AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?

[TinselAngel]

Post Forstater and in the current climate where the assault on women's rights is being discussed everywhere, AIBU to say the special FWR guidelines are no longer necessary?

MN no longer needs special rules to appease the activists who monitor the site, in order to maintain its ability to host the debate, when it is no longer the only site where the topic can be discussed.

I posted the something on the Trans Widows Escape Committee thread a couple of days ago, and it was deleted, it was my first ever deletion on that thread in 6 years. As an experiment I posted the same thing on Twitter and nobody batted an eyelid there.

Is it time we women of FWR, and in particular trans widows, were allowed to speak freely?

This has been my experience too.

My deletion was partly for saying that trans widows exes having been castrated is likely to have an effect on their personality.

It's on everyone to make sure that debate is respectful.

I don't see why trans widows should have to be respectful about our exes

Really? That is absurd.

How else is one supposed to describe the removal of male genitalia?

YANBU - we should be able to state facts and use correct sex pronouns.

Women have to be kind to the men who abuse them, Tinsel. We should know that by know.

The worst thing about male violence is it makes men look bad.

MN don't allow generalisations or stuff that could be construed as libel.

So for example, insinuating (or outright saying) that the breastfeeding man was a paedo is probably going to get a deletion, and the same for saying all TW are fetishists.

Threads targeting a specific individual (if the thread gets nasty) rather than being a wider discussion of sex and gender issues are also likely to get the hammer.

I think the test is "is this civil and constructive debate". If you're using derogatory words (and yes, castration in certain contexts is derogatory) then that's probably not going to be allowed.

How is castration derogatory?

The medical term is orchiectomy (not sure I've spelt that right).

Because it is a term that applies to animals (and historically slaves). It is not an appropriate term to use for a human being undergoing surgery.

When discussing plain facts in precise language is considered degrading it says more about the act than the words used to describe it.

It is a term which accurately describes what is done, which most people will understand. Most people don’t know what an orchiectomy is.

Euphemistic language is being used to hide atrocity. See also “top surgery” as opposed to “radical elective double mastectomy”.

When did this happen? It's always been a neutral, factual and descriptive term. Google shows various sources and definitions that confirm this.

And perhaps if we're trying to talk so that everyone understands each other, better to use the common term, rather than one that nobody knows or can spell.

Since when do we hide away from correct medical language on this board? Orchiectomy isn't euphemistic. Bottom surgery yes, not orchiectomy.

Castration does carry certain negative weighting in our language, and when used in some contexts it absolutely can be derogatory even if it is technically correct.

So you'd say to someone undergoing surgery for testicular cancer that they're being castrated? I'd hope not.

Castration implies something is being done against someone's will, that it's emasculating them. The same way we don't use neutered to describe people, just animals.

But that is what the NHS calls it.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/ezn-4176-in-castration-resistant-prostate-cancer/

Because it is a term that applies to animals (and historically slaves). It is not an appropriate term to use for a human being undergoing surgery.
Oh right so as with everything else we're now colonialists for using plain language.

I'm actually quite shocked at this, although I do note it is from over a decade ago.

I can't imagine anyone would think it polite or helpful to talk to a man undergoing treatment for cancer in the terms of castration.

Don't be so daft, that's not what I said and you know it.

If you think that's shocking, wait til you hear about Eunuch gender.

that it's emasculating them.
Well that is somewhat the point in this context.

Personally I find it shocking that the NHS is still using WPATH standards to refer to, when those suggest children should be able to have their genitals removed if they identify as certain genders.

Do let me know if there's a nicer way to phrase that.

Not what I meant at all. Respectful of the fact that others hold different views and approach things different ways.

Perhaps I didn't express that clearly enough. If that's the case, I hope the clarification above helps.

Castration implies something is being done against someone's will, that it's emasculating them.

The entire point of "gender-affirming surgery" on males is to emasculate them. They are being castrated. Jazz Jennings has been castrated. TRAs do not want this term used, because they do not want to world to wake up to what is being done to young people.