How do we talk about bodies without being cissexist?
Something i’ve been pondering lately. Saying ‘people with vaginas’ or ‘people with penises’ is definitely an improvement over female/male bodied, but i still see it as cissexist. Talking like that conforms to cissexist ideas of what a penis or vagina looks like. A body part that someone might call their ‘penis’ might be someone else’s ‘clit’ (or vice versa), so what exactly are you referring to when you say ‘people with penises’? You’re saying that the language or way somebody views their body is not legitimate or real. Like, i will respect the language that you as an individual use, but failing to recognize that our entire pre-conceived notions about what a vagina or penis look like are socially constructed and cissexist.
I also want to talk about how i feel really dysphoric and triggered when i see medical diagrams or any kind of diagram presented as being the ‘correct’ terminology. For example: There will be a picture of genitals that look similar to mine, and they will be labeled with words like ‘vagina’ ‘clitoris’ ‘labia’ etc etc, and if they’re trying to be trans inclusive they might throw in ‘keep in mind that some people prefer different words for their body parts’.
To me, that just sounds like “Oh, i know you prefer that body part be called a ‘dick’ or ‘penis’, but the actual medical term is ‘clitoris’.” And i’m just like NO. Because it’s not just about language!! It’s about the way we conceptualize our bodies! I literally do not have a clit. It’s not me being in denial or you nicely using the language i ‘prefer’, it’s my actual physical embodiment. When you say “This is what a clitoris looks like” and then show a picture of genitals that look like mine, you are misgendering my body. I happen to identify my body parts as being a vagina, but i could have EXACTLY the same genitals that i have now and not at all identify with having a vagina or use different language. Again, that would not mean i’m in denial, all it would mean is that i don’t have a vagina, maybe i have a ‘fronthole’ or something else.I guess i’m just at a total loss for exactly how to talk about people’s bodies without conforming to cissexist body standards. Like, how the hell do you teach sex ed without using cissexist language? I honestly do not know. Anybody have any thoughts?
THIS THIS THIS THIS OH GOD THIS.
Add to that that there’s an assumption that these things come in bundles, like ‘people with penises’ can’t have ovaries (in the ‘conventional’ sense of the word for both terms), or always have testicles (also ‘conventional’ sense of the word)
This is the point, too, where I note it’s a shame that the medical community has been so consistently fucked up, because in a perfect world this would be exactly what medical terms ought to be for. Regardless of a individual person’s choice of what to call, how to use, and how to view a part of themselves, it’d be nice if there was a clean, baggage-free clinical term for (often politicized) body parts.
I mean, a femur is a femur and an ulna is an ulna, you know? And since we don’t tend to politicize the bones of the arm or leg so we can just call them as such — disclaimer here that I’m not sure if they have been in certain forms of dis/ableism, but to my knowledge they haven’t. No matter what shape they take, what they’re made of, how a person views’em, there’s a certain type of structure in a general certain spot in a person’s body and that bone has a name.
In an ideal world, what I call (for example) my clitoris would be similar to what someone else calls [possessive pronoun’s] penis, and there would be a third term for it that would be the super generic term for that particular bundle of nerves and flesh and skin in a particular spot or thereabouts — and that third term, we would say that’s the medical/technical/biological term for it.
But y’know. Medicine & biology have always been made of people and thus have been full of essentialism, cissexism and all kinds of other gross stuff, so it doesn’t work that way, bah.
Yes yes, great commentary here.
