‘Bonus hole’

[bblackmirror]

So I can’t believe this is real but it seems to be.
What do we make of Jo’s cervical trust a cancer charity who has an LGBT inclusive language page on their website suggesting another word for a vagina is a bonus
hole!!

Absolutely awful.

Transmen have a cervix

Was this written by a group of giggling schoolchildren? It’s just embarrassing and cringeworthy - very puerile.

Either way, it will now be a term of distain… as in ‘and you can shove it up your bonus hole…’.

For some reason I thought about this last night, and the tweet I have seen several times which says "A girl without a penis is like an angel without wings."

I'm not sure if the two are opposite (one celebrating, the other erasing) or the same (both celebrating).

Call me dim, but I'm not sure I understand what they mean by that?

I doubt it was intended to mean anything coherent, it just sounded nice. Pretty batshit, there's a lot of it about.

A few weeks ago a group of TRA protestors stood outside of a women's meeting with signs saying 'a day without a trans person is a day without sunshine'.

Needless to say, both women and sun were doing just fine by themselves.

It's foul, and I hate the sound of it.... but just putting aside my outrage for a moment and looking at the site... the context is rather shamefully misrepresented here... the glossary is not given as a suggested use list but rather as a list of terms that medical professionals might hear from the LGBTQIA+ community. It's still foul BUT it's more an indictment on how mysognistic the group are that USE these terms than the site providing a glossary to healthcare professionals to hear and understand the way their patients communicate.

A few weeks ago a group of TRA protestors stood outside of a women's meeting with signs saying 'a day without a trans person is a day without sunshine'.

A slogan they stole, like everything they do, from an iconic lesbian banner.

they can FTFO

The world in this ideological view, breaks everything down into two categories:

• Useful to the cause - in which case the ideology owns it now and will re write history as necessary

• Not useful to the cause - bin it. It shouldn't exist. Tear it up, destroy it, deny it.

I suspect if you suggested that there should be a glossary of other words that these professionals may hear from the general public - and presumably indulge the use of to facilitate conversation and acceptance? Those pushing for this enablement would have a melt down of epic proportions.

Terms of racial abuse?
Terms of factual biological reality?
Explicit rejection of imposed reality?

Argh, call the police!

I hear what you say, but the point to me is that NO ONE should be listening to or enabling anyone in this appalling batshit, never mind making nice little glossaries of it. People should be hearing 'no, absolutely NOT'. And let's face it, the staff being told to educate themselves on this are also the staff being encouraged to refuse service/threaten action if a woman dares to use the wrong pronouns: they are being trained to police other people's language hard in ways that are very OTT, so there is no excuse whatsoever for this.

Aye... valid. The term is offensive that much is clear... I just automatically because suspicious of class war stirring when I see that a particular article has ONLY been picked up by Fox News and the Daily Mail.... hardly bastions of fair and balanced reporting lol.

Neither are the Guardian or the BBC though.

There's simply leftist/rightist bias, which is more or less acceptable depending on your personal prejudices, but increasingly more extreme, selective and untruthful on the left biased ones. I'm not sure we now have an actually impartial, reliable and unpolitically biased source of reporting.

There's been posters who've said 'oh, I didn't know about that - I didn't read about it in the Guardian'.

Well...yeah. That, their treatment of their own journalists and their own version of the 'truth' (WiSpa incident for example) means that they are hardly a bastion of anything good.

Yes, I would love mainstream liberal media to report this stuff. But they won't, so here we are. If newspapers like the Guardian and NYT had done their job properly and impartially from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.

The Times is reporting it today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/30036f86-1e9b-11ee-97d4-77262736e260?shareToken=bb4c48f6dc34b53b0d983225f76f6434

Thanks for linking to this article. Jo’s Trust’s response is the usual one: we’re using “inclusive “ language to avoid triggering women who can’t deal with the real biological terms.

How many women are there in the UK who “identify as men” - whatever that means - and who are distressed by the word “vagina”, compared with the number of women in the UK who don’t flinch / claim to be offended or triggered when their body parts are mentioned in a medical context using the normal biological terminology? Rhetorical question but why didn’t Jo’s Trust consider this when choosing such a revolting, alienating word for “vagina”?

Apparently (or so I've been informed), normalisation of porn terms in a medical setting is one of the key ways to reach rapprochement between tras and women and resisting it is like thinking Christmas is now called winterval.

No, or that we ever really have had such. The only solution is to read widely and try to get as many different angles as possible.

Reuters is often held up as a good example of non-biased reporting, but they are not immune to ideological slant.

I can believe it. It's about normalising quite fantastic extents of misogyny, degrading of women, and that it is appropriate to abuse, insult and marginalise women in the interests of male people who choose trans identities.

Good women (pliant, gullible, support human embracing women) are supposed to embrace this.

It makes it very necessary to reject and label this behaviour every time it is seen and not let the weaselly little verbal figleaves stand that are trying to sneak it in as something that is ever going to ok instead of really quite wonderfullly disturbed and awful.

Patients use all sorts of euphemistic and silly terms for their genitals, including foofoo, fanjo, minnie, fairy, etc.
As a doctor, (now retired) I never resorted to using such terms during a consultation. They are entitled to call it what they like, but I am entitled to use the correct medical term. Which is vagina - whether the patient likes it or not.
This ridiculous “glossary” is quite unnecessary. Doctors are well versed in deciphering patients’ gobbledygook.

Also ironic that some trans people are so easily offended yet if women complain about being offended or erased we’re instantly labeled transphobic or a TERF.