especially with a teenager. It's a relatively new 'science' (sorry couldn't think of a better word!), so the rules are still being written, mainly based on assumption that's based on personal experience rather than studies.

For my daughter the logical conclusion to if you feel female you are female, therefore, if you have a penis it's a female penis. She did struggle with the opposite though - a vagina could never be a male vagina. To my knowledge these terms weren't around when she wanted to transition. If they were I think it would have heightened her lack of dissonance with being female. It would be one more layer of misinformation to dismantle.

That document is typical of the trans literature, the authors are so wrapped up in their trans centric lives and inventing the most correct narrative, that they don't realise that by not being offensive or triggering to trans people

I swear this must isolate them further because it makes the words taboo/wrong and triggering.

As a parent of a child who wanted to transition. Do you feel the failure to use the correct medical terminology made things worse?

I still stand my previous argument that Trans people need support accepting the biology they have - and using the right terms - along with support to help them transition to living as the person they feel they are.

makeslogicalsensetome2 your posts really resonate with me.

The problem I have with challenging psychologists and psychiatrists, etc, with clear clam reason is that they just don't listen, they brand you resistant and a bigot for now going along with the current dogma. I've found one Dr that listens to me and has the same concerns about TAs pushing their agenda. What needs to happen is a revolution in the psych community.

That document is typical of the trans literature, the authors are so wrapped up in their trans centric lives and inventing the most correct narrative, that they don't realise that by not being offensive or triggering to trans people, that the are offending the majority of the population. As for a penis being called a 'strapless', words fail me. Complete doublespeak, so a lesbian transwomen with a penis would have a strap-on that's strapless?!

KateMumsnet thank you for confirming that you have no ties with Mermaids. However, have they ever lobbied Mumsnet? Not that you can probably answer that!

I'd never really thought about this stuff until reading about it here a couple of years ago. My general stance is live and let live. However, this extends to everyone, including women, which is the bit that seems to get missed off repeatedly and consistently.

I don't see women as being not-men and I doubt very many women do. Men might see women as not-men and assume they can just join the not-men as and when they decide they don't want to be in the men category. That's my understanding of the sentiment behind how things seem at the minute, I don't get the impression the bulk of transactavists want to really be women, they don't appear to want to stand in solidarity with women anyway.

I don't understand why someone would want to be a woman anyway if they didn't have to be one. Currently accepted gender norms regarding makeup, dress, jobs, emotions etc could be challenged and changed over a few years if people want more choice, this would be positive for all people. Not to trivialise but many people feel that their body is wrong and needs changing to be right, I feel this is perhaps part of the human condition.

That leaflet

I'm trying to find the words for how wrong it is to mangle language like that. If someone has such a visceral hatred for their own body that they can't stand to hear the word vagina, that person needs help, not some linguistic coddling. A woman who thinks "front hole" (a hole is an absence, a gap, a nothing) is a better word than "vagina" (an organ) is saying something profound and disturbing about her sexuality, and how she views women. Such terrible misogyny. I don't think you do that hypothetical trans man, or women in general any favours by bowdlerising away their anatomy.

Jesus Christ, it's given me the shivers. There's something porn soaked and sick and so hateful about women's anatomy being reduced to (not even anatomically correctly identified) holes. That's before we even start on the issue that vaginas now properly belong to men!

Blistory, really enjoyed your post earlier. And KateMumsnet thanks for the thoughtful engagement. While I would prefer a stronger statement in solidarity with women, I understand the difficulties. Is there any intention at MNHQ to make any sort of policy statement at any time?

Oh, I agree blanket bans on words are counterproductive but there ought to be an equal playing field. If I cannot misgender someone, I will find another way to say what I mean.

If Cis is allowed then I will cop it and have to disregard my opposition to it even though around only 0.6 percent of the adult population are dictating those rules to the majority.

At the risk of being banned- after 7 yrs of living with my ex and listening to their side of things I do know that Autogynephilia was part of their makeup. I saw it every day. There are numerous sites that talk about why that term is considered embarrassing. and how to embrace it.

