~ archived since 2018 ~

The New Erasure of Men

October 17, 2021
61 upvotes

This Healthline article about erections never uses the word "man" or "men"

But it does say

People with penises have an average of 11 erections per day and three to five more each night, but everyone is different.

I've often heard about 'people with vaginas' but this is my first time finding 'people with penises'.

While I don't want to open myself to a Rowling, I've agreed with women who objected to the non-consensual attempt to erase the concept of "women" from our thoughts and words. It's a radical act that deserves to be discussed but was instead immediately adopted by corporate media.

...Tangent

Isn't it so weird /s how the revolutionary economic goals and ideas that embodied Occupy Wall Street weren't taken up by Vogue and Healthline and Reddit and Twitter and Disney and Coke and yet all of them are on board with erasing the concept of gender in the relative blink of an eye.

Language only forms how we see and understand the world and appropriating it on behalf of everyone else is progress, y'hear. Or else...

Turns out the revolution will very much be televised.

Sorry Gil.

.../Tangent

And so now men are being erased too, as least linguistically.

There special wrinkles to the erasure of men, however.

Firstly, men have typically been viewed as disposable and currently taken for granted as the people who do the hard labour necessary for our way of life.

To a great extent, men are the house staff. They are meant to be in the background, silently performing the labour that keeps the household in good stead. (Note: This is not to say that women don't do such work as well; the analogy is specific to the hard and dangerous resource extraction, manufacturing and shipping work that are almost exclusively occupied by men.)

Secondly, popular feminism holds the implicit assumption that men are defective women. That's why when you talk about male murder victims, feminists will rejoin with "Yeah but they were murdered by MEN!". They need to re-affirm the narrative that men are the problem, never the victim. (This also suggests that their concern for battered women largely rests on pursuing the idea that men are bad, which is hardly empathetic or humanistic.)

A generation of boys have grown up hearing that they're sinful because they're male. It makes sense that some would seek to escape the label of 'man', causing a further erasure of men.

I firmly support the right of an individual to wear what they want (I have a lot of respect for what Ezra Miller is doing), to be who they want (as long as it harm none least), to be whatever gender they want*. Because I'm comfortable in my support of these human rights, I can also be concerned about how this new freedom will be used by some too many men to escape the haunting of their gender by the actions of every evil man while never seeing it lauded for the actions of every good man.


So. "People with penises".

How normalized will this language be 5 years from now and what will be the effects of that, if any?

Should it be normalized? Do I just not know what cooks?

Let me know in the comments. Like and subscribe to SocraticNation and don't forget to get your anti-COVID hemlock pills They don't want you to know about from the link in the description.

 

 

 


* My support for the right to choose your own gender began long ago when I read John Varley's short story Options, where anybody can change their biological sex at whim. It was written in 1979.

You can find it in Terry Carr's Best Science Fiction of the Year 9 and in Varley's short story collection Blue Champagne.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Comfortable_Ad_9154 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I personally think, when possible, using more specific language is better.

When referring to groups, "men", "people with penises" and "people who can get erections" are three different groups, though with significant overlap. I dont think its a good thing if those three groups are synonymous.

I acknowledge my beliefs are a bit on the extreme side, but... as an example to explain why I feel this way, if a man loses his penis (or his ability to get an erection) it severely bothers me how often men in that situation question their "manhood".

I feel some men experience anxieties stemming from how strongly linked being a man and their penis is, and I think weakening or even breaking that link is a good thing.

[–]exhaustingforall 33 points34 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I really dislike the terms "people with vaginas" and "people with penises." I think if you're talking about issues involving the male or female reproductive systems specifically, there shouldn't be any problem with simply saying male or female and other similar terms (e.g. men). Personally I hope it doesn't become normalised. I think when it comes to online discussions involving marginalised groups, people place too much importance on saying the right thing rather than doing the right thing, so we end up with all these pointlessly complicated terms for simple topics, and then people who can't keep up with the terms get written off as "bigots" no matter how progressive their beliefs are. I think this sort of thing gets in the way of actually being able to have nuanced discussions about gendered issues, so frankly I hope that in five years time people no longer give a shit about pedantic phrasing like this.

As a side note, that story sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think when it comes to online discussions involving marginalised groups, people place too much importance on saying the right thing rather than doing the right thing

This fits the Woke way of doing things. Rewriting our language for an astonishing small percentage of the population is fine, as long as you can do it on your phone over the course of a dump.

