Posters on this forum using phrases such as "bodies with vaginas" in a jokey way

[veryconcernedparent]

I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with people here referring to "bodies with vaginas", "menstruators", "cervix-havers" and similar in a jocular way, as I feel that it normalises this sort of language. The more we hear and see it, the more normal it becomes, and this is precisely what we want to avoid.

I'm talking about saying things like "This body with a vagina has had enough" or addressing others as "cervix-havers", for instance.

I fully appreciate that people are doing it to express their incredulity and anger at such language (which I absolutely share) and to highlight the ridiculousness of it. But I think we should avoid repeating it in this way. I think the same goes for routinely referring to "ejaculators" and "penis-owners" and similar.

What do others think?

Many of us have been in the trenches of this for some years (it's hard to get a sense of that as so many of us NC on a regular basis).

Some of us are so deeply angry that we do things like this to highlight the ridiculous and to retain some sense of equilibrium

Yes - some people who are new to the fray, don't understand the conversation, or who like to tone-police will find it problematic. Others might recognise their own coping strategies in times of stress.

I think it's a way for people to gently feel out whether others agree with them or not. I see it as a positive. Women are angry and they're signalling to others that they want to open the door to talking about that anger. I fully intend to use this language with my friends.

I disagree because the intention is entirely the opposite- it is to illustrate just how absurd this language is. Anyone in doubt or who is unaware of the assault on women's rights needs to read/hear this language, to hear just how batshit things have become. We need to show our disgust and anger at every available opportunity and this is one way to do it.

I think black humour and piss taking are essential, especially when you've been in the trenches for a few years.

Political satire is important in a functioning democracy. We can see what happens in countries where it's forbidden.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we got to a place where no-one was policing women’s speech? Do you think I’ll see that in my lifetime?

I think dark humour and sarcasm are perfectly acceptable in the face of such hostility and hatred.
There's a long history of dark humour being used by the political and social underclass. More power to its elbow.

@OvaHere

I think black humour and piss taking are essential, especially when you've been in the trenches for a few years.

Political satire is important in a functioning democracy. We can see what happens in countries where it's forbidden.

yep

I've started using 'bodies with penises' and 'women' to refer to the two sexes. Just to balance things up a bit.

My husband says he had a couple of conversations with old friends in the pub post lockdowns joking about whether they still all identified as men or not. It's signalling you think it's bollocks.

Yes, I agree with those who say pointing out the surreal absurdity and grotesqueness of this language is necessary, and I feel this generation is sorely lacking an adult comedy or satirical show that is prepared to tackle what's going on here, something like Monty Python or The Young Ones or Not the Nine o' Clock News or Viz in its heyday.

@IvyTwines2

Yes, I agree with those who say pointing out the surreal absurdity and grotesqueness of this language is necessary, and I feel this generation is sorely lacking an adult comedy or satirical show that is prepared to tackle what's going on here, something like Monty Python or The Young Ones or Not the Nine o' Clock News or Viz in its heyday.

Yes. Those kind of shows I think help develop critical thought processes.

‘I've started using 'bodies with penises' and 'women' to refer to the two sexes. Just to balance things up a bit.’

That is preferable I think.

I agree with you OP, but people cope with it in different ways.

It's irony. And irony is never wrong

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. This has been on my mind a fair bit recently and my intention was to open up a thoughtful debate. It was certainly not to police language and I'm sorry it came across to some in that way.

I supposed I'm coming at this from a professional angle: I'm a linguist and over the years have observed the normalisation of certain linguistic features (whether lexical or grammatical) through pure repetition of use. This is why in language pedagogy it is frowned upon to give learners sentences with mistakes to correct, as they are then just being exposed to incorrect forms, which makes it more rather than less likely that they will use them.

As I said in my OP, I get that it's to express anger and highlight the ridiculousness of it. I understand that it's irony and I totally agree with the need for satire and dark humour. I just think that this particular feature of it could end up being counter-productive.

Thank you again to all who have responded.

It's all rubbish and ridiculous, and a sign of the modern times we live in now. I just wonder who the people are, and who comes up with all these phrases that are so stupid and totally unnecessary. Bring back the times, when life was more simple and more pleasant.

I supposed I'm coming at this from a professional angle: I'm a linguist and over the years have observed the normalisation of certain linguistic features (whether lexical or grammatical) through pure repetition of use.

