Whatnow? Pregnant "persons"

[Nellooo]

Erm... Help. Please discuss as I'm too flabbergasted to type.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/03/there-so-much-fear-moment-meet-midwife-who-wants-change-how-we-give-birth

Even if it were the transman themselves who was asking? Even if you were a medic and saying 'vagina' might discourage them from seeking medical care?

I'm not a medic. I'd consider leaving if I had to do that.

Yes. I'm not going to use misogynistic language like that for anyone. Sorry.

If I was a medic and I was saying "front hole", I'd be talking about a woman's urethra. I'm not a medic, but I'm sure there are ways of talking about trans men's genitals that aren't so pornified and demeaning. It's not going to make them feel any better about having an organ they feel is wrong, is it? How is it helping? Genuinely, how could that possibly lessen dysphoria, to reduce the female sex organ to just a hole? I wonder to what extent it's conflating dysphoria or dysmorphia with extreme internalised misogyny.

Not rehashing old & misinterpreted anecdotes?

Venus in scorpio - suppose you were an oncologist treating a patient with cervical cancer who was in absolute denial of their female biology. Would you choose to have a (important etc...) conversation about gender theory, or would you just want to get on with treating the bloody cancer?

Dear trans allies, if you think this erasure is not a thing, take a look at well known liberal feminist Laurie Penny's tweet which I copied and pasted the text of below. She got plenty of suggestions to her request, most of them critical.

I'm not a doctor. So It's not going to arise. But I wouldn't be calling anything a front hole. Why is this so hard to understand?

Well, you were the one who brought up the "goady and intentionally dimwitted misrepresentation" of the pamphlet about front holes, pleaseget - I am not sure how I am supposed to conclude from you raising it that actually you don't want to talk about it

PoochSmooch,

It was a pamphlet about safer sex for trans people. Rad fems presented it both here and on twitter as though the medica/trans lobby had been trying to impose 'front hole' on all women rather than proposing it be used for the small subset of biological females who (rightly or wrongly) do not identify as women.

Yes, that's goady. And it's very similar to the case here where a proposal for how to deal with pregnant transmen is being presented as something imposed on all women.

Put it this way - I imagine the NHS has guidance on how to deal with Jehovah's witnesses. I also imagine that guidance doesn't say 'tell the fuckers to snap out of it, they're fucking mental'. Doesn't mean the NHS is going to start telling people to avoid blood transfusions any time soon, just as there's bugger all chance that any medic will use 'front hole' with me.

The guidance that asks professionals to call those who are pregnant "people" instead of "women" IS being imposed for blanket use - this is evidenced in the issue the arose over Prof. Page and her lecture slides.

Nelllooo

One daft person in one facebook group said something silly to Professor Page. If that's 'being imposed for general use' then I'm a canary

Some of these topics are becoming the trans version of 'Christmas will be banned in schools soon because of Muslims you know'.

Quite. It's all very Daily Mail.

I'm perfectly willing to except that certain words that transactivists would like us to use, are not going to slip unnoticed into the general lexicon.

Nonetheless, when these things are suggested, they need to be questioned. Dissemination of this sort of crackpot idea is the way to do that.

Censorship and no platforming of anyone daring to speak is becoming rife.

The woman in this link is representing a university who have banned three national newspapers - for the students studying journalism. It's brainwashing.

There is a correlation between an agenda to change language with an effort to shutdown discussion of that agenda.

mobile.twitter.com/daily_politics/status/842402344549593088

It's not the hill that I want to die on, so I'm not really motivated to engage further, but FWIW I am neither a rad fem or a Daily Mail reader and I'm genuinely intrigued and quite amused as to how my comments could be read as an endorsement of two entirely antithetical schools of thought.

It's the standard Daily Mail trick:

1. Here is a badly worded pamphlet/unfortunate turn of phrase/example of pillocky behaviour from member of group X

2. This is proof! of a Big Problem with group X who are a Threat to all We Hold Dear

3. Something must be done.

Pleasejustgetdressed

I'm not disagreeing with you that it is sensationalist and headline grabbing.

I do disagree with you that it it should be disregarded on that basis.

There is a tidal wave of objection from the trans community to women talking about their own biology as it is exclusionary. Even if this was propaganda, it would be worrying, but some of the comments I see are utterley sincere and genuine in their unshakeable belief that it is wrong.

Just pondering. If a vagina is supposed to be called a front hole, what is a woman supposed to all her urethra? Perhaps an "even fronter than front hole hole" ? I think we should be told.

Well exactly cat. Whoever came up with front hole, has a woeful ignorance about female biology.

Could be somebody who urinates from the same hole that they ejaculate by any chance?

But it's not Daily Mail. It was a real document from the BMA.

A real document that was aimed at staff dealing with transmen, not all women, which makes all the 'they are writing women out, this is misogynistic' stuff a huge over reaction.

Actually, this is what is said

A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘expectant mothers’.

There is no indication that this is what is supposed to be said only to intersex or FtMs F-2-F. It is very general advice and gives the impression it should be used generally, for example in policy, advice pamphlets or even to pregnant women (like 99.999999999999999% of those who get pregnant). In fact, the document says

"This guidance should be applied to all forms of communication, including conversations, committee papers, documents, letters, emails and the website. Anything that we produce reflects the association and it is vital that all our communications are free from discriminatory language, or what could be interpreted as discriminatory language. Using our values and behaviours as the foundation, inclusive language does not discriminate against
anyone on the basis of any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010"

Thus, it is general advice.

These are screen shots from the BMA document (www.medischcontact.nl/web/file?uuid=11b96e2a-c0fb-476e-9c56-d463fbab7b3c&owner=1e836119-cfd1-4e33-a731-da3efbb2a701&contentid=65417&elementid=1912567)

It is clear a pretty straightforward blanket recommendation. "Instead of: expectant mothers" "use: pregnant people" (p 12).

Cross post Spartacus!