Someone rich should create 100 prizes for the best Reddit comments over the course of each year, as determined by nerds they hire. It would at least get people to give thought to the quality and substance of their comment instead of just jumping in for the snarky joke or insult.

Personally I think this will be normalized or forced on professionals in the next 5 years. It's another massive social distraction and divides the working class against itself.

There's a class interest in pushing its use and when you have enough money to be able to play the world like a video game I don't see why you wouldn't use it.

Hope you enjoy the story.

[–]exhaustingforall 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a good point re: it being a social distraction. It goes back to what you mentioned during your tangent above about large companies being willing to adopt this 'inclusive' new language with seemingly no real purpose for doing so. In-fighting about petty issues benefits those in power and actually holds us back from solid progress.

Unfortunately, political debate online (in leftist circles specifically) now seems to be more about disingenuously demonstrating how progressive/open-minded one is in order to gain approval from their peers, or simply showing off how intellectual and/or controversial their beliefs are instead of actually trying to be constructive. This isn't the case everywhere online, but it's the impression I get from most of the popular discourse that I've seen lately.

[–]Fr13d_33g 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it's necessary that we change the term to "penis havers" but as a non male penis haver I would appreciate it. But if you don't like it, don't use it.

[–]Russelsteapot42 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Legitimately I wish we had a shorter and less awkward term. Can't really think of one though. But I think these things would rankle less if we had a term that flowed as well as 'men' or 'women'.

[–]SpanishM 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I've noticed a few unfortunate things in that website.

That site belongs to Healthline Media, Inc., it was acquired by Red Ventures in 2019. I mean, it's a media company. Business.

Controversy:

  • headlines that exaggerate the substance of the article
  • inadequate journalistic and scientific skepticism when reporting "news"
  • failure to balance quotes from vested interests with quotes from interviews of independent sources
  • reported medical "news" that had not yet validated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal
  • implied clinical applicability for developments not yet so scientifically validated
  • failure to balance reports of claimed theoretical benefits of a new treatment, with a corresponding report of the associated cost or required frequency of treatment
  • failure to cite sources
  • failure to link to source of studies cited in the article

But above all, they are appealing to the woke culture. It's not necessarily that they believe in it, it's just that it sells.

[–]Interesting_Doubt_17 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the issue here is that there are still people out there who still hold rigid ideas of what a man or a woman is. Therefore, according to them pre-op trans people or simply trans people who haven't undergone bottom surgery are not the real gender they claim to be. e.g. women with penises are not real women; men with vaginas are not real men etc. Trans people may not undergo SRS for plethora of reasons and most of them can be valid (for example, SOME trans individuals may not feel dysphoric about their genitals and that's okay). So, me personally, I can't really blame people for using this kind of inclusive language even though I can understand why it might seem weird at the first glance and can trigger dysphoria of other trans individuals.

It's just like when black people are told that they have to act stereotypically black in order to be considered a real black person and also told they have to be white passing to be taken seriously or something like that.

Or when gay men or men in general are told that expressing your gender in a feminine way is bad and also told that they're not a real gay if they are masculine aka "straight passing." etc.

[–]LokisDawn 11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Linguistically, men were kind of erased centuries ago. Erased by being generalized. It's not as obvious in English, where terms aren't naturally gendered. However, let's take German names for professions as an example.

Traditionally, the terms used for professions are according to the gender that traditionally performed it. In most cases, that's male. However, they could absolutely be used gender-neutrally, "Krankenschwester" (Sister of the Sick, eg nurse) is something that's constructed from a gendered term (sister), but was applied to both male and female nurses. There is no "Krankenbruder"(Brother OTS). It's somewhat similar in English, where nurse is somewhat female, and I would wager you're more likely to specify "male nurse" than "female nurse".

Most other professions are constructed with a male grammatical shape, but while there were often female versions ("Bauer/Bäuerin" - farmer; "Lehrer/Lehrerin" - teacher; "Schmied/Schmiedin" - blacksmith), the "original" term is used to refer to the collective. So when making a general statement about a profession for example, you'd use "Krankenschwester" or "Lehrer".

