Vaginismus support groups works for "people" with the condition

[stumbledin]

Vaginismus is a condition that is generally thought to affect every 2 in 1,000 people. However, it's hard to know for sure because many people are too ashamed or scared to seek treatment, or are misdiagnosed when they do.

www.thevaginismusnetwork.com/what-is-vaginismus

I went to have a look at what the group was doing after reading an article, expecting it to be about women supporting each other!

This was the article www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/aug/31/pain-vaginismus-destroys-lives-misunderstood-common-conditions-surgery-treatment

As far as I know (and I should know quite a lot about this, having suffered from vaginismus as a young woman), it's caused by involuntary muscle spasms in the muscular walls of the vagina - which only happens with vaginas of the sort women are born with, not with surgically created approximations thereof, which lack the surrounding musculature.

So, 4 in every 1000 women?

'Vaginismus is a condition that is generally thought to affect every 2 in 1,000 people. '

Do 1 on every thousand women and 1 in every thousand men?

...

It can be caused as a reaction to sex/ sexual assault.

Urgh... the page on smear tests has 'vagina owners' which I'd honestly hoped was a piece of hyperbolic parody when I've seen it in these threads.

Unless women with this condition find it helpful to feel like their vagina is a mere accessory?

Unless women with this condition find it helpful to feel like their vagina is a mere accessory?

They might feel something like that, if they're not identifying as a woman.

As far as I know (and I should know quite a lot about this, having suffered from vaginismus as a young woman), it's caused by involuntary muscle spasms in the muscular walls of the vagina - which only happens with vaginas of the sort women are born with, not with surgically created approximations thereof, which lack the surrounding musculature

The kind of vaginas owned by transmen, who don't like to identify as women anymore. I see no problem with respecting their wishes to not be called women

Can we please respect the wishes of women to still be referred to as women too?

I identify as a woman who does not have vaginismus.

Nope, nothing's changed. My vag is still uncooperative.

OK, try again.

I identify as a person who does not have vaginismus.

Nope, still no change. My vag is still repelling even welcomed visitors.

Funny how biology doesn't do identity.

Woman and some trans men and non binary people is fine.

People is not. As pointed out in the thread. If 2 in 1000 people have it. Is that one woman in 1000 or 4???

I see no problem with respecting their wishes to not be called women

But yet it's a huge problem when women wish to be called women.

The kind of vaginas owned by transmen, who don't like to identify as women anymore. I see no problem with respecting their wishes to not be called women

But I have a huge problem with the utter lack of respect in reducing me as a woman to a disparate set of bodily parts, functions and medical conditions.

If they'd said "women and transmen" I'd have had no problem.

But "people with vaginismus" - they can fucking do one.

Vaginismus is a condition that is generally thought to affect every 2 in 1,000 people.

This is my main objection to this kind of language - it creates completely unnecessary ambiguity. Does that mean 4 in 1000 women have it? Or are they not actually counting men because it would be sort of mad to do so?

This example is annoying, but sometimes this stuff is actively dangerous. For example going out about 'birthing people' rather than 'women in labour' - 'birthing people' means nothing to most people, and is less likely to be comprehensible to women with low literacy or who have English as an additional language. Using terms they don't understand puts vulnerable women at risk.

Likewise advertising that says "People with a cervix need to remember to go for their smear" - fuck all use as a piece of public health outreach if you've got English as a second language, or you're one of the many people our education system failed and don't know the anatomical names for internal body parts.

Agreed - it's also likely to be more off-putting to you if you're from a background (e.g. from a conservative religious group) where female anatomy is seen as shameful. There are a lot of people who would avert their eyes or just not understand an advert or leaflet about 'vagina or cervix owners' who would read and understand it if it were about 'women'.

The real shame is that the women who are most likely to be affected by it are already disadvantaged and marginalised, so in order to avoid hurting the feelings of one oppressed group you end up actually risking the lives of other oppressed groups. Clear language matters in many contexts, but especially in medical ones.

If you are a trans woman you dont have a vagina. You may have had a surgical approximation but it isn't a vagina and any issues a trans vagina has will not and cannot be the same as a woman with vaginismus.

Even if only out of respect you cant conflate the 2 and for medical purposes or treatment they would not be the same.

Only biological women have vaginas.

Actually, that's a good point - I wonder if when they translate medical leaflets that talk about 'birthing people', 'vagina owners' or whatever into community languages they just translate it as 'women'? I hope that pragmatism kicks in and they do.

I want the right to be called a woman too and not to be reduced to my organs. Again, when I see help for men with ED aimed at 'people' I will be less inclined to see this as erasure of women. It won't happen of course.

Trans men unless they've had surgery will have vaginas also female non binary people.

If they said women, and some trans men and non binary people it would be inclusive and also women would know it was for them.

The pointers that this is nothing to do with inclusion and everything to do with erasing women:

Women/ girls mustn't be said at all, even with other groups. Even though that's the descriptor that everyone understands

These things must be changed to avoid upsetting a small number of trans people even if a lot of women and girls get upset as being called menstruators, ovulators, cervix havers etc

Men still get to be called men. Penis havers or testicle owners are not phrases that are cropping up

It's a sexist shit show with real life consequences

I just googled it and estimates vary a lot.

Which in itself shows that it's not getting enough attention (surprise surprise).

The one stat that does come up quite a lot is one in 500 women.

So it seems that they well mean one in 1000 people. Halving the actual prevalence of it in women, as only one sex can actually get it.

Wow.

Anyone feel like messaging them and asking what their 1 in 1000 means?

The inability to get a firm answer of prevalence due to that stat is awful.

Why would an org to support sufferers water down the numbers?

Or has a PR person with no maths just changed women to people, to be woke, and not realised the consequence?

These things must be changed to avoid upsetting a small number of trans people even if a lot of women and girls get upset as being called menstruators, ovulators, cervix havers etc

In this example none of those terms were used. Just people, we're all people

NiceGerbil, I agree. It would be useful to know actual facts, like prevalence, causes, what can be done about it.

The NHS page seems quite sensible:
www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaginismus/

Telling that the Guardian article - written by someone who has suffered from vaginismus - uses women throughout, as does everyone she's interviewed. Almost like people with actual lived experience of the condition get why it matters that it's understood as a specifically female condition.

Greysparkles what's your interpretation of the stat they quote?

If 1 in 100 men get prostate cancer (made up stat) is it ok to water that down by saying 1 in 200 people get prostate cancer?