Is this sign transphobic?

[Mrsfrumble]

I saw this today in south London. What about all the people who have prostates who aren’t men? Should I have vandalised this offensively exclusionary sign?

MargaritaPie is quite right. The sign isn’t transphobic because only women are transphobic. Unless a woman wrote the slogan. I mean, not women as in “anyone who feels like a woman”, which is obviously what woman means….

Oh sod it. I give up.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

Absolutely. It’s begging for a reminder that transwomen have prostates too.

I think the exact term is a gentle reminder

Or a "friendly" one

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Or a "friendly" one

I quoted a genuine Twitter "periodic reminder" upthread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4340634-Is-this-sign-transphobic?msgid=110534658

Everything is transphobic. Get with it.
I was told I was transphobic because I wouldn't choose to have sex with a transgender woman with a cock. Who knew?

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Women's health campaigns have changed their language in order to be 'inclusive', why not men's?

I’d be much happier with this…part of my issue is the pretence that its inclusive when its not

This has been my stance for a while now, Rufus, but I’m now thinking it’s too late.

If from the off companies and charities had stated that they wanted to be more inclusive so would be using terms like prostate havers, people with a cervix, testicle owners, menstruators etc I would have gone “ok, yeah, I get that.” But it’s been too long that it’s ONLY been women, anything relating to men has been left well alone whilst anything to do with women is “problematic” or “you need to educate yourself” or just “bigot!” I can’t buy it anymore. It’s just too late. It’s shown to be nothing to do with inclusion and everything to do with slagging off women.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Women's health campaigns have changed their language in order to be 'inclusive', why not men's?

I’d be much happier with this…part of my issue is the pretence that its inclusive when its not

Exactly rufus

A while back a lovely illustrator I like to follow posted about menstrual hygiene day, and how women and girls around the world in less fortunate environs don't have the same access to clean water etc, which affects menstrual hygiene and health. Her was jumped in almost immediately with "you need to change this to 'people who menstruate', not 'women and girls'". This illustrator suffers from immense debilitating anxiety, which these people know - so of course she was going to back down, apologise profusely, and immediately erase those vile words of "women" and "girls". It was very depressing to watch play out.

This point was countered by someone saying that the presence of a cervix is recorded at birth

It's bloody not! No-one does internal vaginal examinations on newborn baby girls to check whether they have cervices.

Anyone who says this kind of crap either thinks cervix is an alternative word for vulva (proving that not enough people know what a cervix is to use it as a term in health information) or is someone who should not be allowed near children.

I feel like I needed to return and clarify that I was not serious about vandalising the sign! At most I might have added a “friendly reminder” that not all men have prostates, and some women and NB folks do….

Although really I wouldn’t, because that would have muddied a message that needs to be as clear and concise as possible in order to have the maximum impact and actually benefit men’s health. I’m just angry and depressed that the same consideration has not been extended to women’s health, and our supposedly “targeted” information campaigns are now a tangled mess of “cervix havers” and “menstruators”.

Ps. My phone doesn’t recognise “menstruators” as a word. Get with it, Apple!

A while back a lovely illustrator I like to follow posted about menstrual hygiene day

I remember that! How anybody can be delighted with themselves for intimidating others in that manner should beggar belief but it doesn't because it's so routine.

My phone doesn’t recognise “menstruators” as a word. Get with it, Apple!

Stay strong, Apple

Well not all men have prostates and some women and NB people do have prostates so by that reasoning yes the sign is transphobic and literal violence. I hope you're happy with yourself now OP.

I feel like people are not getting the irony.

Yet the attack-dogs of gender ideology mostly have prostates, and they are being "misgendered" here. How does it work?

It's a good campaign because many men don't know what a prostate is, or that they have one (inc TW). Women need the same.

The two different trends in the erasure of sex scream sexism and misogyny and sex differences in entitlement and kindness. The male sex is almost untouched by the gender identity ideology, the female sex doesn't really exist anymore in pseudo-woke places.

It was this which made me first truly alarmed, as well as how often it was women's toilets which were turned gender-neutral ones.

The trans rights demands are cannibalised from traditional female rights.

The male sex is totally untouched. Look at this, this week on twitter.

twitter.com/becagrimm/status/1435221926050467841?s=19

Text for people with screen-readers:

Normalize men who date birthing people getting very reversible vasectomies, the same way we normalize birthing people who date men getting removable IUDs

If you have 'birthing people', why then 'men'? We can call them 'fertilisers'?

No. Of course not.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

The male sex is totally untouched. Look at this, this week on twitter.

twitter.com/becagrimm/status/1435221926050467841?s=19

Text for people with screen-readers:

Normalize men who date birthing people getting very reversible vasectomies, the same way we normalize birthing people who date men getting removable IUDs

If that was me, this is the kind of stuff that'd make me cringe hard once I saw it for what it was.

(I had cool-girl moments in my youth that obviously weren't exactly like this, but still cringe worthy. My mother must have rolled her eyes so so much...)

Just a thought

'Normalize men who date birthing people getting very reversible vasectomies, the same way we normalize birthing people who date men getting removable IUDs'

Are reversible vasectomies a thing generally? I looked at NHS on this the other day and they say unequivocally that vasectomy should be viewed as permanent. And I didn't see anything about reversible ones. I thought that was still early days?

How many males esp young are going to go for that? I'm guessing not many. Just a feeling.

We get coils pushed on us pretty heavily. And often if there are side effects that affect quality of life, a real fight to get them removed.
I was also surprised to find out they are now seen as a standard option for women who haven't had children because up through cervix. Now they are. How come? The level of pain involved etc has not changed.

So this comment as per usual totally ignores real life.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

The male sex is totally untouched. Look at this, this week on twitter.

twitter.com/becagrimm/status/1435221926050467841?s=19

Text for people with screen-readers:

Normalize men who date birthing people getting very reversible vasectomies, the same way we normalize birthing people who date men getting removable IUDs

Comments on this:

Helen Joyce: twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1436068965139296256

Jane Clare Jones: twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1436065492888870917?s=20
Related thread on the issues created by this contorted language that conceals those at the heart of the injustice: twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1436072234926415878

Saw this earlier and just sighed. I've been a supporter of Verity for many, many years. Part of the issue with PCOS can be lack of menstruation. I've gone 6 months before without a period so this wording being used seems particularly inappropriate.

@Waitwhat23

Saw this earlier and just sighed. I've been a supporter of Verity for many, many years. Part of the issue with PCOS can be lack of menstruation. I've gone 6 months before without a period so this wording being used seems particularly inappropriate.

Those who menstruate it's not inclusive, it introduces a level of (implied) specificity that would exclude many women.

The inconsistencies in this area never cease to irritate me. It's familiar that some transwomen and various advocates for inclusive language argue that penis=ladypeen depending on the context of the person because it is a workaround the dysphoria.

By extension whom does locutions such as "people who menstruate serve" - will T eventually find linguistic conventions set up for one group in conflict with those adopted for NB and similar non-gendered groups (non-binary, agender)?

Wait, shouldn't they be called cock-toters?