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?

JANICE TURNER HAS A PODCAST, Babdoc?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

JANICE TURNER HAS A PODCAST, Babdoc?

I don't know if it's the one in question but

www.listennotes.com/top-episodes/janice-turner/

I've started calling my DH "body with a penis" just to make a point

I agree, @veryconcernedparent.

I think it’s also important to highlight both the absurdity and the inconsistency of this whole trend. For example: the apparently “approved” phrase “bodies with vaginas” or “bodies with cervixes”, in order, it’s claimed, to be inclusive of trans men. But trans men are also agitating for terms like “chest feeding” - so it’s apparently not okay to say “bodies with breasts”. (Why not?) A trans man on Twitter was very offended by being called a “body with a cervix”. So it’s refer to biological women as body parts so as not to offend trans men; but don’t say those things about trans men, because they don’t like it. Transwomen don’t like being called “bodies with penises/prostates/scrotums” either; why isn’t sauce for the gander the same as sauce for the goose?

Women get retermed “persons” but transmen and transwomen don’t want to be called transpersons, because then their adopted gender isn’t made clear and that makes the whole thing pointless for them. Because feelings because offence because inclusive blah blah blah BUT we need to have the spotlight full on the idiocy and inconsistency and hypocrisy of all of this daft language use, so that it becomes something to satirise rather than something serious and revered.

@veryconcernedparent I think you also need to consider where you are posting.

Even with Those Who Monitor and the ludicrous monitoring of speech, this remains very much one safe space on the internet where women can discuss all things sex/gender that annoy them - and that's even having been shunted off onto the naughty step!

Why try to shut that down by adding yet more self policing to the ever growing list of terms we cannot use freely?

It's not going to happen. I don't want to forever deny myself the vitriol with which to spit abut whichever fuckwit it happens to be that has published yet another stupid 'people with a cervix' tome.

And look, this on the day that we suddenly see 'people with prostate cancer' - as if the powers that be (cancer charity) have listened and inexplicably refused to clarify and chosen to further obfuscate!

If there has ever been a political ideology whose overblown and pompous self-righteousness should be punctured with some sharp, barbed humour it is this one. I long for the day it gets its comeuppance on HIGNFY. Can't be long now.