From a Woman's charity, dedicated to women's health,
What a revolting name, for a vagina. Who thinks up this nonsense?🙄
Julie Bindell has written an article for the DM:
"As holes go, they are arguably the most important in the world. Every man and woman ever to have lived – except those born by caesarean section – has sprung forth into this world from one.
And yet a charity dedicated to women's health, Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust, is suggesting that the word 'vagina' could be referred to as the 'bonus hole' to avoid offending or excluding trans men or 'non-binary' people.
As a feminist campaigner, I am appalled. I've spent time over the decades trying to raise awareness among women about our bodies.
I've encouraged women to unlearn the shame associated with our biology.
So the idea that we should stop referring to the vagina by its name is grossly offensive.
I grew up absorbing the message that our bodies were dirty.
We would use euphemisms to describe its parts, because 'vagina' and even 'breast' were considered unpleasant.
I recall, back in the Eighties, buying tampons only to have the shopkeeper quickly put the box in a brown paper bag as if it were a porn magazine. But we feminists learned to take pride in our physical form.
I would shake the tampons out of the bag to make the point that I was not ashamed of menstruating. After all, it's a reality for half the population.
It's worth noting that this form of McCarthyite censorship is reserved for descriptions of female anatomy only. That's why this is nothing short of misogyny.
There is no such suggestion, of course, to swap words that men use to describe their biology.
Perhaps, to be fair, we should change 'penis' to 'flesh roll' to avoid offending trans women? I'm sure men won't object. Just a thought."
www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-12278639/JULIE-BINDEL-says-womens-health-charity-guilty-short-misogyny-again.html
A health professional wouldn’t know what someone was referring to, that’s the point.
Surely they would because they would though because they would be given the heads up first when the phrase came into usage with medical professionals.
Doctors and nurses over the years have heard many and various names for all parst of the human anatomy and, ribably come across new ones frequently.
They will handle it should someone come into the surgery using this term.
Well, despite this lunacy, the government are taking action over prisons:
"Justice chiefs are clamping down on the number of transgender criminals caged in women's jails amid fresh concerns over prisoner safety.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has tightened up its rules on transgender inmates in England and Wales in the wake of the Isla Bryson scandal, with at least two trans prisoners having now been moved to men's jails or special trans wings.
It comes after sexual predator Bryson was sent to an all-female prison when she was convicted of raping two women while still a man.
A Government review has now said transgender women convicted of sex offences or jailed for murder and other violent crimes like kidnapping or attempted murder, pose a safety risk to other female inmates.
'We've changed the rules so transgender women who've been convicted of sexual or violent offences – or who retain male genitalia – cannot be held in a women's prison unless in truly exceptional circumstances,' a Government spokesman told the Telegraph.
'This Government is clear that biological sex matters and our common sense approach means well over 90 per cent of transgender women in custody are held in men's prisons,' the official added."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12306317/Transgender-prisoners-moved-womens-jails-amid-protect-female-inmates.html
Slightly off piste but relevant. Research today confirms what I’ve long believed. Child sexual abuse is increasing. Yes, more are reporting but the research is clear, it’s increasing. Easy access to images and videos on line is causing some who started looking at images to find children to abuse.
It’s relevant because this bonus hole is yet another name with the potential to confuse children. If they’re being interviewed under best practice, they will be expected to identify the what when and were. When delivering training we identified multiple names, daisy, noonoo, flower etc etc.
Good point (if rather depressing) Iam
Yes I agree Oreo!
Sadly, it doesn't surprise me. I have been thinking this for some time, but without any evidence to support it - and for the same reason.
I think the same applies to casual abuse of women. I spent most of my working life in a male environment and never experienced the quite gross sexual attacks that many women in the public eye have suffered, no one ever grabbed my breasts for example. Yes, the odd surreptious grope, standing so that they could try and stare down my dress. double entendres and, sometimes, quite gross remarks, but physical attacks, while not unknown were far less common for the same reasons.
MOnica is right to link the increasing sexual abuse of children to the casual abuse of women. The treatment and expectations of women in some reality tv shows normalises this.
The only place I remember as being "groping territory", years ago, was the London Underground.
People were packed in, and it led to many episodes of a stray hand appearing out of nowhere...🙄
My DIL is adamant that all children should use anatomically correct terms so in the event of abuse, they can correctly identify where they were touched. Defence lawyers will try to confuse children in the court room so it is imperative that they cannot be tripped up to allow reasonable doubt to creep in.
There was a very disturbing report on BBC Breakfast this morning about the abuse of young women working in McDonald's franchises.
Being grabbed and groped, some as young as 17 who despite reporting incidents, no action was taken. I agree that the link to child abuse with the casual abuse of women is an important one that needs to be acknowledged.
There was a report published this week (I have searched but cannot find it) discussing the effect of teenagers, especially boys, watching porn onine and on their phones. The boys admitted that it affected their relationships with girls and what they expected, even while seeming to understand the exploitative nature of porn.
Reading the report on McDonalds, where both order fulfillers and the first couple of grades of supervisory staff are likely to still be in teens/early 20s, I do wonder the extent to which this diet of porn has led men, young and older, to see physical sexual aggression to women, as far more normalised behaviour than it was in the past.
When I and many many other women in the 1960s and 70s were confidently walking into what had been a mans world of careers and career progression and equality in so many areas, that the male fight back should come, through, then unknown new technology that would be to reduce us to no more than a physical kit of parts exclusively for male use and, as with part of the transgender movement to show how men could be women if they wanted too, thus demeaning us further, was beyond our wildest fears.
You’re right to question the impact of porn on the attitude of t-young men MOnica. There’s also the impact on girls who are led to believe strangulation, slapping and unsafe painful sexual practices are ‘normal’
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
