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 →

[–]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"?

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know. I think some trans women use "clit" for their penis and not "girl dick." I'm not sure if there's actually an accepted term.

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

I haven't said they are calling it "girl dick", I said it is transwomen who are doing it and are fine with naming their penis as penis and in general using male-specific words to describe themselves and just adding "women's X" to them, while transmen are pushed away from using female-specific words for themselves. Thought, rarely I still see "man's vagina" - but mostly it is using ones who are harassing gay men to sleep with them.

[–][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.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I think we agree on everything then. For the record, I hate few phrases as much as "front hole"; my vagina is not a "hole," but the opening to my uterus.

[–]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".

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

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

I see. I think they probably feel similarly about natal fe/male as we do about cis. Not that they're the same in my view, but that gets to the differences that bring us here. I think gender identity ideology is inherently sexist, thus its vocabulary embodies sexism. If we scrub out everything that is offensive we'll end up debating a phantom, and people who visit here won't understand the nature of our disagreements at all.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not scrubbing everything that is offensive. Unfortunately, I cannot satisfy everyone. You and others think I'm too harsh as a mod. On the contrary, others think I'm too bland.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I'm dumb, in my comments today I didn't realize I was communicating with a mod and thought this was more theoretical. I was confusing you with a different user, maybe in part because I didn't expect a mod to say "GC have to walk in eggshells." Do you disagree with the rules here? How were they made, and how are new rules made going forward? Do all the mods agree that "front hole" should be allowed on a case-by-case basis?

[–]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.