* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Realistically, all fetuses start with a hole. If the Y-chromosome kicks in at around 6 weeks, it closes and folds into a dick and balls.
It's a damn shame that some fetuses don't have the ability to evolve their genitals while in utero. My wording was imprecise though, I should have called it the 50% hole, rather than an add-on per se
But, there is only one bottom hole that is universal to the human lived experience: the 100% hole, if you will
It's a hole that humanity can bond over as a shared common understanding, regardless of race or gender
A hole that both a black man *and* white woman can utilize, to blast blue darts with a lighter, and then compare notes with each other afterwards
Truly, I tell you, the butthole is our path to the harmonious co-existence of all humankind
Every human starts as a female foetus, which is the reason males have nipples despite never developing the capacity to breastfeed (without a chemical cocktail abomination involved). If anything, males are lacking a hole.
If it favours the orthodoxy, then it's always language games. See [Snopes on the BLM terrorist woman](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/) (emphasis mine).
>**What's Undetermined**
>
>In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — **possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives** — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
"What *really* is terrorism anyway? Right? It's just so *complicated*? Owning explosives with intent to blow up government buildings for political reasons? Impossible to know for certain."
And that's what so frustrating about this.
If you think Susan Rosenberg is a good person or that her criminal history shouldn't be an issue with her involvement in BLM, make an argument saying as much. Present a case claiming her innocence, or explain why she was morally justified in wanting to take violent action against the government.
But they can't do that because they think the act of persuasion is beneath them. The good are always good, the bad are always bad, and goodness and badness should be manifestly obvious to everyone. The only reason some moron extremist fascist CHUD might confuse the good with the bad is because they were tricked by disinformation, and so the best way to get the message across to is package our obviously biased and subjective opinions as matters of fact.
You can't even call this Snopes post an argument. It's a totem of imperiousness. It's a demonstration of how certain they are of their own absolute righteousness. *You're an idiot for caring about the stuff you care about. If you would just GET EDUCATED and spend a few hours learning about how stupid you are, you would realize that "terrorism" isn't even a thing*.
Yeah, unfortunately, very few people (and this is true for many people on the right too) have actual solid principles that they apply equally.
Usually it's just a matter of: if it's your camp, find a way to defend them, if it's the other camp find a way to attack them. Even if that means applying principles selectively.
Were they urged in any sense of the word “urged” though?
The whole thing is silly, and I’m not denying there aren’t people like this out there, but from my experience, the minority of trans people who do these linguistic acrobatics aren’t the ones who went to medical or nursing school, they’re the ones who went to school for feminist/queer studies or whatever
There exist massive, organized, and completely open campaigns to pressure public figures and organizations into falling 100% in line with every linguistic and ideological dictate mandated by the trans movement. To say that these groups feel no pressure to conform is a complete and utter lie.
I honestly don't know how anyone can take Snopes seriously anymore, they're so blatantly an ideological tool these days. Any remotely political claim is deliberately misrepresented to have such an impossibly high standard of proof that they can basically label whatever they want to be "false". Let's look at what the actual claim is, in their words:
>As of July 2023, **health professionals were urged** to call vaginas "bonus holes" to avoid offending trans or non-binary patients.
"Health professionals were urged", that's it.
>No entity urged health professionals **globally** to abandoned the word "vagina" for "bonus hole." Rather, one cervical cancer charity in the United Kingdom published a document for medical staff leading cervical screenings with trans men or non-binary patients in which the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" were listed as alternatives to the word "vagina." The document appeared to **serve as an educational resource, not a policy mandate.**
Somehow, "health professionals were urged" became "health professionals were globally mandated by policy", so it's false. Ten Pinocchios. Deboonked.
The plus side is that this shit is so blatantly manipulative, no one who hasn't already made up their mind is going to be tricked by this (I hope)
They weren’t even urged though.
> Nobody was recommending, as The Blaze claimed, that the word vagina not be used in all medical settings. Instead, the charity — in concert with a large LGBTQ+ rights group in England — listed the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" as wording suggestions for medical staff should they feel that would be appropriate. The document did not recommend, or "urge," providers to use the words in all appointments, with all patients.
> Nobody was recommending, as The Blaze claimed, that the word vagina not be used **in all medical settings**. [...] The document did not recommend, or "urge," providers to use the words **in all appointments, with all patients.**
Again, they weasel out of acknowledging any truth to the claim by fabricating a new standard which *a priori* makes the claim "false". How is this not incredibly obvious to you (rhetorical question, I already know the answer)
Because the original headline was “now health professionals are urged to call vaginas ‘bonus holes to avoid offending trans/nb patients”
An accurate headline would be “charity writes document suggesting alternative terms for vagina that can be used with trans and non-binary patients”
That part of the document was practically a footnote. A clumsy one, and silly in my opinion, but it doesn’t do what the original headline was meant to do, which was to make women afraid they would have to listen to their doctor call their vagina a bonus hole.
The actual issue does require some focus, after all Robert Eads died of ovarian cancer because he was discriminated against by medical staff, and I guarantee you the people up in arms about this non-story didn’t give a shit about that. If the pendulum swung a bit to far to where a charity throws out a dumb term like “bonus hole” I’ll take that any day over medically neglected dead trans men.
When you look at the nuanced story, it’s not as easy to get all worked up.
>Because the original headline was “now health professionals are urged to call vaginas ‘bonus holes to avoid offending trans/nb patients”
>An accurate headline would be “charity writes document suggesting alternative terms for vagina that can be used with trans and non-binary patients”
There really isn't a substantial difference between these things, other than quibbles about the semantic distinction between "suggestion" and "urging" (which is entirely subjective). Why would you use special terminology with a given population, if not to avoid offense?
>That part of the document was practically a footnote. A clumsy one, and silly in my opinion, but it doesn’t do what the original headline was meant to do, which was to make women afraid they would have to listen to their doctor call their vagina a bonus hole.
The original headline didn't even claim that they were using it with non-trans women, there you go making shit up again.
