- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 39,386
- Reaction score
- 10,059
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I understand what they are doing. Too bad you don't.
Do me a favor and explain your theory to me.
I understand what they are doing. Too bad you don't.
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.
Do me a favor and explain your theory to me.
Simple. They are calling a vagina a front hole and a front hole a vagina to suit their agenda.
.....What's their agenda ? To normalize the language about post-op trans genitalia ?
Simple. They are calling a vagina a front hole and a front hole a vagina to suit their agenda. Kind of just like they call men women and women men to suit it as well.
Of course, the upside in all this is that the more absurd they get with their silly rabbit hole nonsense, the more people wake up to the fact that their agenda is rabbit hole nonsense.
.....
So....
What does cis mean?
Front hole. What an obnoxious term. Now we will engage in discourse in terms of holes? Front hole, back hole, top hole, a******......
Where is George Carlin when you need him.
And what is "rabbit hole nonsense" ?
This shouldn't be like pulling teeth- please articulate your view.
It is a recently made up term to protect the feelings of people who are "different."
I'm sick of this politically correct **** and I have no intentions of changing. If you look enough like a chick...I will call you a chick. If you look enough like a dude...I will call you a dude. I don't give a **** if I hurt your "feelings." Being offended is part of life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rabbit hole nonsense: calling men women, women men and saying a vagina is a front hole while claiming a surgically inserted front hole is a vagina.
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.
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.
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.
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
Click the "this" hyperlink in the OP. It's on page one of the HRC guide.
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.
Simple. They are calling a vagina a front hole and a front hole a vagina to suit their agenda. Kind of just like they call men women and women men to suit it as well.
Of course, the upside in all this is that the more absurd they get with their silly rabbit hole nonsense, the more people wake up to the fact that their agenda is rabbit hole nonsense.
They did not deny anything. They needed to use consistent, clear, differentiated terms for the purposes of the document, and only for that purpose.
Ok. And when they differentiated, as you said, they assigned the word "vagina" exclusively to those who do NOT have "internal genitals." Those with "internal genitals" or an anatomical vagina, they used "front hole."
How is that not backwards?
I think that the goal of the HRC here is to attempt to shift vagina from an anatomical body part to a state of mind that people can adopt in tems of self expression.
One thing I can tell you- non trans women are not going to like to have a front hole. How obnoxious of a term is that. How about female parts? That seems more inclusive and less obscene.
The problem with this is it really is not that absurd. It is a document, specifically for trans people, dealing with STDs and their prevention. That opens up a whole ****load of possible combinations of genitalia. So, instead of pandering to people who the document is not intended for, people who get offended by anything, they simply chose terms that worked, defined them, and added a big caveat on the very first page of the document that you would have had to read if you bothered to actually ****ing take the two seconds to click the link. Here is that caveat:
See that? Feel kinda silly getting all worked up over nothing now?
It certainly is not how I use the word, but then again, the document is not aimed at me, nor trying to change how I use the word. So not much reason to be outraged.
I am sure you think that, but the evidence does not fit that conclusion. Using the terms like that in a document that, if not for people being outraged over nothing, would have been seen by a tiny portion of the population isn't going to shift anything.
No one is saying they have to call it that. In fact, the document specifically states that you do not have to call it that, that you can call it whatever you want and it is ok, they are only defining terms for consistency and clarity within the document.
I did click the link, not only in the OP, but of the pamphlet itself and I'm not worked up at all. More than anything I'm happy to not feel obligated to be an apologist for anyone who feels the term "vagina" is insensitive or oppressive. It is what it is. What's next though? Calling teeth "calcified face hole projections" out of sensitivity to those who don't have teeth?
I don't see what this has to do with political correctness. They are defining terms to help explain to trans people about things like sex, surgery, and genitalia.
I'm probably ignorant on this- but I don't think a person can get an STD through a tranny vagina. I'm pretty sure its a hole to nowhere, completely covered in skin. If that's the case- even if you are right- why would they need to define that word for the purposes of an STD discussion?