In modern times, there has been a move towards "gender neutral language", for example in the case of teachers using either "Lehrpersonen" (lit. teaching people, it doesn't sound quite as awkward in German) or Lehrer/in, highlighting both at the cost of clarity and fluidity, especially when spoken (since you can't say the /).

However, even after all that, I've found when writing a short essay about a lack of male teachers(in German), the "original" term "Lehrer" still refers to all teachers, and you have to clarify awkwardly that you mean "male teachers" specifically.

The point of this whole rant is, the linguistic erasure of men, or rather the generalization or neutralization of men, isn't a new thing. It's extremely complicated, if not impossible, to follow the causality of these changes, though, especially in pre-modern times. Feminists have done a number on our languages, though, some neologisms like Latinx, generally despised by the very people it describes, are just a few extreme examples of that. Or clinical-yet-useless terms like "people with penises/vaginas".

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fantastic comment, thank you.

It seems that men were 'defaulted' or generalized in other ways as well.

For example, American feminists seem to assume that because men control companies or walk the halls of government that it is men's voice represented in our media and in our government when in fact the corporate voice has been the only voice that has had their attention for the last 40 years.

Men doings things for capital doesn't mean it's something they want to do or would do if given free reign.

Anyways, because of all this, there's little-to-no tolerance for a male perspective because it's been assumed to have been already told. While a thread of male perspective exists in modern cinema, it sadly is never recognized as such.

Until recently, I only ever saw war movies as terrible things that happened rather than terrible things that happened (mostly) to men.

To this effect, I highly recommend Michael Herr's Dispatches. It's about his experiences as a war correspondent in Vietnam. I read it twice and the second time I read it as an account of gendered violence. It changed the way I thought about the male experience and part of what eventually brought me here to this sub.

Edited to add another example: Walking alone at night. Most people feel scared walking alone at night but somehow men are blamed by feminists because women don't feel safe at night.nI don't think this would happen if the male perspective was actually considered and represented by something other than 'the perpetrator' and 'the problem'.

Although it is a great band name: The Perp and The Problem.

[–]YesAmAThrowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally, "Lehrkräfte" makes more sense than adding "Personen" to everything.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of this whole rant is, the linguistic erasure of men, or rather the generalization or neutralization of men, isn't a new thing.

Yet this "men are generic women are special" linguistic and cultural treatment of men is said by feminism to be a boon, a positive, a privilege. Not erasure or vanillafication of maleness. I disagree with them. You got unisex and 'for women' clothing now. Only shoes (because of different size scales) have a 'for men' thing.

[–]austin101123 18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Does everyone get erections?
Everyone with a penis does.

It's even dumber, as HRT hinders and often stops your ability to get erections. They try to be more inclusive and became wrong.

Of course there are people with total ED too.

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea, it says 11 per day? Make it at most 2 for me. And they're not 'rigid' erections that prevent peeing. I have 100% normal urine flow when I wake up in the morning and have an erection. And then it dies down almost instantly. An actual sexually-stimulant erection could prevent normal urine flow (not always, but its a requirement), but simply needing to pee urgently is definitely not that type.

[–]T_Nightingale 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If someone ever says "yeah but they were murdered by men" feel free to ironically point out that we shouldn't focus on black deaths because they were killed by blacks statistically speaking.

Obviously, every death should be analysed to find a way to preventing it again no matter who the cause was.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Never be afraid to ask anyone saying they cross the street at night if a man is walking towards them, how scared and threatened they feel, etc., if they also feel the same when it's a black man walking towards them.

They'll be Calamari'd so hard tzatziki will be oozing from their pores.

[–]T_Nightingale 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That... is one hell of a saying lol

[–]jesset77 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've agreed with women who objected to the non-consensual attempt to erase the concept of "women" from our thoughts and words. It's a radical act that deserves to be discussed but was instead immediately adopted by corporate media.

I felt like this (and moreso many of OP's upvoted comments echoing this sentiment) doesn't sound like a very left-leaning sentiment to me, so I checked the sub's Mission Statement.

In very broad terms, left-wingers tend to advocate reducing inequality through social change, whereas right-wingers tend to defend the traditional social order and inequality. The left is supposed to represent the interests of disadvantaged classes while the right is supposed to represent the interests of privileged classes.

I would classify different uses of language as social change. Milder still that it's someone else choosing how they use language, without anyone foisting those decisions onto the rest of us. It's not even making up new words or grammar either, it's simply choosing to avoid a word that would have been demonstrably incorrect to use in the first place.

