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?

Why are you using this one person as a 'gotcha'?

Because idiotic woke women feel over themselves to pander to this male's crass roleplaying, in a situation which must have been deeply distressing to the bereaved mother.

It's not in any way uncommon for women to be completely trampled on to pander to TRAs, and I think you probably know this. I know you have your "inclusive" beliefs and your ideological blinkeredness, but really, FFS.

*fell over themselves

Honestly wondering WHY we should use 'neutral' language?
If it is really for fear of offending a delicate little flower who can't stand to see (or be reminded of the fact they are one) the word woman, ladies, girls, etc, then I actually at this point don't give a crap. It's far more important that a woman suffering with a genuine medical issue gets the help she needs, than it is to temper our language and tip toe around someone who might get hurt feelings by seeing a damn word on a screen.
Neutral language can fuck right off in situations like this when we need clarity for the purposes of educating people about their biological bodies. To pretend otherwise is incredibly dim witted.

And the fact that those who displayed this behaviour aren't the one s being thrown out its the women who object who are.

Lots of wonen would benefit from a pregnancy group who arent yet pregnant.

I do not understand a solution that excludes those women so that males aren't categorically told no for the mere fact they are male.

What the women who are accepted in the group then do, of course needs dealing with if its not appropriate. But preventing wonen access to avoid excluding males specifically is problematic

I do not understand a solution that excludes those women so that males aren't categorically told no for the mere fact they are male.

Me neither. But I can see it's a handy get out so people can carry on virtue signalling their "inclusive" approach and righteousness.

Virtue signalling... My new most detested behaviour. It has ousted the previous incumbent "deliberately obtuse"

It's far more important that a woman suffering with a genuine medical issue gets the help she needs, than it is to temper our language and tip toe around someone who might get hurt feelings by seeing a damn word on a screen

yes

I'm asking if you think males should he included in a pregnancy group

Depends on the group. Some will offer advice to partners etc. If its a group that doesn't wish to discuss anything with individuals who aren't pregnant then they should make the group solely for those who are pregnant.

I know you have your "inclusive" beliefs and your ideological blinkeredness, but really, FFS.

Believe me when I say that TRAs have negatively impacted my life a huge amount, I would hazard a guess that they have caused more chaos for me than you tbh.

I have no time for TRAs, I do have a lot of time for the trans individuals who are simply trying to live their lives and are getting aligned with TRAs and have no support because they are either too trans or not trans enough depending which 'side' you're on.

I'm not blinkered to either side of the debate, I see it on both sides, and my views align with that.

Oh yes, you truly are the voice of reason. Of course.

Oh yes, you truly are the voice of reason. Of course.

Thank you

And what if its a group that discussed pre natal care, hrt periods etc just not with those who are male?

But your alignment to both sides boils down to "women, bear the discomfort or do without.... and definitely don't speak about it"

Periods pcos pregnancy medication breastfeeding etc is all related/relevant. A group would be useless if narrowed to one aspect for many people i mean how is that a solution. Why be so afraid to just say no to males that you exclude so many women

But your alignment to both sides boils down to "women, bear the discomfort or do without.... and definitely don't speak about it"

👏👏👏

But your alignment to both sides boils down to "women, bear the discomfort or do without.... and definitely don't speak about it"

Always. This is the most regressive, least inclusive civil rights movement in history, IMO. It is completely founded on misogyny. But as long as its followers can lie to themselves about how wonderfully open minded and not sexist they are, it's fine.

But your alignment to both sides boils down to "women, bear the discomfort or do without.... and definitely don't speak about it"

It doesn't at all. I would like all groups to use more neutral language.

And what if its a group that discussed pre natal care, hrt periods etc just not with those who are male?

Its up to the individuals who make these groups to set the rules they are comfortable with. People can decide to join , or not, based on that.

But thats the trouble isn't it, I mean how many women sign up to group about menstrual cups or breastfeeding and scour the list of members whilst checking out their face book pages to ensure there are no males.

Especially if a group considers identity to be the same as sex and ergo doesn't consider any males present to actually be males.

So either women have to hope for the best

Hope they don't get kicked out fir objecting to a male member joining the discussion

Put up with said males whilst trying to remember to use "correct language " to not upset said males

Not join the groups at all

Or upload footage of them peeing on a stick as an entry requirement as proof i mean without a scan til 12 weeks amd a pandemic meaning no ones being seen unless its an emergency,and not expanding outside a narrow set of criteria so the administration of the group gets out of making any decision ...

Its not particularly good for women here is it...

But language round these things shouldn't be neutral because a central part of why health care provision for a variety of conditions - vaginismus, endometriosis, prolapse, reproductive health in general - is because they happen to women.

Women, women, women, women.

It's not a swear word.

You won't spontaneously combust if you say it.

And it matters deeply because this is happening at the intersection of healthcare, sexism, politics, economics, women's rights.

If you can't say "women" you can't connect the dots. You're left with a random collection of health care issues of no more political significance than the overlap of verruca sufferers and tonsil stone sufferers.

It isn't just about women though. Trans women who still have their penis should be allowed to comfortably discuss issues relevant to them as well.

Personally I don't see the big deal to say 'they' instead of he or she, or to say 'everyone' instead of ladies or gentlemen, or to do away with Mr, Ms, Mrs etc. In fact, I think more neutral language would be beneficial a lot of the time.

Anyone can set up a group and decide the rules for that group, they aren't held at gunpoint and forced to join in if they don't feel comfortable.

Yanbu. I've felt the same about joining lesbian and women only communities. I dont like it and wont be part of it.

Of course they should. In a discussion group for transwomen where I would be excluded and rightly so, or in a fashion/skincare/art/ book group where jts not really relevant what sex you are when discussing.

They have no need for a pregnancy/period/ endo/ vaginismus group

But trans men do.

Its not really transmen behind all this though is it. Thats already been discussed.

Most the transmen were still at school when this all first started. The shift is very recent.

Why is saying 'everyone' crass and devisive?

Why are you quoting one word from what I wrote? I said the message was crass and divisive. Maybe go back and read the whole message and tell me why you think it isn't.

Its not really transmen behind all this though is it. Thats already been discussed.

Most the transmen were still at school when this all first started. The shift is very recent.

Just because you discussed it and decided it was true because it fits your narrative, it doesn't make it a fact.

Those trans men that you're so dismissive of are now in their 20s and 30s.

I said the message was crass and divisive

The message of using terms that include transmen as well as women is crass and devisive, but using a term that excludes transmen isn't devisive at all? Maybe you could explain to me why you think that a term that includes a set of people who have this issue, and doesn't disclude anyone else is devisive.