AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?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

If a word is being used as a personal attack, that is the personal attack and not the word. If someone is offended by a commonly used medical term being used correctly and accurately, that is not derogatory as flickersy attempted to portray it.

The word ‘castration’ is not a derogatory word as flickersy posted. That is their view and is not reflected in medical language today.

My father’s usage of the term for his medical treatment as I told flickersy was not ‘derogatory’. You say you wouldn’t use the word for a male cancer patient, what words would you use if you were talking about your male relative’s operation to someone and you needed to be accurate but using generally understood language? What words would you use to your male relative?

What other medical language do you change around in the same way?

I have been to Malaga airport. Why is it controversial???

And yet this thread where we speak of this and the importance of language isn't being deleted. And we are having a very clear rational conversation about why it is important we use blunt to the point language instead of euphemisms.

This shows where the public debate is heading next - kids being given sex education need to be taught in medical terms that can easily be understood in terms of the implications and that euphemisms are dangerous because they can disguise the procedural nature of transition and give misleading information to a vulnerable group. We are already having conversations about plain English and women's health and how language barriers prevent good practice. The average reading age in the UK is nine years old. That's the average. And this applies even more to children. Especially since gender woo starts being taught at age nine. There will be numerous kids in those classes with a English level of not much more than a five year old. But no one is considering this at present. This is way beyond their understanding.

That means the language used in public discourse must be at this level - not word salad and euphemisms favoured by university educated ignoramuses - which we also know is used to deliberately shut people out of conversations.

Here's the thing. If this ideology is harmless, what is the problem with using blunt language to describe what's happening? If it really is the case that it is the only solution then we need to be honest about what involved. Otherwise all we do is disempower people to make informed choices. If talking about this subject in a blunt way puts them off surgery and hormones, then were they getting the right information in the first place? Was over sanitation harmful.

You can not get away from this paradox. Words CAN do harm, however we also understand that physical harms need to be prevented too and must take priority in terms of medicalisation. It doesn't protect mental health to allow physical harm because we've used a bunch of euphemisms rather than clearly inform. Indeed unnecessary physical harms is a one way ticket to mental health problems.

We still have not unpicked the issue that research isn't showing that transitioning improves either quality of life or mental health. Indeed the evidence is at a stage where there is no evidence of mental health benefit and plenty of evidence of physical harm from an astronomical level of side effects and complications.

And this is where I say that deletions of this just produce more push back and better articulation and better caveted posts and arguments about why euphemisms are abhorrent. That are harder and harder for the evangelists to argue with and for MN to reasonably delete.

The actual comment deleted was mine, and I had stated that a baby who is being breastfed uses up energy in that activity. However when the nutrition output of the 'milk' is less than the calories the baby expends on the activity, the baby will be less able to thrive.

As noted earlier, someone having their penis/testes removed because of cancer is a wholly different scenario than someone having them removed for cosmetic reasons or for other motivations such as identifying as a eunuch.

Here's the thing. If this ideology is harmless, what is the problem with using blunt language to describe what's happening? If it really is the case that it is the only solution then we need to be honest about what involved.

This.

When clarity of language is a threat to an ideology, then enforcing befuddlement of language becomes a political act, and an act of bias.

The first time that Posie Parker was arrested, after all the threats and pressure she was subjected to, it turned out that the main problem was her use of the word castration.

Yes, it's quite stark when you think about that.

I'm curious why the thread asking how to communicate with a local authority about inclusive policies was deleted. On what basis?!

The deleted thread says the OP broke talk guidelines. Anyone know why?

Sorry, been using it elsewhere and now realise that it's not been an MN thing. It relates to the 3 letter airport code.

I have been to Malaga airport. Why is it controversial???

https://www.world-airport-codes.com/

Cross posted

You say you wouldn’t use the word for a male cancer patient, what words would you use if you were talking about your male relative’s operation to someone and you needed to be accurate but using generally understood language? What words would you use to your male relative?

