Do I have a right to be angry about this? (Trans related)

[Nc109283485]

Nc for obvious reasons. This is a very personal issue to me which I am understandably sensitive about, so this may be why I feel this way. I am perfectly happy to be told I AMBU! I believe trans people deserve love and respect and a happy life just like everyone else. So why did this concern and anger me?

I have a condition called vaginismus which has been very traumatic and caused me lots of grief over my life. In my eyes it is a very personal and female problem. (Look if up if you're not sure what it is).

I have tried to join a support group on a social media platform to really get to the bottom of it and sort it out. I wont say which one as dont want to 'out' either myself or the group involved. My request was pending and a message sent. I assumed this was to confirm I definitely suffer from this condition and to make sure I wasn't some strange pervert, but no! The administrator messaged me to say that before I was accepted I would have to answer a 'test question' as this is a gender inclusive group. Will I be addressing group members as 'ladies, men or everyone'. The tone felt quite aggressive and if I did not pass this test I would not be admitted.

My first thought was are men allowed to enter this group? Do I really have to speak about my vagina in front of 'everyone'? Why not say hello ladies (and the occasional transman who currently has issues with their vagina) no I have to address everyone? Wtf?

I honestly don't know what to think right now but this group clearly isn't for me. But maybe I just need some re-education?

Those saying it's a trans inclusive policy, which group of trans people is it inclusive of - trans men or trans women? And if the latter, do you really think that is ok for a support group for sufferers of vaginismus?

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

The only people allowed to get their frillies in a twist are transwomen.

And people who wish to join a facebook group who obviously has trans inclusive admin and a trans inclusive policy and then complain about that rather than find another group apparently.

Please stop lying.

The OP didn't know the group was 'trans inclusive' until she applied to join and was emailed by the admin.

The OP came here to ask if she had a right to feel confused/angry about it.

You don't know if a group is trans inclusive until you join, or they list it as trans inclusive on their about page. Perhaps if they wanted to make sure people were trans inclusive, they should say upfront the group is trans inclusive. And you shouldn't assume there is 'another group' for this rare medical condition.

I left a local endometriosis group after we were all told off for using the term ladies. It’s because I’m a woman I have endometriosis.

And people who wish to join a facebook group who obviously has trans inclusive admin and a trans inclusive policy

This is the kind of virtue signalling that actually EXCLUDES the people who most need a support group for a specifically female condition. Transwomen don’t have vaginas. To suggest that they should have priority over women for inclusion in a support group which is there to support a condition which is only suffered by women, is gaslighting, pure and simple.

It’s taken so so long for women to have a voice, the language, and the place to speak about the lived experience of their bodies.

It is ironic - but also more sinisterly misogynistic- that when women finally have the voice and the place to speak, they are being told to shut up, in the name of “inclusion”.

This is the kind of virtue signalling that actually EXCLUDES the people who most need a support group for a specifically female condition. Transwomen don’t have vaginas. To suggest that they should have priority over women for inclusion in a support group which is there to support a condition which is only suffered by women, is gaslighting, pure and simple

Most the transmen are around now anyway. They.are the girls in school now. Those not even old enough to be on.social media. And wouldn't pass the age verification if the group.The few older transmen who needed these groups have either probably been.there quietly all along or are at an age where much of it doesn't apply so much now.

This isn't and never was about transmen. Transmen are just being used to make a point

This is the kind of virtue signalling that actually EXCLUDES the people who most need a support group for a specifically female condition. Transwomen don’t have vaginas.

Trans men do.

Would trans women object to being called women in a group? No.

Would trans men, who have vaginas, object to being called a woman? Yes.

A lot of trans men have vaginas but you think they shouldn't have support for associated issues? Do you think the person who doesn't wish to use inclusive language has more rights than the trans man to seek help?

they shouldsayupfront the group is trans inclusive. And you shouldn't assume there is 'another group' for this rare medical condition.