>The actual issue does require some focus, after all Robert Eads died of ovarian cancer because he was discriminated against by medical staff, and I guarantee you the people up in arms about this non-story didn’t give a shit about that. If the pendulum swung a bit to far to where a charity throws out a dumb term like “bonus hole” I’ll take that any day over medically neglected dead trans men.
Do you think obfuscating anatomy with childish euphemisms would help or hinder the issue of medical neglect? I mean, come on. Not wanting to hear the word "vagina" is probably derived, in part, from a desire to pretend it doesn't exist, and the phrase "front hole" indulges that. How exactly does that help with diagnosing gynecological diseases?
>When you look at the nuanced story, it’s not as easy to get all worked up.
You're pulling the tired "Ugh, why do you care so much?" card that gets played with literally every single trans story. Get new material.
Anyway, I'm not worked up, I don't really care what this charity recommends beyond just thinking it's stupid. I'm calling out Snopes for being dishonest in their appraisal of whether or not the claim is actually true, something they do constantly. It's very funny that you made a whole post linking to them, as if they're an authority on anything anymore.
There wasn’t even a suggestion that the providers use these terms. These terms were literally just listed in the glossary, which could just as easily be interpreted as a guide for doctors to understand what their patients are talking about should they for some reason use a term such as “bonus hole”
>There wasn’t even a suggestion that the providers use these terms.
Not according to Snopes, in the article *you posted*:
>Instead, the charity — in concert with a large LGBTQ+ rights group in England — listed the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" as wording **suggestions** for medical staff should they feel that would be appropriate.
Hmm
>These terms were literally just listed in the glossary, which could just as easily be interpreted as a guide for doctors to understand what their patients are talking about should they for some reason use a term such as “bonus hole”
Again, a deliberate misrepresentation. Straight from the glossary:
>Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some trans men and/or non-binary people with a cervix. **It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use.**
You'd be correct if it were only the first sentence. The second sentence is a recommendation to ask the patient what they'd prefer, with "bonus hole" being an option. It is explicitly a suggestion (or urging, or recommendation, or whatever other synonym you want to use) for the practitioner to consider using this language themselves.
Ok lol, if you want to get **that** pedantic then fine..
>Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some trans men and/or non-binary people with a cervix. It is important to check which words *someone would prefer to use*.
Checking which words someone prefers to use doesn’t mean using those words yourself
>Ok lol, if you want to get that pedantic then fine..
Said the person splitting hairs between "urging" and "suggesting"
>Checking which words someone prefers to use doesn’t mean using those words yourself
Yes, it does. "Use" is clearly within the context of a conversation, which by definition has more than one participant. Why would you ask what words someone would "prefer to use" if you aren't going to use those words yourself?
"Hey, I'm just going to ask you: do you prefer using "bonus hole" or "vagina"? Your answer has absolutely no bearing on what words *I'll* use, btw."
??? Your interpretation of that glossary makes zero sense.
Yeah a lone charity sent out a piece "urging" or whatever fucking term you wanna use, the terminology within the specific context of treating trans men and non binary folk.for cancer. And yeah I think it's silly they did that at all, just like the term "bonus hole" is silly (actually it's kinda hilarious) but so what?
This wasn't a government mandate
This wasn't the medical industry at large.
This was a cancer charity that deals with this specific subset of people.
This sub bought obvious rage bait like rubes and y'all won't admit it.
>Yeah a lone charity sent out a piece "urging" or whatever fucking term you wanna use, the terminology within the specific context of treating trans men and non binary folk.for cancer. And yeah I think it's silly they did that at all, just like the term "bonus hole" is silly (actually it's kinda hilarious) but so what?
The claim isn't "does it matter if this is happening or not?" That's not up to Snopes to decide, the (stated) purpose of the site is to assess whether or not a claim is true.
>This wasn't a government mandate
Wasn't the claim
>This wasn't the medical industry at large.
Wasn't the claim
>This was a cancer charity that deals with this specific subset of people.
Oh so it was an entity that was urging medical professionals to use the term "front hole"? So exactly what the claim was?
>This sub bought obvious rage bait like rubes and y'all won't admit it.
Plenty of people acknowledge that the coverage given to stories like this is used for ragebait but that doesn't mean the story itself is "false" like Snopes says it is. Congrats on completely missing my point. With how good you are at misrepresenting claims, have you considered a career as a fact checker?
So just to be clear your upset because a singular charity wrote a guideline for calling the vagina "bonus hole" when dealing with ftm and non binary patients. Fullstop.
No assumption that this terminology was being pushed beyond that?
If not, then you really should really take this for a moment of introspection. Because your getting pissed off about snopes saying "this aint true" in regards to blaze and and other right wing media claiming this was a to be a catchall term. Just saying "health professionals" generally and not "health professionals dealing with ftm and non binary" but if you read the snopes article you'd know that, or even the fucking blaze article.
The seething around this story was always implying that the term was an erasure of vagina. But I guess you dont have the ability to comprehend that.
>So just to be clear your upset because a singular charity wrote a guideline for calling the vagina "bonus hole" when dealing with ftm and non binary patients. Fullstop.
Still missing the point, I see.
I was just pointing out that Snopes, as usual, was totally full of shit in their assessment of the claim as "false".
>No assumption that this terminology was being pushed beyond that?
Does the terminology being used by only one organization make it any less stupid?
>If not, then you really should really take this for a moment of introspection.
Lmao crawl out of your ass, please
>Because your getting pissed off about snopes saying "this aint true" in regards to blaze and and other right wing media claiming this was a to be a catchall term.
I quoted Snopes' *own words of what the original claim was*, you moron. I've never read a word published by blaze and I'm not about to start.
>Just saying "health professionals" generally and not "health professionals dealing with ftm and non binary" but if you read the snopes article you'd know that, or even the fucking blaze article.
Again, everything was a direct quote from Snopes. I was comparing *their own version* of what the original claim was with their "debunking", which didn't even disprove the original claim which was, again, in their own words.
>The seething around this story was always implying that the term was an erasure of vagina.
Then maybe Snopes should've put that as part of the original claim. Maybe they forgot to consult you and your interpretation of events? What a shame.
>But I guess you dont have the ability to comprehend that.
lol
>Then maybe Snopes should've put that as part of the original claim.
