Transsurdity of the Day: Vagina is for Trans; Front Hole, Cis

[Jane]

Bunch a dudes talkin' bout real women's bodies. Thus has it always been. And honestly, what real woman ever talked about a "front hole"? Holy Yuckity Yuck! Dude talk. Or some poor mixed-up female trying to act like a dude.

 

[JayDubya]

So....



What does cis mean?

If someone says it without referring to the chirality of a chemical isomer or something valid, but instead refers to a human being, it means they have lost their ever-loving mind and are best ignored.

That is what it means.

For a full explanation, the "Progressives" and the LBQTOMGWTFBBQBRBFBI's have this thing where you don't want to be "normative" and have their odd quirks be the only thing with a term.

We can't be "heteronormative," afterall, even though being homosexual is uncommon and you can by default assume it not to be the case. And so it goes with the even more rare case of dudes who want their dicks chopped off. Dudes who want to keep their body parts can't just be normal, we have to be "cis."

Or something. The social studies warrioring kind of blurs together after a while.

 

[Redress]

This cannot be happening.....can it?

Only trans women have vaginas, women have 'front holes' | Mumsnet Discussion

Your source is incredibly dishonest. For the purposes of clarity in a pamphlet, they define the terms as your source lists, and "front hole" is not cis specific. It pays to not believe everything you read on the internets, and it pays to do some basic fact checking, like at least glancing at sources provided. You have to actually be looking for something to be upset about to find issue with the pamphlet.

 

[Jane]

Your source is incredibly dishonest. For the purposes of clarity in a pamphlet, they define the terms as your source lists, and "front hole" is not cis specific. It pays to not believe everything you read on the internets, and it pays to do some basic fact checking, like at least glancing at sources provided. You have to actually be looking for something to be upset about to find issue with the pamphlet.

Hahaha. No. Really. You don't have to delve very far into this "how to" guide to find plenty with which to take issue. Like the delusional re-naming of actual body parts which already have real, meaningful, actual names. And their replacement with woo words: front hole, strapless. Seriously, what does strapless even mean? It's supposed to refer to a real male's penis and the closest analogy I've ever heard would be to use that term to talk about the dildo a transMAN stuffs in her underwear to pack. You know, as opposed to something you actually have to "strap on." What the ****ity-**** LOL. It would be great if some actual transsexual on here weighed in and says if they've EVER heard of strapless.

 

[TheGoverness]

This is absolutely ****ing idiocracy!!!!!

If you are a man you have a penis, if you are a woman you have a vagina..

If you think differently then SHUT THE **** UP and go have your head examined..



You people are going to vote for someone who has written a guide on "front holes"? Ludicrous..

Um, Hillary did not write this.

 

[Jane]

Given the abysmal ignorance of many young people about how their bodies work, anything which works to obfuscate the subject is IMHO, bull****. It's easy to laugh at the utter denial of reality in this pamphlet. But what should give anybody pause is the subject that is barely mentioned here: pregnancy. The OP is about a thirty-one page pamphlet about "safer sex" published by HRC, the largest LGBTXYZWTF organization in the U.S. How much information or time do they spend talking about pregnancy, do you think? There are only 2 or 3 sentences directed toward males and an equal number toward females - in 31 pages!

Now consider this: In a small cross-sectional survey of transmen (n=41) published in 2014
"Nearly half of the transgender men who had not used testosterone had an unplanned pregnancy, a proportion comparable to that of the U.S. population. Comparatively, one fourth of those previously on testosterone had unplanned pregnancies." (Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:1120–7)

 

[TheGoverness]

They explain this inside of the thread you link to, calamity, so if you'd bothered to read, you might have understood it. They are calling a female-to-male transgender's biological vagina as a "front hole."

Ahhhh. Now it all makes sense.

Missed that completely.

 

[X Factor]

So....



What does cis mean?

Nothing. It's just a way to disparage what's normal.