They made it clear within one message. I don't assume there's another group at all, I assume the individual who made their group chose to be trans inclusive for a reason and the ops desire to not use inclusive language doesn't override their wishes. The op is free to make a group of her own.

But in practical terms how could a transman take part in such a group?
Because surely having a vagina is something that they don't want to acknowledge?
So then with the words women, vagina and other female anatomy banned how could a meaningful or informative discussion take place?
I think it's highly unlikely that transmen are part of that group both through Statistically unlikelyhood and by the fact that they don't want to engage with their womanhood.
And talking about vaginas would do just that, wouldn't it?

Yes buff

But we aren't realky suloosed to talk about the differences between whats behind males who transition and whats behind females who transition. And why males who transition involve themselves in very female oriented situations in a way which doesn't apply to females who transition

So then with the words women, vagina and other female anatomy banned how could a meaningful or informative discussion take place?

Indeed.

Increasingly, women are being told that our language for our bodies and our lived experience is not permitted.

What is "inclusive" about this for 51% of the population?

Oh yes, @Whatwouldscullydo - those three little letters ...

I'm still puzzling over this: vaginismus is primarily a problem for straight women because it is expected of us that the sort of sex we ought to be engaging in is penetrative sex involving a penis going into our vagina. (Now there are a whole mix of reasons why a straight woman like myself would want help with this - partly social conditioning, 'meant to make my man happy', but also, equally importantly, for my own benefit because I knew from talking to female friends that they genuinely did enjoy PIV and I felt I was missing out - so it's certainly not as simple as "in a world where PIV wasn't centred as the normal way of having sex, the problem would go away.")

If you were a transman, why wouldn't you just say "penetrative sex involving a penis going into my 'front hole' (or whatever you felt most comfortable as a word for your vagina) isn't for me, because I'm a man, and I don't have sex that way"? This is another reason why I suspect the whole thing is not being driven for the benefit of transmen at all, because I suspect the number of transmen who both have vaginismus, and for whom having PIV sex is so important that they would feel the need to seek support and treatment for it, is vanishingly small. I honestly don't think it's transmen who are behind this drive for 'inclusive' language. (And I still don't think any prostate cancer support group ever, anywhere in the world, has said to a would-be member "you must sign up to this statement about trans inclusivity before we'll help you.")

*Trans men do.

Would trans women object to being called women in a group? No.

Would trans men, who have vaginas, object to being called a woman? Yes.

A lot of trans men have vaginas*

Sigh. If they have vaginas, (barring intersex conditions) they are not trans men. Pure, clear and simple. You can go along with the lie that they are, but they are not. This, is the basic, honest truth. If they have a vagina then they are women.

The prefix 'trans' which in this case comes from transition, means transitioning. Ie physically changing. It does not and never originally was meant to represent people who wanted to call themselves whoever or whatever, without the 'ition' part. Once you transition you are transgender. The key is in the prefix. If someone has a vagina, like it or not, be this inconvenient or not, then they are a woman. That's clear to most people, right? Just saying you are now a male when you still have the female parts, will not suddenly make you a male. It is the transition that is the key to the entire system, so to speak.

I agree completely with Cara and PP's points. Statistically the number of trans men suffering from the condition would be tiny. Add on to that the fact that surely trans men don't want to be acknowledging their vaginas or using them in the same way as a straight woman means this can't possibly be about trans men.

At a push you could say it's about NBs who do have PIV sex but it's self centred of people like this to push their stupid ideas about not being women - but using their vaginas like the rest of us straight women - on to the rest of the world.

If this group allows men - husbands, boyfriends, transmen, non binary or whomever - to join and you're looking for a women only group or people who identify as women only then find another group.
Or join and see what they are like.

I think it's highly unlikely that transmen are part of that group both through Statistically unlikelyhood and by the fact that they don't want to engage with their womanhood.

Lots of things are statistically unlikely. It doesn't mean they don't happen at all. The person who set up this group may even be trans for all we know.