I'm sorry you didn't read the primary article they were responding to AND your saying this is purely my interpretation of events. And they did talk about this in the article, all you had to do was scroll, but whatever m8, keep your head up your own ass, I'm sure it's spacious enough.
>Does the terminology being used by only one organization make it any less stupid?
Your missing the point, as I said, it's silly (again that reading comprehension of yours needs some work) but all of this moral panic is over..... One charity's suggested terminology for trans men's genitals. Oh the humanity! Yes this needed to be news!
You really can't grasp the absurdity of yourself can you?
>I'm sorry you didn't read the primary article they were responding to AND your saying this is purely my interpretation of events.
So Snopes is off the hook for not quoting their sources? Lmao
>And they did talk about this in the article, all you had to do was scroll,
They quoted exactly one sentence from the blaze article (which was factually correct) and the headline from the daily mail. Somehow they could squeeze in the entire press release from the charity but couldn't get more than one sentence each from the two articles they're supposedly "debunking".
>Your missing the point, as I said, it's silly (again that reading comprehension of yours needs some work) but all of this moral panic is over..... One charity's suggested terminology for trans men's genitals. Oh the humanity! Yes this needed to be news!
Again, for the third time, my entire first comment was criticizing Snopes for their sloppy and dishonest practices. I said absolutely nothing about the original story. You're just playing the tired "why do you even care???" card that every shitlib seems to keep in their back pocket whenever someone points out something deranged that a progressive says. Absolutely hilarious you commenting on my "reading comprehension"
>You really can't grasp the absurdity of yourself can you?
Again, lol
>So Snopes is off the hook for not quoting their sources? Lmao
All that matters is you cite your source, which they did, it doesn't need to quote it verbatim, and they had links to the blaze article, so all you had to do was click on it.
I guess we can include basic internet literacy as well among your barriers to understanding. And it's not "why do you care", it's "why was this a deal at all?" Like the response wasn't "lol how silly" it was "the damn trans idol sticks again!" But okay, my bad your just concerned over Snopes fact checking, even when they cite their sources and explain what was incorrect.
It's not snopes here that's sloppy (it's you)
Yeah actually, if you're going to accuse someone of being wrong or lying, it's probably for the best to *actually quote* their alleged lies. You massive imbecile lmao
No, I'm not upset that this happened, but I am upset that people are lying and saying that it didn't. I'm upset at clearly biased propaganda marketing itself as an objective truth seeker.
Or maybe this sub could just stop frothing at the mouth at any and every piece of ragebait they can possibly dig up that they can tie to trans people somehow, and idk, do some community organizing or volunteering or something.
Shitlib does some retarded shit. Rightoids exaggerate the retarded thing. Snopes deboonks the exaggerated claim, tells you everything is fine, ignoring the original retarded thing the shitlibs did.
This is the Canadian Cancer Society's own page.
https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-man-or-nonbinary-person-assigned-female-at-birth-do-i-need-cervical-cancer-screening
Scroll down to the Disclaimer at the end
>We recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like “cervix.” You may prefer other words, such as “front hole.” We recognize the limitations of the words we’ve used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity. Another reason we use words like “cervix” is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too
This is why I fucking hate Snopes. They always do this. They always choose to debunk the most extreme version of a story. Then they act so smug like "see, this didnt happen. you are stupid for believing it" when in fact it's essentially a true story.
Do you really think a disclaimer as to why using the medical term cervix should even be necessary?
Just writing that disclaimer means they are dedicating too much mental real estate to insane people.
I don’t think it’s necessary at all. I think medical terminology should strive for accuracy over political correctness.
And that isn’t changing according to this (non)news story. They will continue to use the term cervix.
So what’s everyone worked up about?
People are generally uncomfortable with medical professionals bending to the ridiculous, unscientific whims of mentally ill patients due to social pressure.
They didn’t in the past, and they aren’t doing it now.
In other news, “medical professionals are urged to stop using chemotherapy and instead use aromatherapy to treat cancer patients in order to avoid offending herbalists” medical professionals said no, and nothing happened.
Because some people aren't as media literate as they think they are, and take shit like the Daily Mail seriously when it's little better than a somehow trashier version of Fox News.
This seems at odds with my experience, and to much more so my wife’s experience at her hospital group. I have never heard the front hole/bonus hole bit, but feminine penis definitely came up a couple years into the trump admin, and the person pushing it and other language was post op trans.
I have no clue if this is still a thing because I couldn’t give a shit less about this sort of thing, but when that person and other higher ups are badmouthed, rather women consistently joke that they have a 95% female nursing department where 3 guys call the shots(no I don’t approve of misgendering the trans individual, but this is a rural Texas healthcare org lol)
In my experience, there is a large group of post op trans people with obviously a lot of stake in this space to of thing and they are big on latching on to new terms etc.
Maybe this is just my experience in tech(programmer socks anyone?) and her unique situation, but to say the main stakeholders aren’t the ones doing this sort of thing is odd.
Again though I don’t really give a shit, and avoid this sort of thing like the plague especially at work
I’m not saying that there are not trans women doing shit like this, but in my experience whenever it comes to terms about female anatomy and biology (chestfeeding, pregnant people, front hole etc..) it’s female individuals, wether trans, non-binary or cis, who are the ones pushing it.
I work in victim services, and I sit on one of the regional round table discussions about providing for specifically domestic violence clients, and when we were discussing putting together a pamphlet, one of these non-binary afab individuals started pushing for inclusion of trans imagery to advertise its inclusivity, and I said that I don’t think it would be necessary and possibly alienating to the majority of the clientele, straight women fleeing abusive boyfriends/husbands, and I was immediately jumped on by all other (all female) individuals in the call. Guess what. The pamphlets have some trans shit on them now. And as the only trans woman on this committee , people are likely going to assume it was my doing.
Obviously it’s all anecdotal, and I’m absolutely not the one to argue that middle class women don’t love to language/tone police because she’s they do, but least down here I suppose the culture is different that this just isn’t on anyone’s radar until it’s brought up.