 

[Absentglare]

It's a vagina. Thats what it is and what it's called, even if some people don't want it.

You're confused, they acknowledged that many people will disagree with their terminology. They defined their terminology as such so that the pamphlet remained self-consistent.

They also chose language to indicate when a trans is in transition to use language that reflects whether genital surgery has taken place or not. I know that there are lots of ignorant folks who would prefer to arbitrarily oversimplify the discussion, but they chose to communicate in an articulate manner and they felt that merited new definitions of terms.

This pamphlet is meant to help them with the concepts, not specific words, and they included a set of definitions knowing very well that their audience is unlikely to already use those definitions.

 

[calamity]

Your source is incredibly dishonest. For the purposes of clarity in a pamphlet, they define the terms as your source lists, and "front hole" is not cis specific. It pays to not believe everything you read on the internets, and it pays to do some basic fact checking, like at least glancing at sources provided. You have to actually be looking for something to be upset about to find issue with the pamphlet.

So, somehow denying a vagina is a vagina and renaming it a front hole while declaring an actual front hole is a vagina is not Orwellian to you. Bravo! Maybe they'll issue you a PC award for that.

 

[calamity]

You're confused, they acknowledged that many people will disagree with their terminology. They defined their terminology as such so that the pamphlet remained self-consistent.

They also chose language to indicate when a trans is in transition to use language that reflects whether genital surgery has taken place or not. I know that there are lots of ignorant folks who would prefer to arbitrarily oversimplify the discussion, but they chose to communicate in an articulate manner and they felt that merited new definitions of terms.

This pamphlet is meant to help them with the concepts, not specific words, and they included a set of definitions knowing very well that their audience is unlikely to already use those definitions.

I understand what they are doing. Too bad you don't.

 

[calamity]

Ahhhh. Now it all makes sense.

Missed that completely.

It's still a vagina...no matter what the person who does not like having one believes it to be.

Jane's "strapless" analogy was perfect. Is the dick that the trans woman who declares himself a lesbian wants to keep a dick or should we just rename it the strapless?

 

[X Factor]

They explain this inside of the thread you link to, calamity, so if you'd bothered to read, you might have understood it. They are calling a female-to-male transgender's biological vagina as a "front hole." Personally, I couldn't give three ****s what they want to call their own body parts, and as I won't ever need to know the reference term for a FTM transgenders' vagina, and I can't imagine that you would either, I'm pretty nonplussed about why we're having this conversation.

Were you somehow forced into having this conversation? There are those that can recognize the sheer absurdity of all this ("front hole" really? That sounds like something little kids would say) and can't help being somewhat amazed and amused by it, and then there are folks like you who will defend the absurd no matter how absurd it is.

 

[calamity]

Given the abysmal ignorance of many young people about how their bodies work, anything which works to obfuscate the subject is IMHO, bull****. It's easy to laugh at the utter denial of reality in this pamphlet. But what should give anybody pause is the subject that is barely mentioned here: pregnancy. The OP is about a thirty-one page pamphlet about "safer sex" published by HRC, the largest LGBTXYZWTF organization in the U.S. How much information or time do they spend talking about pregnancy, do you think? There are only 2 or 3 sentences directed toward males and an equal number toward females - in 31 pages!

Now consider this: In a small cross-sectional survey of transmen (n=41) published in 2014
"Nearly half of the transgender men who had not used testosterone had an unplanned pregnancy, a proportion comparable to that of the U.S. population. Comparatively, one fourth of those previously on testosterone had unplanned pregnancies." (Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:1120–7)

Oh, they love when that happens---that's how we get front page headlines which read "Man gets Pregnant." It's kind of like how in their twisted version of reality, "men can have periods too."

 

[X Factor]

The guide makes it pretty clear that it's defining terms for shorthand. They refer to the front hole as something that's removed in an FTM surgery known as a Vaginectomy.