I would also classify what you later call the "astonishing small percentage of the population" a disadvantaged class, and concern about "erasing" the identities of cis people unless we go back to pretending that there is no other way to live would be representing the interests of the privileged class.

In my book, claiming that an erection is proof that you're a man is tantamount to claiming that an erection is proof that you've consented to sex. It's someone who doesn't share your interests trying to coerce a reality about you simply to convenience them more.

But talking about "people with X property" instead of talking about "men" doesn't coerce your reality at all, does it? Do you have a penis? Is the advice given meant for you? If so, then you aren't being erased: you are being precisely signified. There are women, intersex, and non-binary people whom that medical advice is relevant to as well as men that the advice is not relevant to. Saying "men" when that is not precisely what is meant does actually erode their identities by callously misclassifying them.

In the 21st century, you will be exposed to language that continually reminds you that everyone else isn't exactly like you personally. Many Christians get upset at always being reminded that everyone else doesn't slave themselves to their indoctrinated imaginary friend in the sky. Many white people and nationalists get upset at continually being reminded that peach isn't the only skin color, or that English isn't the only language. A rapidly diminishing number of heterosexuals get upset at continually being reminded that "having a wife" isn't proof that you're a man, either. Do you feel similarly upset if you get constantly reminded that a stay at home dad isn't proof of being a deadbeat?

That is the wrong side of history to fight to be on. Traditionalism, essentialism, conservatism. Life is never going to be a Norman Rockwell painting again, partly because it wasn't at the time either. There are many different kinds of people and many different kinds of experience, and there always have been. Demanding that they be excluded as a precondition to you feeling included is not very neighborly.

[–]Specialist-Look6210 8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

If only men were capable of erections, then it would make sense to use the term men. Since that isn't the case, I don't see an issue with neutral terminology.

[–]exhaustingforall 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I understand this point of view and as a general rule neutral terminology is fine and even a good thing, but in this case specifically it feels demeaning to use these terms when "male" and "female" exist and include everyone with those respective reproductive systems, both transgender and cisgender people. In fact, I and a large amount of transgender people that I've seen discuss the topic would much prefer these sorts of articles use terms like male/female rather than "people with [X]." Most transgender people would prefer not to be reduced to what genitalia they possess, and it's still not wholly inclusive of all parties affected anyway (for example, a transgender man who has had SRS would technically be a "person with a penis," but wouldn't be affected by other biological issues that might be brought up in articles such as the one above). It's an issue of people trying too hard to be progressive in their language but ultimately still being discriminatory.

And furthermore, it seems strange to indirectly draw attention to transgender people in an article that doesn't necessitate it. First of all, plenty of transgender people prefer to be "stealth" and be seen as men/women rather than transgender men/women, so being brought up unnecessarily is actually rather detrimental to transgender people's ability to move through life quietly. And I feel that, for the most part, anyone who isn't already educated on transgender people is just going to be confused by this wording more than anything else, and I don't think causing confusion is a good or effective way to advocate for anyone's rights.

[–]Specialist-Look6210 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm already educated on the issue, and I wouldn't have noticed the wording if it hadn't been the theme of this entire post.

[–]exhaustingforall 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's what I'm saying though. People who are already in support of transgender people are in no way benefitted or affected by the wording. Like you, a lot of them won't even notice it or think twice about it. The only people it benefits are the transgender people who notice it and feel briefly happy about being considered—which is nice, don't get me wrong, but ultimately doesn't accomplish much in regards to transgender people being more accepted by society. Those who aren't already knowledgeable about transgender people will just find the wording strange and possibly even distasteful. It's most likely not going to inspire them to want to advocate for transgender people's rights.

[–]Specialist-Look6210 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it definitely doesn't help anyone who wasn't aware of the issues at hand and stopped for a moment to think "why didn't they just say men?"

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Upvoted. I disagree but your argument is not unreasonable. I respect your intention to help make things more inclusive but I think it excludes people far more than it includes. And that it forces the "inclusion".

That's far from "neutral".

I think it makes far more sense to stick to 'men' since the term is overwhelmingly representative.

Women with penises are free to be defined as such and I'd support that right.

However, I don't think this small minority is cause enough to remove 'men' and 'women' from our language as completely as possible.

One's rights end where another's begin.