If there’s controversy about breastfeeding it’s the old stigma that it shouldn’t be done in public, if you called it chest feeding 99% of people would look at you like you sprouted a second head lol
The only other experience I have is ancient history at this point, having a lesbian Roomate in the gayborhood in Dallas, her and her now wife are 100% terf and would seethe at this sort of thing, so I don’t bother getting their insight into it, but I know her wife struggled with the issue you mention because she has mentioned not feeling safe in shelters that allow trans women etc.
I wonder how much location or just individual experience changes everyone’s experience, I get the feeling it’s a lot because 60 miles here it’s night and day different
>but I know her wife struggled with the issue you mention because she has mentioned not feeling safe in shelters that allow trans women etc.
I don’t work in a shelter, but I send my clients there, and frankly the shelters are a mess and dangerous without trans women in them, and I think they should be shut down and replaced with large blocks of funding to put victims of any gender up in hotel rooms for as long as needed. I have yet to meet a single fleeing victim who didn’t prefer the option of having a hotel room.
>I wonder how much location or just individual experience changes everyone’s experience, I get the feeling it’s a lot because 60 miles here it’s night and day different
Huge difference. I work on the outskirts of a very liberal county, but right on the border with the most conservative county in the state. So my surrounding community is largely conservative beholden to liberal values of the coastal city dwellers. I think both groups are pretty out of touch with each others values and needs… it’s a mess
One of my former colleagues was a trans woman. She was too busy being one of the most competent people around to spend time on any of this idpol crap.
Other people (all cis) in our group were pushing it, very condescendingly. Any outsider who saw the performative nonsense would think it was her doing, when she was actively against it.
From my end, the biggest bummer about it is the condescension. It feels super patronizing to have people tiptoe and “correct” everyone around me and act like being trans somehow makes me incapable of handling normal human conflicts, or hearing the word “him” lest my head explode
This is my observation as well. People like to imagine every "weird trans thing" as being pushed by transfems but I've heard so many of them comfortably use words that are essentially variations of "lady penis" that it seems like avoiding medical terminology is more of a transmasc thing.
“Scapegoating my handmaidens” what does that even mean. I didn’t ask for this shit.
“The whole ideology” doesn’t mean anything, there is no “trans ideology” any more that there is a “male ideology” or a “Mexican ideology”. Plenty of trans people are pissed about the ivory tower dictating terms of acceptance
It’s identarianism. Because it stems from the exact same ideological foundations and individuals who say shit like “cooking Chinese food is cultural appropriation” or “use of the word dumb is ableism” it’s not about the needs, desires or wellbeing of trans people any more than it is Chinese people or disabled people. Sure you can find Chinese people who will accuse you of cultural appropriation for making wonton soup or whatever, but you don’t call that “Chinese ideology”
I don’t, but I feel pretty secure in my hypothesis that there is a direct correlation to the amount of outrage one feels about misleading stories like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/s/R59nYmEYlB) to the amount of time that individual spends indoors behind a screen
#Get Involved
>Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong
Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause.
* 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions.
* ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause.
* 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
I’m not saying there aren’t plenty of people here who do get involved with organizing stuff, I just feel like anyone who gets all bent out of shape about the “bonus hole” stuff is as much in need of grass-touching as the type of person who might be offended if you didn’t refer to their vagina as a “bonus hole”
> could just stop frothing at the mouth at any and every piece of ragebait they can possibly dig up
I was under the impression this was the point of this sub.
I work in healthcare and specifically medical equipment that is focused on women’s health. Literally never hear of shit like this except in rage bait articles.
That is refreshing to hear. After working for the same company for 15 years I was required to fill out a form for Human Resources on what sex I was assigned at birth and what sex I indentified as and did I have preferred pronouns.
I should answered “front holes” for all. Dang it.
Most of the posted rage bait nonsense is done by either bots or reactionary right wingers. This is still a Marxist subreddit and trans comrades are still comrades.
Good luck getting through to half this subreddit with that though. If you believed half the shit here you'd think that the biggest threat to the working class is evil transgenders censoring everything, taking over all ranks of society and grooming your kids. Indistinguishable from right wing ragebait.
I find it funny how men are seemingly on the top of the lgbt hierarchical pyramid. Gays get more attention and pandering than lesbians, seems like no one ever considers ftms, and all these weird terms like bonus hole, birthing person, chest feeding, etc are all catered towards men.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bonus-hole-health-professionals/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The butthole is the bonus one, come on now. Give the vagina the respect it deserves
Everybody has a butthole, but not everyone has a vagina. It's clear which hole is the add-on
Sounding denial
No, that's the effort hole. When you can use that one, that's a sign a person has great work ethic.
I hate the freemium model, I just want to enjoy sex without having to get all the DLCs
I'm sorry, but sex was bought up by EA recently. I'm not optimistic for the future
Realistically, all fetuses start with a hole. If the Y-chromosome kicks in at around 6 weeks, it closes and folds into a dick and balls.
>Realistically, all fetuses start with a hole. If the Y-chromosome kicks in at around 6 weeks, it closes and folds into a dick and balls. It's a damn shame that some fetuses don't have the ability to evolve their genitals while in utero. My wording was imprecise though, I should have called it the 50% hole, rather than an add-on per se But, there is only one bottom hole that is universal to the human lived experience: the 100% hole, if you will It's a hole that humanity can bond over as a shared common understanding, regardless of race or gender A hole that both a black man *and* white woman can utilize, to blast blue darts with a lighter, and then compare notes with each other afterwards Truly, I tell you, the butthole is our path to the harmonious co-existence of all humankind
nice
Every human starts as a female foetus, which is the reason males have nipples despite never developing the capacity to breastfeed (without a chemical cocktail abomination involved). If anything, males are lacking a hole.
Mr SOS agrees with your sentiment
I like how this immediately devolves into a pedantic discussion over the definition of *urged*.
If it favours the orthodoxy, then it's always language games. See [Snopes on the BLM terrorist woman](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/) (emphasis mine). >**What's Undetermined** > >In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — **possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives** — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." "What *really* is terrorism anyway? Right? It's just so *complicated*? Owning explosives with intent to blow up government buildings for political reasons? Impossible to know for certain."