And then there's this big disclaimer right in front :

"We, as trans people, use a variety of words to describe our gender and our body parts, and these words can be very unique and personal. There’s no one right way to refer to our bodies, but to keep things consistent in this guide, we’ve decided to use the following words in the following ways."

What's wrong with using accurate anatomical terms? Is it offensive to trans people to acknowledge the true anatomical names because it more clearly highlights that surgery is being used to alter or remove parts of the anatomy that have nothing wrong with them?

 

[X Factor]

Ahhhh. Now it all makes sense.

How does that make sense? If anything, it seems like "front hole" should apply more to a surgically created hole, not the hole that that's already biologically, naturally there.

 

[calamity]

How does that make sense? If anything, it seems like "front hole" should apply more to a surgically created hole, not the hole that that's already biologically, naturally there.

Of course.

 

[TheGoverness]

How does that make sense? If anything, it seems like "front hole" should apply more to a surgically created hole, not the hole that that's already biologicaly, naturally there.

It makes sense because we're talking specifically about FTM transgenders here, not non-trans women. The FTM transgenders in question don't identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, so that's why it makes sense (to me at least) why they'd use another term instead.


And then don't forget this disclaimer:

"We, as trans people, use a variety of words to describe our gender and our body parts, and these words can be very unique and personal. There’s no one right way to refer to our bodies, but to keep things consistent in this guide, we’ve decided to use the following words in the following ways."

 

[X Factor]

It makes sense because we're talking specifically about FTM transgenders here, not non-trans women. The FTM transgenders in question don't identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, so that's why it makes sense (to me at least) why they'd use another term instead.


And then don't forget this disclaimer:

"We, as trans people, use a variety of words to describe our gender and our body parts, and these words can be very unique and personal. There’s no one right way to refer to our bodies, but to keep things consistent in this guide, we’ve decided to use the following words in the following ways."

Actually, there is one objectively correct way to refer "our bodies". Everything else is just nicknames and colloquial expressions and I don't mean just in the context of trans people. Anytime we use substitute terms for genitalia (and I think we all pretty much do that), it's not technically correct.

 

[americanwoman]

Who cares what people call parts of their body or what groups of people call it? I don't get my panties in a bunch if some guy calls their penis Mr Big, which may or may not be technically correct.

 

[X Factor]

Who cares what people call parts of their body or what groups of people call it? I don't get my panties in a bunch if some guy calls their penis Mr Big, which may or may not be technically correct.

How about referring to women's parts as any kind of a "hole"? That's not objectionable in any way? I'm asking because I seriously don't know. I always thought it was a little disrespectful, but that could be a misunderstanding on my part.

 

[TheGoverness]

Actually, there is one objectively correct way to refer "our bodies". Everything else is just nicknames and colloquial expressions and I don't mean just in the context of trans people. Anytime we use substitute terms for genitalia (and I think we all pretty much do that), it's not technically correct.

I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be technically correct.

They're talking about terms that they as trans people use and understand. None of this applies to non-trans individuals.

 

[americanwoman]

How about referring to women's parts as any kind of a "hole"? That's not objectionable in any way? I'm asking because I seriously don't know. I always thought it was a little disrespectful, but that could be a misunderstanding on my part.

I just don't really care. It is a hole after all. It might be offensive to refer to it as a big hole.:lol:

 

[roguenuke]

Bunch a dudes talkin' bout real women's bodies. Thus has it always been. And honestly, what real woman ever talked about a "front hole"? Holy Yuckity Yuck! Dude talk. Or some poor mixed-up female trying to act like a dude.

The one that no longer wants one and would rather have a penis to fit his gender.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

What's wrong with using accurate anatomical terms? Is it offensive to trans people to acknowledge the true anatomical names because it more clearly highlights that surgery is being used to alter or remove parts of the anatomy that have nothing wrong with them?

Nothing, the pamphlet concedes that there is not simply one correct, established, and specific set of words that all people agree upon, that's why they define the ones they use for clarity.