• crash2parties

    Thank goodness my daughter, a trans lesbian, is obviously somehow magically immune to STD’s and the possible effects of any risky behaviors listed.

    Seriously, what’s with the repeated use of “cisgender women who have sex with cisgender women”? Very few of the examples listed exclude trans women from being susceptible, so why the bias?

    • Amadi

      I agree, the this effort at gender sensitivity backfired, by trying to use gender identification when the actual issue is anatomy. These issues apply to any two people with vulvas/vaginas having sex together, which also includes many transgender men and the vast majority of FAAB nonbinary people.

      • crash2parties

        Absolutely. The piece was conspicuously exclusive & exclusionary. Normally RHReality is quite inclusive, so I am left wondering the author’s intent. I’m hoping it was just a matter of blinders crafted out of innocent ignorance, but that doesn’t explain the editor’s decision to leave it as is.

        • Taja Lindley

          Hi crash2parties. This is Taja, the author. Thank you for reading and for sharing your thoughts.

          To answer your question about my intentions: this article is a follow-up to another piece I wrote on RHRC where I described some challenges I faced in seeking culturally competent sexual and reproductive healthcare at my last gynecological exam. (read more here: http://rhrc.us/OtFdn5 ) My health provider was unable to answer my questions and I was frustrated that I had to persistently ask my questions multiple times in order to be referred to someone who could answer.

          This article was written as a follow-up where I publicly asked a culturally competent health provider all of my questions from my last exam… plus a couple more questions that came out of some discussion from the RHRC article I wrote.

          I identify as a Black, queer, cisgendered woman who is female-bodied and was assigned female at birth. The questions were asked from this perspective. The Q&A is directly informed by my experiences with my body, my sex, my sexuality, my sexual experiences, and my sexual and reproductive health concerns. The specificity of the questions, and answers, are the direct result of my personal experience and perspective as a queer-identified, cisgendered, female-bodied woman.

          • crash2parties

            “The specificity of the questions, and answers, are the direct result of my personal experience and perspective as a queer-identified, cisgendered [sic], female-bodied woman”

            I understand that. I also notice you left out race, which brings up the obvious question. Would you feel the same if someone wrote a piece that was, “the direct result of their personal experience and perspective as a queer-identified, cisgender, female-bodied, white woman”? Or would you feel somewhat that the piece was exclusionary either out of ignorance or prejudice? With the exception of pregnancy (although trans people do get pregnant), the issues you raised in the article are not specific to cis gender women. Queer-identified? Sure. Female-bodied? Absolutely. But Cis? No way.

            *Please note that transgender / trans gender is a modifier, not a verb. Calling someone, “transgendered” is grammatically incorrect, and depending on context may be considered offensive.

    • reelajay

      I didn’t read it that way at all. I thought the point was to say that information regarding this particular group of people is lacking and to clarify those misconceptions. I don’t think it was meant to say that if you’re not a cisgender woman who sleeps with women then you’re immune to disease. Different issues come with different identities.

      • crash2parties

        But why the exclusionary terms if they are not needed -or worse, have the appearance of bias? Would it be okay for a posting to specify, “White women need to be aware of these health issues” if the issues written about were not actually exclusive to them? Of course not; it would be seen as biased and exclusionary.

  • crash2parties

    “Throughout the article, when the interviewer and interviewee use the term “woman” or “women” they are referring to people who have female-assigned genitals at birth. We regret any confusion the term “cisgender” may have caused.”

    Wait; what?

    “Woman” and “women” refer to people who have female assigned genitals at birth?

    Are you kidding me? That is even worse! It’s equating “women” and “cisgender”, stating that only FAAB can be women.

    The problem isn’t that the term, cisgender, was “confusing”.

    The problem is that the writer -and now Editor- excluded all women who do not identify or are designated by others as cis as well as all women who were not born with the correct genital configuration.

    Is RHRealityCheck *really* this ignorant on trans issues?

  • XKCD

    Very helpful article. I’m going to look into Gardasil.

Mobile Theme