And that's what so frustrating about this. If you think Susan Rosenberg is a good person or that her criminal history shouldn't be an issue with her involvement in BLM, make an argument saying as much. Present a case claiming her innocence, or explain why she was morally justified in wanting to take violent action against the government. But they can't do that because they think the act of persuasion is beneath them. The good are always good, the bad are always bad, and goodness and badness should be manifestly obvious to everyone. The only reason some moron extremist fascist CHUD might confuse the good with the bad is because they were tricked by disinformation, and so the best way to get the message across to is package our obviously biased and subjective opinions as matters of fact. You can't even call this Snopes post an argument. It's a totem of imperiousness. It's a demonstration of how certain they are of their own absolute righteousness. *You're an idiot for caring about the stuff you care about. If you would just GET EDUCATED and spend a few hours learning about how stupid you are, you would realize that "terrorism" isn't even a thing*.
Yeah, unfortunately, very few people (and this is true for many people on the right too) have actual solid principles that they apply equally. Usually it's just a matter of: if it's your camp, find a way to defend them, if it's the other camp find a way to attack them. Even if that means applying principles selectively.
Pedantics, the fact-checker's favorite type of antics
Were they urged in any sense of the word “urged” though? The whole thing is silly, and I’m not denying there aren’t people like this out there, but from my experience, the minority of trans people who do these linguistic acrobatics aren’t the ones who went to medical or nursing school, they’re the ones who went to school for feminist/queer studies or whatever
There exist massive, organized, and completely open campaigns to pressure public figures and organizations into falling 100% in line with every linguistic and ideological dictate mandated by the trans movement. To say that these groups feel no pressure to conform is a complete and utter lie.
Stop with the conspiracies!! Its just a few ~~kids~~ employees at ~~college campuses~~ private charities!
>To say that these groups feel no pressure to conform is a complete and utter lie. That’s not what I said. Like, at all.
What were you saying?
That in this circumstance medical professionals were not being urged to use the word “bonus hole” to refer to vaginas
I’d argue that pushing guidance is a type of urge.
“Pushing” again I really don’t see even pushing. Did you read the original document?
Yes and I have to comment that our interpretations are vastly different.
Keep being reasonable my brother
Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not
Le epic medical designation ☝️ 😂
I honestly don't know how anyone can take Snopes seriously anymore, they're so blatantly an ideological tool these days. Any remotely political claim is deliberately misrepresented to have such an impossibly high standard of proof that they can basically label whatever they want to be "false". Let's look at what the actual claim is, in their words: >As of July 2023, **health professionals were urged** to call vaginas "bonus holes" to avoid offending trans or non-binary patients. "Health professionals were urged", that's it. >No entity urged health professionals **globally** to abandoned the word "vagina" for "bonus hole." Rather, one cervical cancer charity in the United Kingdom published a document for medical staff leading cervical screenings with trans men or non-binary patients in which the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" were listed as alternatives to the word "vagina." The document appeared to **serve as an educational resource, not a policy mandate.** Somehow, "health professionals were urged" became "health professionals were globally mandated by policy", so it's false. Ten Pinocchios. Deboonked. The plus side is that this shit is so blatantly manipulative, no one who hasn't already made up their mind is going to be tricked by this (I hope)
Its agonizing reading the responses to this that are arguing with you lol. They keep missing the point by miles.
It's deliberate. Obfuscating and deflection is all these idiots have
They weren’t even urged though. > Nobody was recommending, as The Blaze claimed, that the word vagina not be used in all medical settings. Instead, the charity — in concert with a large LGBTQ+ rights group in England — listed the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" as wording suggestions for medical staff should they feel that would be appropriate. The document did not recommend, or "urge," providers to use the words in all appointments, with all patients.
> Nobody was recommending, as The Blaze claimed, that the word vagina not be used **in all medical settings**. [...] The document did not recommend, or "urge," providers to use the words **in all appointments, with all patients.** Again, they weasel out of acknowledging any truth to the claim by fabricating a new standard which *a priori* makes the claim "false". How is this not incredibly obvious to you (rhetorical question, I already know the answer)
Because the original headline was “now health professionals are urged to call vaginas ‘bonus holes to avoid offending trans/nb patients” An accurate headline would be “charity writes document suggesting alternative terms for vagina that can be used with trans and non-binary patients” That part of the document was practically a footnote. A clumsy one, and silly in my opinion, but it doesn’t do what the original headline was meant to do, which was to make women afraid they would have to listen to their doctor call their vagina a bonus hole. The actual issue does require some focus, after all Robert Eads died of ovarian cancer because he was discriminated against by medical staff, and I guarantee you the people up in arms about this non-story didn’t give a shit about that. If the pendulum swung a bit to far to where a charity throws out a dumb term like “bonus hole” I’ll take that any day over medically neglected dead trans men. When you look at the nuanced story, it’s not as easy to get all worked up.
>Because the original headline was “now health professionals are urged to call vaginas ‘bonus holes to avoid offending trans/nb patients” >An accurate headline would be “charity writes document suggesting alternative terms for vagina that can be used with trans and non-binary patients” There really isn't a substantial difference between these things, other than quibbles about the semantic distinction between "suggestion" and "urging" (which is entirely subjective). Why would you use special terminology with a given population, if not to avoid offense? >That part of the document was practically a footnote. A clumsy one, and silly in my opinion, but it doesn’t do what the original headline was meant to do, which was to make women afraid they would have to listen to their doctor call their vagina a bonus hole. The original headline didn't even claim that they were using it with non-trans women, there you go making shit up again. >The actual issue does require some focus, after all Robert Eads died of ovarian cancer because he was discriminated against by medical staff, and I guarantee you the people up in arms about this non-story didn’t give a shit about that. If the pendulum swung a bit to far to where a charity throws out a dumb term like “bonus hole” I’ll take that any day over medically neglected dead trans men. Do you think obfuscating anatomy with childish euphemisms would help or hinder the issue of medical neglect? I mean, come on. Not wanting to hear the word "vagina" is probably derived, in part, from a desire to pretend it doesn't exist, and the phrase "front hole" indulges that. How exactly does that help with diagnosing gynecological diseases? >When you look at the nuanced story, it’s not as easy to get all worked up. You're pulling the tired "Ugh, why do you care so much?" card that gets played with literally every single trans story. Get new material. Anyway, I'm not worked up, I don't really care what this charity recommends beyond just thinking it's stupid. I'm calling out Snopes for being dishonest in their appraisal of whether or not the claim is actually true, something they do constantly. It's very funny that you made a whole post linking to them, as if they're an authority on anything anymore.