Sigh. If they have vaginas, (barring intersex conditions) they are not trans men

Except they are. You can get a GRC without having surgery.

difficult

We know the demographic though. Transmen account for the majority now, however these are the youngsters now

There's very very very few of the middle aged transmen coming out. The vast vast vast majority of the ones old enough to need these groups are not Transmen.

One thing I do agree with Lemon about is that we should detach this from talk of surgery. "Bottom surgery" as it is euphemistically known - which varies from freeing the clitoris from its surrounding tissue, through radical hysterectomy including removal of the vagina, all the way to phalloplasty - construction of an artificial tube of flesh superficially like a penis, using a skin and muscle graft from the forearm or thigh - is highly invasive, rarely successful, generally (barring the most minimal operation of freeing the clitoris) involves loss of sexual function, and has an eye-wateringly high rate of complications (I've heard up to 90% quoted as the rate of serious complications from phalloplasty, for instance, where serious includes the graft not taking, necrotising tissue, complete loss of sexual function, graft sites that never heal properly).

If people who wish to self-identify as transmen can be supported in "socially transitioning" and dealing with their dysphoria in ways that fall short of surgery, this is to be encouraged (albeit I suspect my reasons for this are different from Lemon's - I see it as a harm-limitation strategy).

You can get a GRC without having surgery.

But a GRC doesn't mean that you change sex or that your new "sex" is recognised in all circumstances.

In any case, what needed to be done here was to make everyone feel accepted without alienating the women who most need the service.

Of course there's a slim chance it could be a genuine group with a genuine transman who has straight sex using their vagina.
However there are two far more likely causes of the message.
Firstly it's just woke virtue signalling.
Secondly that it's to include transwomen sans vaginas.
Both of these are problematic in their own way.

But a GRC doesn't mean that you change sex or that your new "sex" is recognised in all circumstances.

Yes, it's the "in all circumstances" that's the problem in all this. I've said for years, 99% of the time it doesn't matter. Want to take T, grow a rather natty beard and go to work in a 3-piece suit? Crack on (so long as you're an adult capable of informed consent). No-one should be discriminated against for this.

It's the 1% of situations where biological sex matter where this becomes a problem (and let's face it, the problems are not coming from transmen - a transman on a male closed psych ward or in a men's prison will need to be protected from the risk posed by the men around that individual, but will not pose any risk to them; no matter how much T a transman takes, they're not going to end up on an Olympic podium taking a medal from a natal man).

CaraDuneRedux I really, really don't need a lesson in what surgery entails thank you.

albeit I suspect my reasons for this are different fromLemon's- I see it as a harm-limitation strategy

You really have no idea about my reasons for holding the views that I do, or, in fact what my views are in the rest of the trans debate.

All you know from this thread that I don't think someone should go onto an already established Facebook group and complain about it using inclusive language.

But inclusive language excludes everyone besides those with a trans identity.

When it comes to health care , clear language is vital. Its bloody dangerous in fact to alter language to the point that those reading or listening to it actually have no idea if it applies to them or not.

We Have many women for whom English is not their first language. Educational standards vary to the point so much that many women don't even know they have a cervix or other terms. How can you help anyone when you have to deny who a problem even affects.

And why are mens groups immune? If inclusive language is standard why can prostate cancer akd erectile disfunction groups and literature mention the word man over and over again.

CaraDuneRedux I really, really don't need a lesson in what surgery entails thank you.

Wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at people on this thread who've just heard the euphemism "bottom surgery" and have no idea what's involved.

Except OP didn't even get into the group. She was rebuffed at the joining stage and came here to express her confusion.

She posted nothing in the group. Didn't get to interact because the welcome she got was qualified... in a way that didn't match her needs

Her questioning if it doesn't need to be reframed in terms of men, any men. The condition involved is only found in females.

We are allowed to be female, say female and, in very many circumstances, bar men from female spaces.

Chastising a woman for being rebuffed from a forum set up to discuss a woman's ailment sums up the whole TRA attitude... women can suffer as long as trans individuals don't have their feelings disturbed.