In the balance of things, I think that 'men' and 'man' deserve to stay as words and concepts more than they deserve to be removed to satisfy the minority of a minority who demand these changes (arguably out of a need to exert their social power lest it becomes irrelevant. An increase in profits social capital every quarter or we lose relevance. It's sprinting down hill so quickly that your only choice is to keep running.

But that's me. At the chance of putting too fine a point on it, I genuinely appreciate you speaking up. The world needs more than that, just so long as it's always done with love.

[–]Specialist-Look6210 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a man. Someone born differently than me but of the same gender as me does not demean or diminish myself or my existence, just as my existence doesn't demand or diminish them.

However, I don't think this small minority is cause enough to remove 'men' and 'women' from our language as completely as possible

Cool. Delineate the point where the minority becomes large enough to be worthy of representation.

[–]Warm_Avocado 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What's wrong with male and female instead? Only males can get erections, male is biological.

[–]Specialist-Look6210 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing is wrong with male, but male is different than men.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Calling trans women "male", even though perhaps not technically wrong, (depending on how you define male) is thought to be distasteful, as is reminding them of their birth sex in general. TERFs very rigidly insist on only using "male" and "female" to avoid this.

[–]Warm_Avocado 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Then what's the alternative? "Bodies with vaginas/penises"? Changing the way people refer to humans in biology because it offends is insane. Someone made the analogy of it being akin to trying to change an entire country's language to French because the local baker doesn't speak English.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well if for example if neuroscience produces something that rationalises non-binary/trans identities conclusively for essentialists, then we'd have to roll with that phrasing. (since the common complaint is that we're just basing off feeling, if we do away with that then there's really no excuse)

It's a linguistic minefield and honestly I have no real clue how to navigate it.

[–]Warm_Avocado 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have to disagree with you, I don't believe we have to change our entire language to make a group of people feel better. No matter the feeling, trans and non-binary folk still fall under male and female unless there comes a time when we see a third sex. Does this mean we should go around disrespecting trans and non-binary people? No. But if calling a trans person a male or female is offensive, then the word trans should be erased too since trans means someone born male or female that transitions into the opposite gender to suit what they are on the inside.

[–]jesset77 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe we have to change our entire language to make a group of people feel better.

I don't believe we have to freeze the entire language in place to make a group of people feel better either, though.

If we determine more precise ways to describe something, why not use that?

I notice that the people who raise objections to inclusive overtures are always a subset of the people who were never in danger of being excluded to begin with.

But they will react as though their identities are under attack unless their situation is constantly repeated in everyone else's speech. Per this submission's very headline: "The new 'erasure' of men".

It reminds me of the whole "Christianity is under attack!" complaint as a result of people simply deciding they don't want to be Christian in larger numbers than before. EG: "Anything short of obeying our every whim is an existential threat to us".

[–]quesadilla_dinosaurleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Imma be the odd one out and disagree with this post because it kinda edged too close to TERF-esque language to me.

While I don't want to open myself to a Rowling, I've agreed with women who objected to the non-consensual attempt to erase the concept of "women" from our thoughts and words. It's a radical act that deserves to be discussed but was instead immediately adopted by corporate media.

This is patently ridiculous. Rowling and most other TERF-friendly feminists are campaigning against the polite usage of inclusive language. No one is forcing Rowling, TERFs or you to use inclusive language and it doesn't erase the concept of woman at all which still lives on as a social and biological concept, it's just not solely defined by "people with vaginas" or "people who have periods".

The same goes with men. Men aren't just "people with penises" either and I don't think there's some concerted effort to "erase" men from the conversation with this change in language. Instead, it's being specific to what group of people this article refers to, regardless of whether they identify as a man or a woman.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I think posts like this will be the first to be flagged up by detractors.

[–]quesadilla_dinosaurleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think so too.

It sounds very TERF esque

[–]exhaustingforall 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I get where you're coming from but I don't really think it's automatically TERF-esque to question certain terms. Rowling's an idiot for trying to portray herself as being forced by Evil Transsexual Bullies into using inclusive language, and you're right in that no one is technically being "forced." But I think there is an enormous pressure in left-leaning spaces to use the 'correct' terminology out of fear of being wrongfully accused of being a TERF or transphobe, and this pressure often leads to people being too afraid to engage in conversations about the topic at all.

