Most affirming
Whitman-Walker Health posted on Facebook about its “Safer Sex for Trans Bodies” guide, the one that says women have front holes while trans women have vaginas. A woman commented to say it’s misogynistic to call vaginas front holes.
Whitman-Walker Health replied.
Whitman-Walker Health In developing the content of this guide, Whitman-Walker and HRC held focus groups and discussions with members of the transgender community and physicians to identify terms that were used within, and supportive of, the community. We aimed to make the language in the guide most affirming of all different bodies, transition, gender identity, and gender expression. We chose to use “front hole” in the place of “vagina” for that reason. Many trans men and non-binary individuals do not consider themselves “women,” so using the term front hole is not aimed at erasing womanhood, but providing vocabulary for the unique trans experience.
A dishonest reply. They didn’t use “front hole” in the place of “vagina” alone, they used use “front hole” in the place of “vagina” for women and “vagina” for trans women.
Mind you, it would still be misogynist if they had used “front hole” for both…but they didn’t.
The more I read about this the more confused I get. “Many trans men … do not consider themselves ‘women'”?
So, some trans men do consider themselves women? Do some trans women consider themselves men?
Yes or no: Are trans women women? Bzzzt! Too slow!
A focus group with transgender and physicians. Notice anything missing? Like, maybe those of us who have been reduced to having “front holes”? Was language that was inclusive of women who are not trans considered at all? No. Why? (Don’t answer. I know.)
I did notice that. Yes indeedy.
Compare with the utterly offensive and misogynist term ‘front bum’ to refer to women as distinct from men. It’s a very small step…
@ 2 iknklast
Because it was a bloody guide for trans people, that’s why! Look I don’t get a kick out of being contrarian, but honestly. It’s in the fricken title: Safer Sex for Trans Bodies. The intro says, “We, as trans people, use a variety of words to describe our gender and our body parts…”. The goofy euphemisms used were for people with gender dysphoria, not cisgender people. How is this not obvious? You don’t go to a library for blind people and complain that the books are in Braille. So why would you read a guide exclusively for trans people and complain that they use euphemisms to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria. The guide is no more saying that cisgender women have “front holes” than it is saying that cisgender men have a “strapless”. I mean seriously people — how is this not bleeding obvious?
Now that I’ve that off my chest, I’ll go back to shutting up and gritting my teeth.
Silentbob, would we excuse derogatory phrasing on the basis it was a guide for racist/misogynistic/xenophobic shitbags? No. Why should it be excused here? If TERF’s used phrasing trans* people found offensive the defence ‘but this document is just for our use’ quite rightly wouldn’t hold water.
What Rob said. Goddamn I’m running out of patience with people who sit on the sidelines of the current transgender mania and just smugly spout their formulaic arguments for why gender identity is innate and everybody has one. Stand there cheering the spectacle on while women are treated like nameless baby carriers or defective subhumans and girls are taught to hate themselves and allow everyone else to exploit them. And men and boys are taught not to respect boundaries. And then they look at me and insist that I’m not affected by this.
I’m just going to go full-on Unapproved Person and tell it like Germain Greer did: “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”
Were they not discussing terms for cis body parts, too?
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/who-gets-to-name-the-parts/
Per SSfTB:
I still want to know why SSfTB thinks anyone of any gender can have a dick, but only trans women who’ve had bottom surgery have vaginas.
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Calling a vagina a front hole doesn’t make it not a vagina anymore –and it’s actually not the front-most hole. The front hole is the urethra.Calling the vagina the front hole reduces anatomy to “parts for men to stick their dicks in” because they can’t do that with the urethra so it gets ignored. Because females, even ones who are gay trans men, are just there for males to use. So it’s misogynistic because it sacrifices even correct description for a male-centric view of anatomy, as well as for desperately avoiding the accurate word vagina because of its association.
Doesn’t taking a word like that for one’s exclusive use constitute appropriation? I thought that was a bad thing.
I pointed this out the last time Ophelia posted about this guide. Bugged the hell out of me then. Still does.
Yes. Good point.
And, again: according to SSfTB, “dicks can belong to people of all genders.”
But if thy vagina offends thee, it’s, you know, “the front hole.”
No misogyny here. Oh, no. Move along, folks.
Bob@5 once again proving that “My X will be intersectional or it will be bullshit” applies only when X=Feminism.