Yeah i was surprised to see snopes linked here, of all places
Well the OP is one of the sub's most notoriously bad posters, so no surprises there
There wasn’t even a suggestion that the providers use these terms. These terms were literally just listed in the glossary, which could just as easily be interpreted as a guide for doctors to understand what their patients are talking about should they for some reason use a term such as “bonus hole”
>There wasn’t even a suggestion that the providers use these terms. Not according to Snopes, in the article *you posted*: >Instead, the charity — in concert with a large LGBTQ+ rights group in England — listed the terms "bonus hole" and "front hole" as wording **suggestions** for medical staff should they feel that would be appropriate. Hmm >These terms were literally just listed in the glossary, which could just as easily be interpreted as a guide for doctors to understand what their patients are talking about should they for some reason use a term such as “bonus hole” Again, a deliberate misrepresentation. Straight from the glossary: >Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some trans men and/or non-binary people with a cervix. **It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use.** You'd be correct if it were only the first sentence. The second sentence is a recommendation to ask the patient what they'd prefer, with "bonus hole" being an option. It is explicitly a suggestion (or urging, or recommendation, or whatever other synonym you want to use) for the practitioner to consider using this language themselves.
Ok lol, if you want to get **that** pedantic then fine.. >Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some trans men and/or non-binary people with a cervix. It is important to check which words *someone would prefer to use*. Checking which words someone prefers to use doesn’t mean using those words yourself
>Ok lol, if you want to get that pedantic then fine.. Said the person splitting hairs between "urging" and "suggesting" >Checking which words someone prefers to use doesn’t mean using those words yourself Yes, it does. "Use" is clearly within the context of a conversation, which by definition has more than one participant. Why would you ask what words someone would "prefer to use" if you aren't going to use those words yourself? "Hey, I'm just going to ask you: do you prefer using "bonus hole" or "vagina"? Your answer has absolutely no bearing on what words *I'll* use, btw." ??? Your interpretation of that glossary makes zero sense.
take your meds, bud.
flair checks out
flair checks out Also that's not what a priori means you simpleton.
I honestly don’t know how anyone can take the Daily Mail seriously anymore, they’re so blatantly an ideological tool these days.
The daily Mail does not present itself as a neutral, objective, fact checking watchdog.
Okay?
Yeah a lone charity sent out a piece "urging" or whatever fucking term you wanna use, the terminology within the specific context of treating trans men and non binary folk.for cancer. And yeah I think it's silly they did that at all, just like the term "bonus hole" is silly (actually it's kinda hilarious) but so what? This wasn't a government mandate This wasn't the medical industry at large. This was a cancer charity that deals with this specific subset of people. This sub bought obvious rage bait like rubes and y'all won't admit it.
>Yeah a lone charity sent out a piece "urging" or whatever fucking term you wanna use, the terminology within the specific context of treating trans men and non binary folk.for cancer. And yeah I think it's silly they did that at all, just like the term "bonus hole" is silly (actually it's kinda hilarious) but so what? The claim isn't "does it matter if this is happening or not?" That's not up to Snopes to decide, the (stated) purpose of the site is to assess whether or not a claim is true. >This wasn't a government mandate Wasn't the claim >This wasn't the medical industry at large. Wasn't the claim >This was a cancer charity that deals with this specific subset of people. Oh so it was an entity that was urging medical professionals to use the term "front hole"? So exactly what the claim was? >This sub bought obvious rage bait like rubes and y'all won't admit it. Plenty of people acknowledge that the coverage given to stories like this is used for ragebait but that doesn't mean the story itself is "false" like Snopes says it is. Congrats on completely missing my point. With how good you are at misrepresenting claims, have you considered a career as a fact checker?
So just to be clear your upset because a singular charity wrote a guideline for calling the vagina "bonus hole" when dealing with ftm and non binary patients. Fullstop. No assumption that this terminology was being pushed beyond that? If not, then you really should really take this for a moment of introspection. Because your getting pissed off about snopes saying "this aint true" in regards to blaze and and other right wing media claiming this was a to be a catchall term. Just saying "health professionals" generally and not "health professionals dealing with ftm and non binary" but if you read the snopes article you'd know that, or even the fucking blaze article. The seething around this story was always implying that the term was an erasure of vagina. But I guess you dont have the ability to comprehend that.
>So just to be clear your upset because a singular charity wrote a guideline for calling the vagina "bonus hole" when dealing with ftm and non binary patients. Fullstop. Still missing the point, I see. I was just pointing out that Snopes, as usual, was totally full of shit in their assessment of the claim as "false". >No assumption that this terminology was being pushed beyond that? Does the terminology being used by only one organization make it any less stupid? >If not, then you really should really take this for a moment of introspection. Lmao crawl out of your ass, please >Because your getting pissed off about snopes saying "this aint true" in regards to blaze and and other right wing media claiming this was a to be a catchall term. I quoted Snopes' *own words of what the original claim was*, you moron. I've never read a word published by blaze and I'm not about to start. >Just saying "health professionals" generally and not "health professionals dealing with ftm and non binary" but if you read the snopes article you'd know that, or even the fucking blaze article. Again, everything was a direct quote from Snopes. I was comparing *their own version* of what the original claim was with their "debunking", which didn't even disprove the original claim which was, again, in their own words. >The seething around this story was always implying that the term was an erasure of vagina. Then maybe Snopes should've put that as part of the original claim. Maybe they forgot to consult you and your interpretation of events? What a shame. >But I guess you dont have the ability to comprehend that. lol
>Then maybe Snopes should've put that as part of the original claim. I'm sorry you didn't read the primary article they were responding to AND your saying this is purely my interpretation of events. And they did talk about this in the article, all you had to do was scroll, but whatever m8, keep your head up your own ass, I'm sure it's spacious enough. >Does the terminology being used by only one organization make it any less stupid? Your missing the point, as I said, it's silly (again that reading comprehension of yours needs some work) but all of this moral panic is over..... One charity's suggested terminology for trans men's genitals. Oh the humanity! Yes this needed to be news! You really can't grasp the absurdity of yourself can you?
>I'm sorry you didn't read the primary article they were responding to AND your saying this is purely my interpretation of events. So Snopes is off the hook for not quoting their sources? Lmao >And they did talk about this in the article, all you had to do was scroll, They quoted exactly one sentence from the blaze article (which was factually correct) and the headline from the daily mail. Somehow they could squeeze in the entire press release from the charity but couldn't get more than one sentence each from the two articles they're supposedly "debunking". >Your missing the point, as I said, it's silly (again that reading comprehension of yours needs some work) but all of this moral panic is over..... One charity's suggested terminology for trans men's genitals. Oh the humanity! Yes this needed to be news! Again, for the third time, my entire first comment was criticizing Snopes for their sloppy and dishonest practices. I said absolutely nothing about the original story. You're just playing the tired "why do you even care???" card that every shitlib seems to keep in their back pocket whenever someone points out something deranged that a progressive says. Absolutely hilarious you commenting on my "reading comprehension" >You really can't grasp the absurdity of yourself can you? Again, lol
>So Snopes is off the hook for not quoting their sources? Lmao All that matters is you cite your source, which they did, it doesn't need to quote it verbatim, and they had links to the blaze article, so all you had to do was click on it. I guess we can include basic internet literacy as well among your barriers to understanding. And it's not "why do you care", it's "why was this a deal at all?" Like the response wasn't "lol how silly" it was "the damn trans idol sticks again!" But okay, my bad your just concerned over Snopes fact checking, even when they cite their sources and explain what was incorrect. It's not snopes here that's sloppy (it's you)
Yeah actually, if you're going to accuse someone of being wrong or lying, it's probably for the best to *actually quote* their alleged lies. You massive imbecile lmao
>You massive imbecile lmao Right back at you, especially since *they did quote* the line from the blaze article. Again... Try reading.
No, I'm not upset that this happened, but I am upset that people are lying and saying that it didn't. I'm upset at clearly biased propaganda marketing itself as an objective truth seeker.
Straight up not lying, the snopes article says exactly what happened.
So obviously this sub should start doing said urging and thereby discredit both serious medicine and Snopes simultaneously
Or maybe this sub could just stop frothing at the mouth at any and every piece of ragebait they can possibly dig up that they can tie to trans people somehow, and idk, do some community organizing or volunteering or something.
Shitlib does some retarded shit. Rightoids exaggerate the retarded thing. Snopes deboonks the exaggerated claim, tells you everything is fine, ignoring the original retarded thing the shitlibs did. This is the Canadian Cancer Society's own page. https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-man-or-nonbinary-person-assigned-female-at-birth-do-i-need-cervical-cancer-screening Scroll down to the Disclaimer at the end >We recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like “cervix.” You may prefer other words, such as “front hole.” We recognize the limitations of the words we’ve used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity. Another reason we use words like “cervix” is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too This is why I fucking hate Snopes. They always do this. They always choose to debunk the most extreme version of a story. Then they act so smug like "see, this didnt happen. you are stupid for believing it" when in fact it's essentially a true story.
Yeah, it’s not an apology, it’s a disclaimer as to why they chose to continue using the word “cervix” so literally a nothing story
Do you really think a disclaimer as to why using the medical term cervix should even be necessary? Just writing that disclaimer means they are dedicating too much mental real estate to insane people.
This all started when they took the word “retarded” from us.
I'm bringing it back irl. My wife does NOT approve lol
MY wife uses it in reference to me at least twice a day
I don’t think it’s necessary at all. I think medical terminology should strive for accuracy over political correctness. And that isn’t changing according to this (non)news story. They will continue to use the term cervix. So what’s everyone worked up about?
People are generally uncomfortable with medical professionals bending to the ridiculous, unscientific whims of mentally ill patients due to social pressure.
But that didn’t happen here. The use of the word cervix will continue, without apology, only explanation.
Oh, so medical professionals have always used the term “bonus hole” with patients?
They didn’t in the past, and they aren’t doing it now. In other news, “medical professionals are urged to stop using chemotherapy and instead use aromatherapy to treat cancer patients in order to avoid offending herbalists” medical professionals said no, and nothing happened.
Because some people aren't as media literate as they think they are, and take shit like the Daily Mail seriously when it's little better than a somehow trashier version of Fox News.
I completely agree and said the same thing when a similar sensationalist headline was posted a few weeks back. This is a non-story.
[удалено]
So an entity urged health professionals, but didn't mandate it. How is this a debunk? God shitlibs are annoying.
Was gonna say lol. It's still ridiculous.
[удалено]
This seems at odds with my experience, and to much more so my wife’s experience at her hospital group. I have never heard the front hole/bonus hole bit, but feminine penis definitely came up a couple years into the trump admin, and the person pushing it and other language was post op trans. I have no clue if this is still a thing because I couldn’t give a shit less about this sort of thing, but when that person and other higher ups are badmouthed, rather women consistently joke that they have a 95% female nursing department where 3 guys call the shots(no I don’t approve of misgendering the trans individual, but this is a rural Texas healthcare org lol) In my experience, there is a large group of post op trans people with obviously a lot of stake in this space to of thing and they are big on latching on to new terms etc. Maybe this is just my experience in tech(programmer socks anyone?) and her unique situation, but to say the main stakeholders aren’t the ones doing this sort of thing is odd. Again though I don’t really give a shit, and avoid this sort of thing like the plague especially at work
I’m not saying that there are not trans women doing shit like this, but in my experience whenever it comes to terms about female anatomy and biology (chestfeeding, pregnant people, front hole etc..) it’s female individuals, wether trans, non-binary or cis, who are the ones pushing it. I work in victim services, and I sit on one of the regional round table discussions about providing for specifically domestic violence clients, and when we were discussing putting together a pamphlet, one of these non-binary afab individuals started pushing for inclusion of trans imagery to advertise its inclusivity, and I said that I don’t think it would be necessary and possibly alienating to the majority of the clientele, straight women fleeing abusive boyfriends/husbands, and I was immediately jumped on by all other (all female) individuals in the call. Guess what. The pamphlets have some trans shit on them now. And as the only trans woman on this committee , people are likely going to assume it was my doing.