I agree with your point that the terms man/woman don't encapsulate everyone with certain reproductive systems, but personally I would have no real issue with an article like the one above simply using the term "man." There are situations where inclusive language is useful and necessary, but in this case it feels more performative than anything.

[–]quesadilla_dinosaurleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

I do think there is a lot of pressure from a certain crowd to use inclusive language out of fear of being called a TERF or a transphobe, but I'm also not sure about what conversation about the usage of "people with vaginas" and "people with penises" would even look like. I mean, how are those phrases at all problematic, especially in the context of a medical article (which is also the same context in which JK Rowling threw a fit -- it was a article on periods)?

Personally, I don't think it's being performative because its a medical article, its meant for everyone for whom its relevant to (people who can get erections) and I don't think there's anything who with specifying that.

[–]exhaustingforall 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, fair enough. I suppose if this terminology is to used, a medical article is probably the most appropriate place for it (personally I'd still prefer terms along the lines of natal male/female rather than using genitalia specifically because it better encompasses other issues experienced by those groups besides genital-related ones, but I digress).

I'll admit I do often have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the terms since I mostly just find them uncomfortable, which could have affected how I read the article. I still think that beyond actual scientific/medical articles the terms are mostly unhelpful though, so I hope they don't enter the mainstream, if that makes sense.

[–]quesadilla_dinosaurleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t mind if it’s in more mainstream medical conversations and I think it’s actually a good thing that medicine leaning towards more inclusive language.

I dont think it’ll spill out to mainstream conversation in any ridiculous way tbh.

[–]exhaustingforall 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do agree that it's a good thing for medicine to use inclusive language, especially since that makes it easier for people to access certain types of medical treatment that they need. I remember once reading an article online about how some transgender people were denied certain types of healthcare that they needed because their legal gender didn't line up with what their health insurance was specified to cover. In cases like that, I'd argue that inclusive language is necessary.

You're probably right, honestly. I just feel wary because of how I've often seen the terms AFAB/AMAB, which also arose as an attempt to be more inclusive of transgender people, be misused in online conversations in order to disguise transphobic ideas as progressive ones.

[–]YesAmAThrowaway 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It will be defended with "it's inclusive of pre-op trans people" to which I say yes and no.

Of course there will be trans people with unmatching genitalia, but that's either because they cannot afford surgery, are anxious to get it done, other mental factors, parental pressure, not having access to such surgery, being at threat of health from any surgery or simply being a tucute trender that just wants the uwu trans aesthetic that is ruining the community.

The reason trans people undergo genital surgery is because they don't want to be reminded that they were born in the wrong kind of body. These terms do NOTHING but remind them of that fact, and it's not useful in any way for them.

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course there will be trans people with unmatching genitalia, but that's either because they cannot afford surgery, are anxious to get it done, other mental factors, parental pressure, not having access to such surgery, being at threat of health from any surgery or simply being a tucute trender that just wants the uwu trans aesthetic that is ruining the community.

80% of US trans women who take hormones, don't undergo surgery. Some is likely budget concerns, but unavailability is unlikely since this 80% is from the US population. There are other factors than just not being able to afford, it not being offered in your country, or being too high risk for any surgery. For example, the result being iffy and still not fixing that itch, the body treating it like a wound and ever wanting to close it, needing dilating daily for months, or the ability to be recognized socially and often legally, without the surgery. Romantically is a bigger hurdle, but possible too.

If I could get a magic surgery that makes it not a wound and exactly like it would have been for an average cis woman, sure. As it stands, not worth the cost. And the cost isn't the penis, since I'm not using it for anything but peeing (not even self pleasure).

[–]Transhumanistgamer 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I get they're doing this for the benefit of transexuals but when a ridiculously small fraction of the population needs to be coddled with this sort of language skewing, that's indicative of major psychological issue. At the end of the day, they're just lowering everyone's opinion of the very people they're tap dancing like this to protect. The idea of being dehumanized as "people with penises" or "people with vaginas" and the excuse of a demographic that isn't even 1% of the population would benefit is not going to go over well.

[–]RockmanXX 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Using the excuse of fighting for the oppressed to attack your enemy is a military tactic as old as time. That's what the woke elites&intellectuals are doing all over the globe, they are attacking the general populace(ie:White Men in the west) using the excuse of fighting for the oppressed Minority.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter