Posters on this forum using phrases such as "bodies with vaginas" in a jokey way

If there has ever been a political ideology whose overblown and pompous self-righteousness should be punctured with some sharp, barbed humour it is this one. I long for the day it gets its comeuppance on HIGNFY. Can't be long now.

@veryconcernedparent I think you also need to consider where you are posting.

Even with Those Who Monitor and the ludicrous monitoring of speech, this remains very much one safe space on the internet where women can discuss all things sex/gender that annoy them - and that's even having been shunted off onto the naughty step!

Why try to shut that down by adding yet more self policing to the ever growing list of terms we cannot use freely?

It's not going to happen. I don't want to forever deny myself the vitriol with which to spit abut whichever fuckwit it happens to be that has published yet another stupid 'people with a cervix' tome.

And look, this on the day that we suddenly see 'people with prostate cancer' - as if the powers that be (cancer charity) have listened and inexplicably refused to clarify and chosen to further obfuscate!

I think it’s also important to highlight both the absurdity and the inconsistency of this whole trend. For example: the apparently “approved” phrase “bodies with vaginas” or “bodies with cervixes”, in order, it’s claimed, to be inclusive of trans men. But trans men are also agitating for terms like “chest feeding” - so it’s apparently not okay to say “bodies with breasts”. (Why not?) A trans man on Twitter was very offended by being called a “body with a cervix”. So it’s refer to biological women as body parts so as not to offend trans men; but don’t say those things about trans men, because they don’t like it. Transwomen don’t like being called “bodies with penises/prostates/scrotums” either; why isn’t sauce for the gander the same as sauce for the goose?

Women get retermed “persons” but transmen and transwomen don’t want to be called transpersons, because then their adopted gender isn’t made clear and that makes the whole thing pointless for them. Because feelings because offence because inclusive blah blah blah BUT we need to have the spotlight full on the idiocy and inconsistency and hypocrisy of all of this daft language use, so that it becomes something to satirise rather than something serious and revered.

I agree, @veryconcernedparent.

I've started calling my DH "body with a penis" just to make a point

www.listennotes.com/top-episodes/janice-turner/

JANICE TURNER HAS A PODCAST, Babdoc?

This is exactly it- if it is NOT dehumanising to refer to women as “bodies with vaginas” if it is NOT triggering to refer to transmen as “people with cervices” if it IS inclusive and progressive it CANNOT be unacceptable to use terms like “bodies with testicles” “prostate havers” etc because it is merely extending the progressive inclusiveness.

It can’t just work one way. If it’s ok for some it’s ok for all. If it’s not ok for some it’s not ok for all.

It's absolute rage. And that to not use it leaves us compliantly silenced.

By repeating it, owning and extending it to the obvious next step of bodies with penises, ejaculators, testate owners, it makes it very, very obvious how truly outrageous this is. And that only women are supposed to meekly accept it.

I've already seen the first tweet having a rant about a trans person being referred to as a body with a penis.

But if you're going to make it sauce for the goose then it's ruddy well going to be sauce for the gander.

Yeah, but if I didn't laugh occasionally I would probably rip my own ovaries out

Janice Turner referred to her two colleagues (Matt Chorley and Hugo Rifkind) as “ejaculators” on their podcast, and you could hear the discomfort in their nervous laughter. I think we need to use this language to men more often - it’s the fastest way to help them “get it”, when discussing female erasure.

I am absolutely fine with normalising terms like “trans bodies with prostates” and “bodies that ejaculate” although I don’t believe it will happen.

Outside this board, I do think there is something in what you say OP as the irony and sarcasm is lost on as frightening number of people. We do sadly need to spell out that pointing out that men aren’t called prostate haves or ejaculators doesn’t mean that we think they should be.

We do absolutely have to state our explicit objections to being called ‘bodies with vaginas’ though. To let people know and object.

It’s no good hoping it will go away. The gender extremist ideology has been benefitting from the give an inch and they’ll take a mile tactic for far too long.

I started out absolutely enraged by the "bodies with vaginas" dehumanising language, but I realised it does something (doubtless unintended by its proponents) useful: it lays completely bare the grotesqueness of what is being demanded.

For example:

"Davey says that bodies with vaginas should not be permitted any spaces, even in prisons or hospitals, away from bodies with penises."

"Wadhwa says that bodies with vaginas that have been forcibly penetrated by bodies with penises should not be allowed to receive Crisis help unless they are cleansed of their unreasonably negative reactions to bodies with penises."

"Several councils have issued schools guidance that young bodies with vaginas should accommodate getting undressed with young bodies with penises, and if any young bodies with vaginas are uneasy with this they should be re-educated to welcome bodies with penises."

I've seen it a lot on here (have been lurking for a long time) and every single time it really does just sound absurd. I don't think it's normalising it at all.

Outside of this board I would only use these terms with people who I knew shared my views, as a kind of exasperated humour.

I supposed I'm coming at this from a professional angle: I'm a linguist and over the years have observed the normalisation of certain linguistic features (whether lexical or grammatical) through pure repetition of use.

What is also important linguistically is context. You have seen these terms used on a feminist discussion board in an ironic sense. The posters are highlighting absurdity in a community of like minded people.

I don't think I have used those exact terms myself but I have used other jokey/ironic references to different elements of the debate. I would not use them anywhere other than on here. I would not make them common terminology by using them elsewhere. I wouldn't use them in a serious discussion of the issues with other women or men, and indeed don't. I have referred to the Lancet cover in discussion as starting point for explaining to others less aware of the trans debate, but only to explain why it is so offensive and then to widen out into other elements of concern.

If phrases such as 'bodies with vaginas' ever become common currency, it won't be because of MN. It will be down to elements of the media who have bought in to the most extreme ideology of the TRAs.

It's all rubbish and ridiculous, and a sign of the modern times we live in now. I just wonder who the people are, and who comes up with all these phrases that are so stupid and totally unnecessary. Bring back the times, when life was more simple and more pleasant.

It's irony. And irony is never wrong

‘I've started using 'bodies with penises' and 'women' to refer to the two sexes. Just to balance things up a bit.’

That is preferable I think.

I agree with you OP, but people cope with it in different ways.

Yes, I agree with those who say pointing out the surreal absurdity and grotesqueness of this language is necessary, and I feel this generation is sorely lacking an adult comedy or satirical show that is prepared to tackle what's going on here, something like Monty Python or The Young Ones or Not the Nine o' Clock News or Viz in its heyday.

My husband says he had a couple of conversations with old friends in the pub post lockdowns joking about whether they still all identified as men or not. It's signalling you think it's bollocks.

I've started using 'bodies with penises' and 'women' to refer to the two sexes. Just to balance things up a bit.