All: Disclosure and Consent

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (77 children)

A) Not all transmen have front holes

B) If you were with a cis man who lost his dick do you think people wouldn’t judge you for leaving him?

[–]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Females, however they identify, don't have "front holes". They have vaginas. Also, "front hole" is anatomically inaccurated too because the vagina is between the uretra an the anus.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (24 children)

Literally semantics

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It's not semantics, it's anatomy.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (22 children)

Its a preference for one term over another when both refer to the same things. Semantics

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Oh, do you mean like how trans identified people don't want to be refered by their sex? You and others think that being called a "man" is an unforgivable sin despite that for most people is a neutral term. Yet calling a vagina a "front hole" despite how dehumanizing and anatomically inaccurated it is is all fine and dandy.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (20 children)

Nah your term is representative of your ideology which is inaccurate whereas my term is just what some people prefer to call their own anatomy. Also front hole is a million times better than a word that means “sheath”

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

“Front hole”? like a mouth? A nostril? An ear canal (or are those side holes)? Can’t be a belly button because there’s no depth so that’s just silly…

I don’t get it…

Front of what?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Id always assumed it meant in front of the anus

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Why would it mean that? Lol

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I like how "my" terms are the only ones representative of an inaccurated ideology...

How are babies made, Heim? Which combination of gametes produces a zygote?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (13 children)

So people without gametes are sexless now Sloane?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You weren’t talking to me and that’s not even what they asked.

Why don’t you actually answer the questions you’re asked instead of deflecting?

[–]worried19 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Virtually all trans men have normal, unaltered vaginas. Bottom surgery of any type is incredibly rare.

If you were with a cis man who lost his dick do you think people wouldn’t judge you for leaving him?

Leaving an established partner, maybe. Not dating him in the first place, definitely not.

If I may ask, what is your sexual orientation?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (49 children)

Front hole is the most disgusting, demeaning term for a vagina since ‘cunt’. Don’t speak about women’s bodies like that, please. Women are human beings. Our organs have names, not crass and dehumanising descriptors.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (48 children)

A) Vagina aka “sheath” is worse

B) Front hole is most commonly used by trans men not women

C) You have no control over how other people refer to their bodies

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A)You’re breaking your own point c. B)that doesn’t change the fact that it’s disgusting and demeaning. Incels use that term for gods sake. C) you’re referring to women’s bodies, which includes mine.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

A) How?

B) Subjective. The people who use it to refer to their own anatomy presumably don’t feel that way

C) Nope Im referring to trans mens bodies not any women’s bodies

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

By saying the preferred term of a woman is wrong and front hole is better. You’re telling me, a person who has a vagina, that my preferred term is bad and ignoring my point that it’s offensive.

Them referring to their own anatomy is different to you using it as a general term for a vagina as you did.

Semantics. You are describing female bodies with misogynistic terms. Would you find it acceptable if your penis was referred to as your cum tube?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

Look I’m fine if you want to use the term vagina. The term seems a bit like its defining one set of genitals by another set of genitals, which I find kinda problematic, but whatever its your choice.

I did not use it as a general term I used it in relation to trans guys.

How about you not fucking talk about other commentors bodies unless they themselves bring it up like the rules say, kay?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who’s body am I talking about, dipshit?

Oh, it’s okay for you to refer to vaginas as front holes but asking if it’s okay to use a similar term for male genitals is too far? Hypocrite.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

Honestly, I've thinking about it and I'll not allow the use of "front hole" anymore. Refering to genitals in derogatory ways is against the rules and I think "front hole" qualify as such. And you're not even a "trans man", to use it anyway.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (19 children)

I think both sides should be able to use their vocabularies, provided it's not done antagonistically. If someone can't handle "front hole" or "trans-identified male" or even "TERF" in the general then why debate? We just shouldn't be able use these words against another user specifically. But this is the lexicon of gender identity and people passing through here should see both sides presented in their truest forms.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

I agree. "Front hole" is a commonly accepted trans term. It's not comparable to using a slur against trans people's anatomy.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Yes. How how about words or phrases that only exist to be derogatory are banned? I take back allowing "TERF" because then it would follow to allow any slur, and I do appreciate this sub being moderated to keep things civil and functional. But "front hole" doesn't exist to insult, however much it does insult many of us. That distinction gets to the heart of what we're here to debate.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But "front hole" doesn't exist to insult

I actually would disagree. In all of its possible and previous usages (men describing women as commodity, gay men mocking women, etc) it was used as derogatory phrase. And I don't believe that it was "re-claimed" at any point - I haven't even heard anyone speaking about it at all.

Even for transmen it is used mostly in derogatory way. For transwomen it is used "girldick" or "woman's penis", not "front pillar". Yet, for transmen it is not "man vulva" or "man vagina", but something else - something that previously was used as way to dehumanize women. And even cosmetic penis for transmen is often called "phallus" and not "penis", unlike when it is said about transwomen and their cosmetic vulva.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Some trans men use it to refer to their own vaginas during sex and also in general. It's not derogatory when used in that manner.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, but why only them, while for transwomen it is fine to use "girl dick"? Why transmen are pushed to not use "man's vagina", while transwomen are pushing for everyone to use "women's penis"?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

What was the previous use of "front hole"? I'm only familiar with it in the context of gender identity.

