Once upon a time, several years ago, during an increasingly bizarre and heated (on her part, not mine) conversation on what was then Facebook’s private messaging system, I had the Orwellian experience of being told why it was important that we referred to women not as women, but by ownership of various private parts; despite the fact that when I asked her what she calls men, she replied testily “Men, of course!”
What did she say when you asked why it’s only women who get redefined?
iknklast
I find it difficult to understand why some people think “uterus haver” “vulva owner” or “front hole” are not demeaning terms. I think most people see that right away, but some people are so steeped in trans dogma they think those are just neutral terms. I do think there are at least some of the trans activists who realize they are demeaning and use them for that reason.
GW
iknklast, next they will be claiming, in good faith, that “vulva owner” and “front-hole haver” were the normal terms that all indigenous cultures (all of them, ever!!) used before Columbus and the European Colonialists imposed on them the concept of “woman”.
Well not in good faith. It’s pretty much the definition of bad faith. Or maybe it’s not but should be. They may “believe” it in some sense, but they have zero right to.
Comments
5 responses to “Ownership”
Once upon a time, several years ago, during an increasingly bizarre and heated (on her part, not mine) conversation on what was then Facebook’s private messaging system, I had the Orwellian experience of being told why it was important that we referred to women not as women, but by ownership of various private parts; despite the fact that when I asked her what she calls men, she replied testily “Men, of course!”
What did she say when you asked why it’s only women who get redefined?
I find it difficult to understand why some people think “uterus haver” “vulva owner” or “front hole” are not demeaning terms. I think most people see that right away, but some people are so steeped in trans dogma they think those are just neutral terms. I do think there are at least some of the trans activists who realize they are demeaning and use them for that reason.
iknklast, next they will be claiming, in good faith, that “vulva owner” and “front-hole haver” were the normal terms that all indigenous cultures (all of them, ever!!) used before Columbus and the European Colonialists imposed on them the concept of “woman”.
Well not in good faith. It’s pretty much the definition of bad faith. Or maybe it’s not but should be. They may “believe” it in some sense, but they have zero right to.