What is also important linguistically is context. You have seen these terms used on a feminist discussion board in an ironic sense. The posters are highlighting absurdity in a community of like minded people.

I don't think I have used those exact terms myself but I have used other jokey/ironic references to different elements of the debate. I would not use them anywhere other than on here. I would not make them common terminology by using them elsewhere. I wouldn't use them in a serious discussion of the issues with other women or men, and indeed don't. I have referred to the Lancet cover in discussion as starting point for explaining to others less aware of the trans debate, but only to explain why it is so offensive and then to widen out into other elements of concern.

If phrases such as 'bodies with vaginas' ever become common currency, it won't be because of MN. It will be down to elements of the media who have bought in to the most extreme ideology of the TRAs.

I've seen it a lot on here (have been lurking for a long time) and every single time it really does just sound absurd. I don't think it's normalising it at all.

Outside of this board I would only use these terms with people who I knew shared my views, as a kind of exasperated humour.

I started out absolutely enraged by the "bodies with vaginas" dehumanising language, but I realised it does something (doubtless unintended by its proponents) useful: it lays completely bare the grotesqueness of what is being demanded.

For example:

"Davey says that bodies with vaginas should not be permitted any spaces, even in prisons or hospitals, away from bodies with penises."

"Wadhwa says that bodies with vaginas that have been forcibly penetrated by bodies with penises should not be allowed to receive Crisis help unless they are cleansed of their unreasonably negative reactions to bodies with penises."

"Several councils have issued schools guidance that young bodies with vaginas should accommodate getting undressed with young bodies with penises, and if any young bodies with vaginas are uneasy with this they should be re-educated to welcome bodies with penises."

Outside this board, I do think there is something in what you say OP as the irony and sarcasm is lost on as frightening number of people. We do sadly need to spell out that pointing out that men aren’t called prostate haves or ejaculators doesn’t mean that we think they should be.

We do absolutely have to state our explicit objections to being called ‘bodies with vaginas’ though. To let people know and object.

It’s no good hoping it will go away. The gender extremist ideology has been benefitting from the give an inch and they’ll take a mile tactic for far too long.

@veryconcernedparent

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. This has been on my mind a fair bit recently and my intention was to open up a thoughtful debate. It was certainly not to police language and I'm sorry it came across to some in that way.

I supposed I'm coming at this from a professional angle: I'm a linguist and over the years have observed the normalisation of certain linguistic features (whether lexical or grammatical) through pure repetition of use. This is why in language pedagogy it is frowned upon to give learners sentences with mistakes to correct, as they are then just being exposed to incorrect forms, which makes it more rather than less likely that they will use them.

As I said in my OP, I get that it's to express anger and highlight the ridiculousness of it. I understand that it's irony and I totally agree with the need for satire and dark humour. I just think that this particular feature of it could end up being counter-productive.

Thank you again to all who have responded.

We're not language learners, we are people who use language carefully — not least because the TRA agenda is to obfuscate and confuse and our job for years has been to explain and expose.

I am absolutely fine with normalising terms like “trans bodies with prostates” and “bodies that ejaculate” although I don’t believe it will happen.

Janice Turner referred to her two colleagues (Matt Chorley and Hugo Rifkind) as “ejaculators” on their podcast, and you could hear the discomfort in their nervous laughter. I think we need to use this language to men more often - it’s the fastest way to help them “get it”, when discussing female erasure.

Yeah, but if I didn't laugh occasionally I would probably rip my own ovaries out

It's absolute rage. And that to not use it leaves us compliantly silenced.

By repeating it, owning and extending it to the obvious next step of bodies with penises, ejaculators, testate owners, it makes it very, very obvious how truly outrageous this is. And that only women are supposed to meekly accept it.

I've already seen the first tweet having a rant about a trans person being referred to as a body with a penis.

But if you're going to make it sauce for the goose then it's ruddy well going to be sauce for the gander.

This is exactly it- if it is NOT dehumanising to refer to women as “bodies with vaginas” if it is NOT triggering to refer to transmen as “people with cervices” if it IS inclusive and progressive it CANNOT be unacceptable to use terms like “bodies with testicles” “prostate havers” etc because it is merely extending the progressive inclusiveness.

It can’t just work one way. If it’s ok for some it’s ok for all. If it’s not ok for some it’s not ok for all.