I have received a request to tag this story with the rude and risqué warning for crude language. I assume this is because of the mention of “male genitals”.
Should the story be tagged as such or is it fine as it is? What do you think?
In my eyes there’s absolutely no need, can it get even more formal and polite than penis?
The request is ridiculous
I think it’s fine as it is. The male and female forms exist; censoring the words is not helpful.
It’s why the period is seldom talked about and becomes a monthly “shame” in extreme instances.
Okay, the context here was not a matter of fact about the useage, but to mock the sexist “i won’t listen to a woman” jerk. In these instances i think it definitely needs using.
If the words are being used in a vulgar sense, then censor. Otherwise, I’d say no.
Definitely not rude and risque. Rude and risque would be my (unsubmitted) submission of One Potato, Two Potato or More.
I don’t think the mere mention of a penis is rude or risque. OP didn’t even actually use the word in discussion, they referenced ‘male genitals’ when talking to their manager.
If OP had called the customer a willy then I’d agree that was rude but it still wouldn’t be risque.
No. Absolutely nothing rude or risqué is even referenced in the story, it just mentions that genitalia exists.
I think the op read it wrong. From what it looks like she’s a lowly cashier in the eyes of the customer and is nothing more than a button pusher. So the customer may want confirmation.not that the customer is right.
Sure, thats a possibility but OP misreading the situation doesn’t make the subsequent discussion of her interpretation rude & risque.
While I do have a problem with the OP using those terms that way even in mockery, I don’t think the terms themselves are crude. Doesn’t need the tag.
Penis is a body part just like an eye or hand.
I’m curious what exactly you object to, I don’t see anything wrong with mocking sexists. Is it because not all people with penises are male? Something else?
That is part of the problem. Boiling people - and genders - down to anatomy is harmful, especially when there are a lot of people out there who actually do reduce people to anatomy. There are NAR stories before about women who had hysterectomies and then other people say that they aren’t really women. That kind of thing is universally recognized as harmful. And what’s the difference between saying that you need particular anatomy to be a particular gender and that you need particular anatomy to be recognized as being a competent gender?
Yes, I do understand that this particular instance is mockery and not meant to be taken seriously. But it still relies on and builds on the idea that gender = anatomy. Otherwise, it makes no sense; if the OP looked exactly the same but had a penis, she wouldn’t have been treated any better. (Probably would have been treated worse if the guy found out about it, really.) And this idea is commonly used to discriminate against trans and intersex people.
Donald Trump is terrible and bigoted. He deserves to be mocked. But if someone mocks him for being bald, then that makes the assumption that being bald is a bad thing. If someone mocks him for being old, that says that being old is a bad thing. If someone mocks him for being fat, that makes the assumption that being fat is a bad thing. And those ideas are used in turn to bash people who are bald or old or fat, like him. It’s like letting loose verbal dynamite; even if your mockery hits the target, you’re gonna hit a lot of innocent bystanders as well. He should be mocked, but for his terribleness and his bigotry, not characteristics that he shares with other people who don’t deserve the mockery (like Stephen, for instance).
The other thing is that these types of comments are also really prevalent in certain “feminist” circles. Generally, the ones that are closest to (if not part of) the transphobic groups. For instance, “political lesbians” (women claiming to be gay because they refuse to date men, which is problematic on multiple levels) are really bad about it and they have significant overlap with TERFs. So these types of comments can serve as a dogwhistle (a seemingly innocuous comment to those outside the community, but a signal of support to those in the group) to transphobes. I wouldn’t say this necessarily makes OP transphobic or part of those groups, but the chance is great enough that I’d be wary of introducing my trans friends to her.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes perfect sense, but it would have never crossed my mind without prompting.
Another vote for ‘No’.
I don’t see any need to change anything - except perhaps the customer.
Context is important. The word penis is not being used in a rude or risque context. There’s no need for the tag.
Though I (hope I) understand your point in these, and I never thought of this before like this (thanks for that!) I do believe that in this story, I do have to point out something:
OP was referencing to the beliefs of this customer, I’d bet a lot of money that this customer is EXACTLY like this, and thus making OP’s comment 100% right.
OP isn’t mocking men, penises or any general thing else. OP is mocking the belief of the customer that only people with penises know certain things.
Setting aside whether it’s the same thing, the story tells us that the customer wants advice from “someone with a penis”, but the point would be made by saying “advice from a man”. So there is more male genitals displayed in the story than there needs to be - but I don’t know how long we can read Not Always Right without seeing modesty forgotten. And I don’t think someone would be satisfied if rudeness and risque…ness… was what they were trying to select.
So I say, take out the penis to make someone happy.
But SWMBO said that she has a headache!
…I’ll get my coat.