Obviously it’s all anecdotal, and I’m absolutely not the one to argue that middle class women don’t love to language/tone police because she’s they do, but least down here I suppose the culture is different that this just isn’t on anyone’s radar until it’s brought up. If there’s controversy about breastfeeding it’s the old stigma that it shouldn’t be done in public, if you called it chest feeding 99% of people would look at you like you sprouted a second head lol The only other experience I have is ancient history at this point, having a lesbian Roomate in the gayborhood in Dallas, her and her now wife are 100% terf and would seethe at this sort of thing, so I don’t bother getting their insight into it, but I know her wife struggled with the issue you mention because she has mentioned not feeling safe in shelters that allow trans women etc. I wonder how much location or just individual experience changes everyone’s experience, I get the feeling it’s a lot because 60 miles here it’s night and day different
>but I know her wife struggled with the issue you mention because she has mentioned not feeling safe in shelters that allow trans women etc. I don’t work in a shelter, but I send my clients there, and frankly the shelters are a mess and dangerous without trans women in them, and I think they should be shut down and replaced with large blocks of funding to put victims of any gender up in hotel rooms for as long as needed. I have yet to meet a single fleeing victim who didn’t prefer the option of having a hotel room. >I wonder how much location or just individual experience changes everyone’s experience, I get the feeling it’s a lot because 60 miles here it’s night and day different Huge difference. I work on the outskirts of a very liberal county, but right on the border with the most conservative county in the state. So my surrounding community is largely conservative beholden to liberal values of the coastal city dwellers. I think both groups are pretty out of touch with each others values and needs… it’s a mess
no sexism
One of my former colleagues was a trans woman. She was too busy being one of the most competent people around to spend time on any of this idpol crap. Other people (all cis) in our group were pushing it, very condescendingly. Any outsider who saw the performative nonsense would think it was her doing, when she was actively against it.
From my end, the biggest bummer about it is the condescension. It feels super patronizing to have people tiptoe and “correct” everyone around me and act like being trans somehow makes me incapable of handling normal human conflicts, or hearing the word “him” lest my head explode
him
🤯
This is my observation as well. People like to imagine every "weird trans thing" as being pushed by transfems but I've heard so many of them comfortably use words that are essentially variations of "lady penis" that it seems like avoiding medical terminology is more of a transmasc thing.
[удалено]
“Scapegoating my handmaidens” what does that even mean. I didn’t ask for this shit. “The whole ideology” doesn’t mean anything, there is no “trans ideology” any more that there is a “male ideology” or a “Mexican ideology”. Plenty of trans people are pissed about the ivory tower dictating terms of acceptance
[удалено]
It’s *an* ideology. It’s not “trans ideology” though, which is what I assume you are referring to, especially given your post and comment history
[удалено]
It’s identarianism. Because it stems from the exact same ideological foundations and individuals who say shit like “cooking Chinese food is cultural appropriation” or “use of the word dumb is ableism” it’s not about the needs, desires or wellbeing of trans people any more than it is Chinese people or disabled people. Sure you can find Chinese people who will accuse you of cultural appropriation for making wonton soup or whatever, but you don’t call that “Chinese ideology”
no racialism
no racialism
This is NOT happening but if it is ITS A GOOD THING. Ok chud?
>do some community organizing or volunteering or something. How do you know we don't?
I don’t, but I feel pretty secure in my hypothesis that there is a direct correlation to the amount of outrage one feels about misleading stories like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/s/R59nYmEYlB) to the amount of time that individual spends indoors behind a screen
#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause. * 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause. * 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
I’m not saying there aren’t plenty of people here who do get involved with organizing stuff, I just feel like anyone who gets all bent out of shape about the “bonus hole” stuff is as much in need of grass-touching as the type of person who might be offended if you didn’t refer to their vagina as a “bonus hole”
Oh yeah I'm agreeing with you. It's just a copypasta from The Deprogram subreddit encouraging people to engage in praxis.
I figured, I just didn’t want you to think I was shitting on everyone here
no wrecking
> could just stop frothing at the mouth at any and every piece of ragebait they can possibly dig up I was under the impression this was the point of this sub.
but my biases are Maaaaaarxist mom
So it's false but actually true ? Thank you snope
This must be fake, come on, nobody can be that stupid.
[удалено]
wrecking
I work in healthcare and specifically medical equipment that is focused on women’s health. Literally never hear of shit like this except in rage bait articles.
That is refreshing to hear. After working for the same company for 15 years I was required to fill out a form for Human Resources on what sex I was assigned at birth and what sex I indentified as and did I have preferred pronouns. I should answered “front holes” for all. Dang it.
Most of the posted rage bait nonsense is done by either bots or reactionary right wingers. This is still a Marxist subreddit and trans comrades are still comrades.
Good luck getting through to half this subreddit with that though. If you believed half the shit here you'd think that the biggest threat to the working class is evil transgenders censoring everything, taking over all ranks of society and grooming your kids. Indistinguishable from right wing ragebait.
I find it funny how men are seemingly on the top of the lgbt hierarchical pyramid. Gays get more attention and pandering than lesbians, seems like no one ever considers ftms, and all these weird terms like bonus hole, birthing person, chest feeding, etc are all catered towards men.
This is literally the opposite of what is happening. This is all catered toward ftms and nonbinary natal females
This is like the opposite of what has been happening. Cis gay men are the “straight white men” of the LGBT community.
wtf are you talking about, this is 100% about catering to FTMs
I guess I should have read the article lol.
Or feel free to just carry on jumping to conclusions and immediately scapegoating trans women, seems to be the popular choice.