Even for transmen it is used mostly in derogatory way.

Can you provide an example? People are singling out transmen and mocking them with the phrase "front hole"? I only see it presented as an "inclusive" way to refer to vaginas.

But whatever the case, the kind of exchange we're having right now is useful. If "front hole" is banned then we don't get to critique or try to understand it further. Healthline writes:

Whenever we use the medical term “vagina,” we’ll also include “front hole,” as clinically recommended by researchers in the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal.

Isn't this the kind of thing we should be able to discuss? The phrase is all over the internet, but we're too fragile to touch it in a debate sub?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am not advocating on banning it, just explaining why it is in most cases used as something bad.

I already explained why it is not "inclusive" - because for transwomen they are going with male anatomy and just saying "women's penis" or "women's prostate", and attacking women's organizations who are focusing on female anatomy. While for transmen - they are discouraged to focus on female anatomy and call it "men's vagina" or "men's clitoris" and instead using terms like "front hole" instead.

That site is calling "sex with penis" as lesbian sex, and half of "tips for lesbian sex" are tips for heterosexual sex, there basically only 3-4 tips will help lesbians at all: https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/how-do-lesbians-have-sex#sex-varies

So I would not listen to that site much.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You say this like is only QT who are conditioned in what language they can use here when, in fact, GC have to walk in eggshells so as not to "misgender" any trans user here. And, sorry but calling vaginas "front hole" is far worse than calling a man a man. I cannot believe this term don't come from misogyny. Trans identified males get to call their penises as "girldick" or "female" penis, but trans identified females get instead this word for them? QT can deny this all they want, but everyone knows that trans identified females are still treated as women in their own movement.

If you want to see both sides represented in their truest form, then why don't we stop worrying about "misgendering" the trans users here? If QT want to use this term so much, then why can't GC use "fuckhole"? QT have all the rest of the internet to use derogatory words for the female body, they should be able to handle being told "no" for once.

Edit: grammar

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

but trans identified females get instead this word for them?

They use the word for themselves, whereas no one uses the word "fuckhole" to describe their own body.

then why don't we stop worrying about "misgendering" the trans users here?

I'm not worried about it. As the rules were just explained to me, "all trans women are men" is an acceptable statement, just not referring to individual users. I think that's a fair compromise

QT have all the rest of the internet to use derogatory words for the female body, they should be able to handle being told "no" for once.

Is that the purpose of a debate sub?

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You're misunderstanding the situation. Heim is a "trans woman", not a "trans man". We cannot "misgender" Heim, yet Heim thinks Heim feels entitled to use such language to talk about female bodies. And as I said there is a clear double standar in regards to what language is used to talk about male and female bodies. You don't see things like prostate-havers, semen producers or other ridiculous terms being pushed as "inclusive", either. I'm objecting to peope of Heim's sex using it. If trans identified females were to refer this word for themselves, I'll reluctantly accept it. Though, I'd still challenge them about this double standard.

I'm just tired that GC are always the ones asked to make compromises.

Is that the purpose of a debate sub?

I don't know why you think that asking them to use the word vagina means they can't still make their own arguments.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

I believe prostate "owner," not "haver," is the going lingo. But yeah there aren't nearly as many reductive words for male anatomy. That's worth discussing, which we can't do when there are bans on phrases. The same rules have to apply to everyone.

The whole crux of gender identity is people's perception of themselves as men or women, so it's unsurprising there is a rule on how we refer to other users. But this compromise doesn't force anyone to use preferred pronouns, while allowing "natal male" and "natal female," so we're not stunted in expressing any ideas. And not all GC want "front hole" banned, so that's not a strike for "always the ones asked to make compromises."

It sounds like you really just want to punish Heim. Or not writing "fuckhole" is an ask too great?

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Feel free to make a thread about "inclusive" language. I made one some months ago, but got off-topic. The only problem, I think there is only a "trans man" in this sub.

"Cis" being nonsense is one of the key ideas of GC, yet they still can call GC users "cis". That is what I meant by GC being the only ones making compromises.

I don't have any problem not using "fuckhole". I don't see what is the problem for QT to use vagina instead of "front hole".

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (20 children)

And they wonder why they don’t have many QT posters 🙄

But do as thou wilt your majesty.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are few transsexuals and cross-dressers here, and they are fine with the rules. Why it is only QT side that insist to call women (and only women) by their body parts and to re-name female body parts to something else? Would it be fine for you to be called "prostate owner" or "inversed penis haver"?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

It isn’t only QT and in most instances with QT it’s to avoid language that automatically implies a cisnormative worldview. It is also fine for people to refer to their genitals with any terms they like.

Don’t involve commentors bodies in your arguments unless they themselves bring it up first

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that it is not "refering to their own", but "enforcing on others". You aren't transman to use that language, for example.

cisnormative

Biology is just facts, it is not "cisnormative". That's first point. Second point is that - majority of people are not transgender, this means that majority of things in world would be done by them for them. It is normal. Being inclusive does not mean being exclusionary to 99% of population and only cater to 1%, being inclusive means being inclusive to 99% AND accomodating to 1% needs.

Movement-impaired inclusive shop will have stairs for able-bodied people and ramp or lift for people on wheelchair. It does not mean that there will ONLY be ramp or lift for people on wheelchair and no other way for the majority of population to get up. Same here.