SilentBob, you’ve been nicely answered, but I’ll chime in anyway.
Since they are using the word “front hole” to refer to women born with vaginas, and vagina to refer to only those that are surgically created, yes, it is relevant. It’s still hating on women, and it isn’t okay even in a guide that isn’t for cis-women (a word I disavow, but gets applied to me anyway, which is rather strange from people who say we have the right to be whatever gender we want).
It would be like if you went into a library for the blind (to use your analogy) and the books all claimed that books not in Braille were just ink blots, while Braille books actually had words in them. It demeans the lived experience of people not in the group being addressed, which is the essence of imperialism, colonialism, patriarchy, and racism. But when that lived experience is that of being born a woman, it apparently is okay to ignore and even demean that experience.
Here’s the thing:
The guide wasn’t saying “women” have “front holes”. It was saying trans men have “front holes”. Women–be they cis or post-op trans–have vaginas. This wasn’t spelled out because the book was literally not talking about cis women in any way, shape or form. The only way this post works is if we go back to that question-set Ophelia’s stated she doesn’t want to deal with, about whether or not she accepts the basic idea that trans people should be considered as members of their trans gender. Because she’s saying here that trans men are still ‘women’ and should just deal with that.
(Note: Personally, I think “front hole” is pretty lousy as a choice; it’s far too infantile, vague and inaccurate for a medical book. Differentiating the language shouldn’t require juvenilization.)
Freemage – I think you’ve missed something. Transwomen have girl dicks; transmen have front holes. Any gender can have a dick, they say. But vaginas are different. This again demonstrates a level of hatred for female anatomy in general, that is softened once a transwoman has had surgery – presumably because she chose that anatomy, and therefore it isn’t hated? I don’t know. All I know is that this is again a symptom of the overall misogyny in our society.
Call it a man-vagina? Oh, no, can’t do that, because vaginas are icky, and no self-respecting man would want one, whereas penises are noble and empowering, and as we all know (thanks to Freud) women all want one.
‘So, some trans men do consider themselves women? Do some trans women consider themselves men?’
Well, whatever they ‘consider’ at every moment is the Rule for everyone else on earth. And when they change their minds tomorrow, we’re all to make the switch without being forewarned.
In ‘Galileo’s Middle Finger,’ Dreger points out that several of the most vicious ‘activist’ had described themselves in the very terms they were trying to criminalize.
The hell I have. That’s not what I said at all.
Silentbob @ 5 –
Really?! That’s odd, when you’re always posting short snotty drive-by comments contradicting something I or another commenter said, without argument or elaboration. I could have sworn you did get a kick out of being a very dogmatic contrarian.
Excuse me, “front hole” is not any kind of euphemism. It’s strikingly insulting and misogynist. Not your problem, of course, since you’re not subject to misogyny…but it’s pretty pathetic that you apparently can’t even see it.
And finally, what Rob said @ 6 – “would we excuse derogatory phrasing on the basis it was a guide for racist/misogynistic/xenophobic shitbags?” Suppose a guide to Racial Identity or some such strictly for white people, that used “nigger” as its very own word for black people – would you be shouting at black people who objected to that? Would you be saying “I mean seriously people — how is this not bleeding obvious?” and “Now that I’ve that off my chest, I’ll go back to shutting up and gritting my teeth”?
And why enable this desire to not call body parts by their names? Look, I understand about dysphoria. I really do. I deal with a sort of it, in another context, myself. But usually the best thing to do if you possibly can is to face reality, not to make up names for things in an attempt to pretend they aren’t what they are. That may feel better in the short term, but I can’t believe it’s healthy in the long run.
iknklast: I’ll definitely concede that aspect of it, and thank you for spelling it out for me. Yes, if ‘girl dicks’ is acceptable language in that book, then so should be ‘man vaginas’. The distinction there is very much wrong-headed and misogynistic. I apologize for getting that wrong.
Freemage – no offense taken. Glad I could be of assistance.
Yeah, I pointed that out twice–once on the earlier thread, and once here, before iknklast mentioned it.
I guess I need to “spell things out” in more detail. Or just get used to invisibility.
Yup you did, @ 9. But iknklast said it right after Freemage’s comment and addressed Freemage – so that probably accounts for the non-invisibility!
You know how it is with comments. We bounce back and forth, go away and come back, miss some and see others by accident.
I see you! :D
Thanks, Ophelia. :)