As per my previous comment, I would firstly wait to see what word my relative chose to use. If my hypothetical relative didn't think the word castration felt derogatory towards themselves then I would happily use it too when talking about him or with him on the subject. Yes, it's the accurate medical term but some men in this particular context may struggle emotionally with this word, because of all the different associations with it e.g. pity for the Castrati, sadness for Alan Turing and so on. Some people even find it amusing to laugh at eunuchs.

It's a powerful word. And as I've said consistently here, it's also an important word to use within the context of gender identity discussions.

Fuck!! Malaga airport eh! Thank you for the heads up.

Exactly.

The joys of not being able to speak freely, you forget what coded language you use in different places.

Is there any other medical term you do this with?

For instance, we know women have been forced to have hysterectomies or to have tubal ligation by states. Do you find alternative words for those operations? Or is it simply because of the long extended history (due to the external nature of castration) that has meant that you view the word has having a negative effect?

And is derogatory the word you mean to use? I understand it is a very emotive word, but is it insulting and disrespectful?

Agreed, and IIRC Helen Joyce made a similar point in her interview with Dawkins - because the entire movement is anti-reality, it has to be linguistic.

I've done my best to be as clear as I can be. I accept that I've failed.

I can offer no more clarity on the specific context in which I would be careful with the specific word "castration", nor can I emphasise any more clearly that I always use the word castration when I'm talking about gender identity.

As for other medical terms, I always use the most widely understood medical terms (castration rather than orchidectomy in this instance) when talking about gender identity.

As a recent finder of this corner of MN who is not at all academic I do find it very confusing when posters are having to use long winded language, or acronym etc. That example of Malaga airport, although it turns out it’s from another site, is a very good example of how you have to know the lingo to follow discussion.

Being able to use actual biological reality, medical terminology, names of recognised psychological and sexual issues ( I can’t think of the word I mean there and hope issues won’t be taken as derogatory) would really help those like me who are late to the subject, find it hard to follow discussion which is having to be mangled to get past censor, and then are worried about deletion if we try to ask what should be straightforward questions for clarification. But I guess that’s why posts are reported so quickly.

It also leads to confusion for me as to which side a few posters are coming from, they are so careful what they write I lose their point.

Being able to use actual biological reality, medical terminology, names of recognised psychological and sexual issues ( I can’t think of the word I mean there and hope issues won’t be taken as derogatory) would really help those like me who are late to the subject, find it hard to follow discussion which is having to be mangled to get past censor, and then are worried about deletion if we try to ask what should be straightforward questions for clarification. But I guess that’s why posts are reported so quickly.

Yes, and yes it is.

Ok

Thanks for trying to explain in more depth. I think maybe the issue is that you might be thinking it should be used sensitively because of the strong emotional response to the loss of testes, and some of that through force, rather than it being derogatory. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I am trying to understand if you and flickersy actually agree.

If the same logic was applied as flickersy wants to apply, then some female reproductive procedures would be treated the same way since they too have been misused in the past. If you see what I mean.

Either way, thank you.

Wouldn't the use of 'elective' and 'forced' distinguish between the two?

“It also leads to confusion for me as to which side a few posters are coming from, they are so careful what they write I lose their point.”

Sometimes that is not a bad thing. If it means that you start thinking about it impartially and you come to a conclusion, isn’t that a stronger basis for your conclusion. I think many of us read all the links that get posted so we keep evaluating our position. I understand though if you are new you probably want clarity… and that takes time unfortunately.

Absolutely Hellofabore, I have come into this from a neutral starting point, as most people do, and been very careful to read as much as I can and not just follow the majority view on the forum but to make my own decisions.

It can be frustrating to read often long posts which the poster has obviously put time and thought into and come to the end unclear as to what they were saying, due to them being unable to write straightforward “this is what I think” posts because of the rules. As I said I am not academic, and easily get lost trying to follow the thread of a post. That’s my problem not everybody’s but I suspect I’m not alone.