TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Bodies with vaginas
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Bodies with vaginas
Am I just getting old and out of touch, or are some of the attempts at inclusive language these days really tipping from woke into simply broke?
From this tweet by The Lancet: https://twitter.com/TheLancet/statu...372277786951681
Not women but "bodies with vaginas." Brings to mind a heap of female corpses.
I guess if you're looking at it from a purely medical perspective, you're really just talking about a body with a vagina, a pussybody. No need to get someone's panties in an unnecessary twist by using any archaic names for it. If it doesn't have anything to do with the ovaries or such, it's still quite a handy name. "Bodies with vaginas, breasts, mammary glands, ovaries, and other cis-female typical features and/or organs" might be awkward to use.
my new pronoun is a body with a vagina
^^same
Can’t we just call them cunts?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Demoted Can’t we just call them cunts? |
We are living in such strange times... think how much western society has changed in the past 50 years. I wonder what ridiculousness is ahead in the next decade.
On a side note, with regards to terminology, I wonder who has the highest post count in the c0r with old content that would "canceL" them today.
Lol uh, would be like 90% of us. 
Jay in the top 5, for sure.
It wasn’t hard to stop calling people fags, whores, sluts. I’ll draw the line when I can’t make fun of Italians or portugese
I think maybe Ygrene and Echos would be the only two not canceled...but maybe just Ygrene. He's wholesome.
EoS was a cunt.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by planetaryplayer It wasn’t hard to stop calling people fags, whores, sluts. I’ll draw the line when I can’t make fun of Italians or portugese |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Silky Johnson EoS was a cunt. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by planetaryplayer It wasn’t hard to stop calling people fags, whores, sluts. I’ll draw the line when I can’t make fun of Italians or portugese |
Oh I’d be cancelled. And if I were famous my cancellation would not be pretty. I would be like Connor mcgregor on the ground with a broken leg calling my opponents wife a slut and that I once banged her. It would be petty, I’d be crying, it would be the saddest thing you’d ever see as I got wheeled out of there on a stretcher and the lights turned off.
If a cross-section of the people represented by the term have agreed that this is the preferred nomenclature in this scientific context, then I really don't see what the problem is.
Nobody is coming to cancel you for still saying 'women' in your daily life.
Isn't the term just females anyway? Not a fan of this new woke world. I think it'll just be a trend that will go anyway.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Singularity55 Not a fan of this new woke world. I think it'll just be a trend that will go anyway. |
Let the vaginas hit the floor.
I'm no champion of "inclusive" language for its own sake, but there is some merit to linguistic precision, and not all women have vaginas (nor are all people with vaginas women). So I can see the case for not simply using "women."
On the other hand, the decision to use the word "bodies" instead of something more humanizing like, I dunno—"people," maybe?—is pretty baffling. I agree that it evokes the image of corpses, or maybe livestock, which is inclusive only if you're a zombie or a donkey.
In conclusion, I agree that the anatomy and physiology of donkey zombies with vaginas have been neglected, and that should promptly be rectified. Also, "donkey zombies with vaginas" would be a pretty cool name for a band. That's all.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vivid Boy Let the vaginas hit the floor. |
As the resident linguist,
Would a considerable number of pre-op trans men and women really feel miscategorised if the word "women" was used in this context?
The members of collective nouns often share a "family resemblance" among themselves (they share some traits in common, but not all, like we resemble our siblings and cousins, but we're not identical), and sometimes you might have what we call a "prototype" (that is, the freakishly rare member that checks all the boxes of properties linked to that group).
If we try to be radically precise with our words all the time, we'll end up talking as if we're drafting a legal document. Also, would they have said "bodies with penises" if the roles were reversed?
I might be stating the obvious here, but I don't think it's about whether a considerable amount of people feel miscategorized, but rather about whether the loudest ones feel so. This includes people who don't necessarily have anything to do with being transsexual or transgender – or what ever happens to be the subject group(s) – but who just like calling companies out on inane things like this, were they to find a reason to. And, unfortunately, many companies and universities let themselves be held hostage by these seemingly sociopathic people on social media, so I can understand the care they try to take around subjects like this, but it's never as perfect as some would want it to be.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lira If we try to be radically precise with our words all the time, we'll end up talking as if we're drafting a legal document. Also, would they have said "bodies with penises" if the roles were reversed? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.