Accepting who a person is should not come with censorship and labeling. I am aware that Trans is an umbrella term,not everyone has the same ideas on what part of the spectrum they are on. Some people go on to change their initial ideas and realise they are neither one nor the other.

It's not that I don't accept her lived experience , it's that I feel that we are now getting to the stage where many people feel they have the right to try and censor what other people say and how they use language. I'm not talking about actual insults. I appreciate that you're talking about a specific phrase which has a long and horrid history but actually we're seeing exactly the same phrasing, that certain words/expressions cause a painful reaction, used by the TA lobby to shut down discussions on all manner of topics because the phrasing used is somehow "triggering"

Note, I'm in no way trying to belittle your friend's experience or feelings, just explaining that I'm coming to a point where I feel that there's a constant push to moderate the language used in the course of discussion and I'm not sure it's right or helpful.

I too dislike the word cis and feel very opposed politically and personally to it's mainstream acceptance and it's use as a label for me against my will. It doesn't hurt me to hear it used, though maybe this will change the more cisscum is thrown at me. I dunno.

I previously (maybe a couple of years now) felt saying the n word in a discussion is different from using it against someone but was told by a black woman who has had the word used against her all her life that seeing/hearing it caused the same painful reaction for her. I accepted her lived experience and feelings on this and immediately edited what I'd written to semi censor the word. Seeing it written here reminded me of that encounter. I didn't report the post because I think if I speak directly to Olennas and she reports herself it isn't censoring or going over her head but trying to amicably discuss things and come to mutual understanding. Thanks for agreeing to ask MNHQ for an edit.

The idea that it's necessary to be as nice when talking about men in a group by and for women as it is when talking to their faces (with the fear of violence and retribution that entails) is an incredible slap in the face to every woman here.

We should probably only talk about abusers with words we'd use to their faces, too, right?

It's a bit like the incessant trigger warnings (and demands for warnings) for everything, to the point where it's become meaningless cos you've no idea which trigger they're warning about. I don't think it's reasonable to expect strangers to moderate their speech to avoid upsetting you - within the bounds of reason, I don't mean go around insulting people but I'm rather sick of people saying we shouldn't talk about certain things, use certain words, etc in the course of reasonable conversation.

KateMumsnet I slept on it and here is my take. I don't like Cis as it was forced on me. Simple. In the effort to assist Trans (there are genuine trans ) I have been minimised and labeled without my permission. The word implies alignment and agreement. I do not agree nor do accept the only way for Trans is chemicals and surgery.

Since when does a patient dictate their diagnosis, especially a child. My ex told his Doctor what he thought and what prescription/blood tests he needed. This is commonplace.

When I ask politely for someone to not use the label Cis I am always told its not harmful and if I want to do the right thing for Trans I need to give some ground and accept the change. On the flip side I am not allowed to question what is happening to our children I have been doxed and personally threatened by a psychologist for misgendering my ex and causing emotional distress.
There is no reasonable grounds for that approach. It is accepted that dominant force and fear of offending someone will create unquestioning compliance. Its too close to the book 1984 for my liking.

Why is this happening and why are we so pc that we are unable to think for ourselves or are too scared to question what is happening.

Kate, I am appreciative that this discussion is happening and am hopeful this sites neutrality will continue.

There is a big difference between using words as an insult and using them in context and discussing them as Olenna has.

And I think this is MNHQ's stance on 'cis' too. It's unrealistic to expect a blanket ban on that word, or a hell of a lot of posts in this thread would be deleted!

As above, we can't edit although MNHQ probably would if the poster asked, but I don't think she should have to. There is a big difference between using words as an insult and using them in context and discussing them as Olenna has.

MNHQ has not only seen that post but quoted it in their response.

Sian, we can't edit our posts. I'm not sure if MNHQ can.

ollenaswimple can you edit your post to remove the n word. n*** it or call it the n word or something? I knows even reading it can cause a painful intense reaction for some people. Even if it is being used in an indirect way or quoted like in that shitty Lennon song. It's just such a violent hurtful word.

Blistory, thanks .... Sometimes these threads can get a bit overheated and then you come in like a breath of fresh air.