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?

don't fully support every area of the trans debate, and have spoken out and made steps to change parts of it as well.

Why the sneering at women here who don't accept any part of trans ideology then?

Individuals who may well discover they have suffered similar fates due to ethnicity or location or whatever.

A trans man suffering from the condition would still be in the same area if there was any such revelation about services or whatever and would be able to contribute to the discussion.

Why the sneering at women here who don't accept any part of trans ideology then?

I certainly haven't sneered at women. I have said that trans people need a place to go to discuss issues and that op has no right to try and change the inclusively of an already established group.

Not of everyone's dancing around language. Its exhausting. It makes conversations really hard to follow and what should ne a few simple lines ends up in a confusing essay where by the time you have finished trying to figure out what to say without using banned words/language you completely miss what you or anyone are trying to say

I mainly use neutral language in real life, nothing confusing, everyone understands, I've never had any problems at all.

Are you sure?

I mean this thread alone highlights just how hard it is to know what the hell anyones talking about when words lose their actual meanings.

Not of everyone's dancing around language. Its exhausting. It makes conversations really hard to follow and what should ne a few simple lines ends up in a confusing essay where by the time you have finished trying to figure out what to say without using banned words/language you completely miss what you or anyone are trying to say

Exactly. Let's all make up our own definitions for words! Excellent for communicating.

Take the bbc articles about period poverty or endometriosis

1 in ten people suffer from it?.is that one in 5 women did they ask men?

Is it one in 10 women and therefore 1 in 20 people?

I mean you have no idea by the end of it

That is an excellent example. I've seen orgs tweet the wrong figures because they're more concerned about using "inclusive" language.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English_Campaign#:~:text=The%20Plain%20English%20Campaign%20(PEC,the%20public%20in%20plain%20language.

Not sure if that link will work, but there was a campaign a few years ago called the 'plain English' campaign seeking to do away with jargon and confusing language.

"In 1990, PEC created the Crystal Mark, its seal of approval. This is a symbol printed on documents that it considers to be as clear as possible for the intended audience. The symbol appears on over 20,000 documents worldwide. .....
PEC has worked all over the world for companies and organisations including British Gas,[4] British Telecom,[5] Irish Life,[6] Telefónica O2[7] and the World Bowls association.[8] It has also worked with the majority of UK council and government departments. Many UK forms and bills carry the Crystal Mark, including the British passport application form".

They would have great difficulty in the present times wouldn't they? When you cant label a spade a frigging spade. Instead, let's tie ourselves in ever tightening knots trying to describe what actually only needs TWO words.

Most people do use 'inclusive' language naturally in real life. The difficulty comes when more precise language is required but tabooed by well meaning? but misguided people.
It's also interesting that you have appealed to have drawn your own line in the sand about what tra demands are acceptable and what are not.
I think you'll find by doing this you are not considered a trans ally but an enemy.
I doubt even the few people advocating for inclusion on this thread could agree where the line is.
How about you all thrash it out? As soon as you all agree you could get back to us.

I assume it could still affect those who are transitioning F to M. Being a bit more inclusive wouldn’t bother me personally and would no doubt mean a great deal to those people.

Being a bit more inclusive

You mean "inclusive of people who subscribe to gender identity ideology". Not "inclusive" for women wishing to discuss their distressing female only medical condition in a supportive environment.

Is this inclusive language OK?

1 in ten people suffer from it?.is that one in 5 women did they ask men?

One in 10 people who have periods.

That would disclude transwomen, those who are over 60, under 10, those who have had full hystorectomies etc.

Its quite clear who the demographic who would suffer from period poverty are.

It's also interesting that you have appealed to have drawn your own line in the sand about what tra demands are acceptable and what are not.

I have a lot to do with transgender people, I am very comfortable with my views and that I am not any type of 'enemy' any more than transgender individuals who don't align themselves with the extreme views of the TRAs are at least.

Not "inclusive" for women wishing to discuss their distressing female only medical condition in a supportive environment.

Why would it not be supportive if transitioning female to men are there?
They'd have just as much right to be there and would be biologically female, just like you - it's not a bad thing to include them too.

Quaggars obviously trans women would have to be allowed to join too, to be inclusive. Does that still make no difference?

Well no its not clear thats the point.

1 in 10 people could mean 1 in 10 women and 1 in 20 people or one in 5 women.

Talking about "people with periods" is madness.

If a girl hasn't started their period by 16 she needs to see a dr. Not be left to assume she's just one of the people who doesn't have periods.

Facts matter

1 in 10 people could mean 1 in 10 women and 1 in 20 people or one in 5 women.

Did they ask people within a specific age range, did they ask people who have had a hysterectomy, did they ask people who don't have periods due to the coil....

I don't know who they asked, but I would assume they had certain criteria and that would be explained in the study somewhere.

1 in 10 people who have periods is very different to 1 in 10 people from the ages of 10 to 80 (for example).

It doesn't just have to be about transgender people.

And yet 100% of people who have periods are women, were always women and will always be women.
Not 100% of women have periods for whatever reason. Still women.

And those people would be ?????

Some women don't want to discuss problems with their vaginas with men.
And that should be fine.

@TheBuffster

Some women don't want to discuss problems with their vaginas with men. And that should be fine.

Trans men are biologically female though. If a group is wanting to use inclusive language such as "everyone" instead of men and women, that's their choice if they want to be inclusive for both. I assume that'll be why the group asked "would you use men, women or everyone" - not because of trans women (ie male to female). Because they want to be inclusive of both women and trans men. Who could quite easily have the same problems and have just as much right to be there. Saying everyone would include them, and say me if I was there. Except none of us on here will know will we seeing as OP went off with a straight out "nope" without asking why

How do you feel about the "inclusive " language above quaggers

Do you think its ok to refer to black women who are 5 times more likely to die in chikd birth like that? Is it ok to deny their reality so no ones offended...

Imagine if I was born male and transitioned to be a woman (that'd be fine of course) then went on to develop prostate cancer and joined a support group and insisted that nobody uses the words 'guys' or 'men', do you think I'd be welcomed with open arms?
There are literally adverts all over the television saying X% of all MEN experience erectile dysfunction. Expecting women to bend to the will of others and think about others at all times is a thoroughly toxis expectation.