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?

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

Does using the word 'everyone' exclude people?

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

Was she rebuffed or did she feel that being asked a simple question was aggressive and decided not to join, rather than address the group as 'everyone'?

You think its just going to be the word "everyone"

I was a member of a group myself who saw a woman thrown out fir saying only women have periods . Its pretty insulting to think we are stupid enough to believe someone cant actually see the logical conclusions.

We don't buy the faux naivity

Well she obviously felt rebuffed. Isn't that what's important?

Does using the word 'everyone' exclude people?

It's the walking on eggshells to placate people on a power trip that's a problem for most of us who have a problem with so called "inclusive" language, Lemon. Why are the feelings of this group more important than those of others with this exclusively female condition?

I mean there's no way that agreeing to address the members as everyone is an entry requirement that a post aimed solely at women will be allowed to stand.

The language will be across the board. And then men will be allowed to join in conversation on account of identity or being their to support their wives and daughters.

All we actually know about this group is that they asked a question that indicated they were trans inclusive and the op didn't wish to use the word 'everyone' rather than 'woman'.

Everything else is pure projection.

I was a member of a group myself who saw a woman thrown out fir saying only women have periods .

Exactly, and my example above of the lady who had a still born baby being thrown out of a pregnancy group for objecting to a male roleplaying her lived experience. By idiotic women.

We know how this works, Lemon, your disingenuous comments notwithstanding.

Well she obviouslyfeltrebuffed. Isn't that what's important?

You tell me. Do the ops feelings count or not?

Why are the feelings of this group more important than those of others with this exclusively female condition?

Because its a group set up by an individual who has chosen their own rules. The op is free to start a group of her own.

The language will be across the board. And then men will be allowed to join in conversation on account of identity or being their to support their wives and daughters.

You have no idea if this is the case at all.

Did you conveniently miss those threads on here where it did?

Planned parent hood
SANDS
face book groups and twitter groups.

Its all on here

We know how this works,Lemon, your disingenuous comments notwithstanding.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I just don't agree with a lot of what is being said.

Did you conveniently miss those threads on here where it did?

I'm currently commenting on this 'situation' I comment on other situations on other threads based on whats been said.

On this particular thread the op is wrong for wanting an inclusive group to change to accommodate her.

Because its a group set up by an individual who has chosen their own rules. The op is free to start a group of her own.

So anyone setting up a group has no responsibility at all? They can even make it racist/sexist/homophobic as it is their group? (I am not suggesting this group was but I don't understand why you think a public group has no guidelines that it should follow).

What abiut the women thrown out the pregnancy group for not playing along with a male who wanted to simulate a still birth was she wrong or was the group wrong?

Just trying to establish what your boundries are of inclusivity

It's the difference between writing.
I can't talk to my husband about it because he's a man.
I can't talk to my husband about it because he hasn't got the condition.

If you use the second, you lose a lot of the meaning and implied emotion of the first. About the hidden male aversion to feminine problems, about his entitlement, about how this may be a long line of the pain of being a woman complaints.
Loss of meaning, even implied, is never a good thing in language.

How disingenuous!

Feelings are paramount. Until what? Woman??

What abiut the women thrown out the pregnancy group for not playing along with a male who wanted to simulate a still birth was she wrong or was the group wrong?

Anyone wishing to pretend to have a stillbirth is a sick individual and needs psychological help.

So anyone setting up a group has no responsibility at all?

Hate speech isn't the same as using the word 'everyone' instead of woman to include and trans men who may be in the group.

Yes but it wasn't anyone was it. It was a male who should never have been allowed in in the first place.

Feelings are paramount. Until what? Woman??

You're suggesting that feelings are absolutely fine if they exclude transmen, but not if they exclude women though.

However women aren't being excluded from this group due to the use of a neutral way of greeting.

Come on, you know full well that there's no way that a greeting wouldn't be allowed to stand then a post that mentioned women and girls repeatedly would.

Yes but it wasn't anyone was it. It was a male who should never have been allowed in in the first place.

As I said, they need psychological help.

As do the women who join groups pretending they have had still births, and miscarriages, and steal photos of dead children and say those children are theirs (of which i have seen many, many more over my years of being a bereaved parent).

It shouldn't happen at all.

However women aren't being excluded from this group due to the use of a neutral way of greeting.

This is what the OP actually wrote - 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.

This is NOT a neutral greeting. The OP is quite right to feel worried that men will be present and quite right to feel annoyed that this is what she is expected to answer before even entering the group. There are plenty of ways to be inclusive to trans men - this is not inclusive. It is crass and divisive. Why are you so intent on defending it?

So you think if that male had behaved themselves then their presence in a still north group aimed at women wasn't a problem? Why would a single male want to be in a pregnancy group?