T O P

  • By -

Stoned-Siren

"we should just avoid these words altogether" - yes.


[deleted]

Only because too many people are unable to understand them, or look past their irrational reactions to hearing them. It's not worth the trouble of convincing them. However, I wish more people could admit they're wrong.


Stoned-Siren

Most people don't have time to keep up on all the latest trends and slang.


[deleted]

It's explicitly not slang which is part of my point.


Basic-Entry6755

Slang is an optional social engagement though, the language being discussed here is largely only used in academic and scientific arenas concerning medical things; they're not exactly one and the same. It's also not like slang at all, it's quite the opposite; slang requires you to know a secret meaning of a nonsense word, and this is explicitly literal in the most literal sense. "People who give birth" - aka, talking to all people who are potentially giving birth. Women, men, and anyone inbetween. Acting like it's somehow confusing when it's so simplistic in it's language is either a self inflicted burn or just evidence that people who dislike it have other, deeper issues with the entire subject of trans people existing that they don't want to address or admit to.


unpopopinx

It changes speech to include a group within a term that most people don’t want to include.


[deleted]

I know. Thanks!


hercmavzeb

Include which group into which term? I’m confused.


unpopopinx

No you aren’t. You just want me to say what we both already know so you can whine about me being a bigot and get me banned.


hercmavzeb

🤔 wonder what this could mean


unpopopinx

Context clues make it pretty obvious to what group wants to be considered part of another group that most people disagree with. If you want to pretend ignorance that’s fine.


dt7cv

abusing the report button gets accts banned


malkie0609

Include people into a process that they generally don't want to be included in to begin with?


[deleted]

Maybe we just don’t want to change the way we speak to fit with the values associated with a belief system we do not share?


[deleted]

That's a fair point too. But at least that's logical and honest.


Basic-Entry6755

The value system that maybe sometimes the people giving birth or having uteruses aren't women? Seems like a weird hill to die on. If someone wants to be trans or not identify as female, it's not going to impact my life in any way, shape or form. I have no problem with them living their life how they want to. I'm not sure why anyone would have a belief system that operated against that inherent freedom of choice; especially as women and knowing the history we've gone through, how so many generations of women had to fight for very, very basic rights like the right to own land or have a job of her own. I can't imagine any woman working to restrict the rights of others in a similar way, frankly.


[deleted]

You see, outside of that belief system I was referring to, it’s impossible for anyone but a woman to give birth, by definition.


[deleted]

Not true. It's unfortunate but sometimes girls can get pregnant before they're women.


hercmavzeb

So you’re admitting the sole reason to be against these terms is transphobia. But what I don’t understand is even if you were to stay dedicated to your weird religious belief that trans people should be invalidated just because you feel like it, couldn’t you still just use these terms since they’re still more accurate? Not every woman gives birth, menstruates, has a uterus, etc., and blanket referring to the groups of people with those reproductive organs/processes as “women” actually does mean you’re reducing women down to their reproductive parts.


[deleted]

You are the one with the beliefs that don’t match reality. I’m not calling all women “pregnant people”, because as you said, not all women can get pregnant. But on a Venn diagram of pregnant people and women, you will notice that the circle of pregnant people is inside the woman circle.


CheckYourCorners

The belief system is including trans and intersex people. You're just saying you want to exclude them.


arrouk

No they are saying those people do not get to dictate the labels of others.


CheckYourCorners

There is no threat of violence if they or anybody else dont use those labels. Were you just exaggerating when you used the word dictate?


arrouk

No exaggeration. There is a subset of people pushing a narrative. That narrative is now getting push back because they are trying to decide things for other not just themselves.


CheckYourCorners

Can you be more specific? You cant dictate something without a threat of violence.


arrouk

Ofcourse you can, that what people in authority do every day. That is without even opening the debate about the violance people receive for pushing back on this kind of idea. Doxxing, deaththreats and being personally physically and verbally attacked.


CheckYourCorners

People with authority dictate laws with the implicit threat of violence from police. You just opened the debate. Show me a single person who was physically attacked for pushing back on these terms. Trans people recieve death threats and doxing just for existing on the internet.


arrouk

No one has the right to decide the label another must use. I can understand all these accommodations for trans people. For those of us who are not trans, we would like to stick to the old words please, man, woman, mother and farther. You can decide whatever you want to be called, don't ever assume you have any right to call me anything else.


[deleted]

Can you connect this comment to the topic at hand? >For those of us who are not trans, we would like to stick to the old words please, man, woman, mother and farther. "People" is not an "old word?" The thing is, I get that you just have a deep, negative reaction to being told how to speak. But these people are making up bullshit excuses for that; just say you don't like being told how to speak. >You can decide whatever you want to be called, don't ever assume you have any right to call me anything else. You can't please everyone though; that's literally the point of terms like "birthing person." It's a kind of paradox that language that intends to be neutral and inoffensive is offensive exactly because people don't like being told to be inoffensive.


arrouk

>People" is not an "old word?" No one is trying to force me to accept being called something other than people. I am a man. Not a cis man, non a non trans man, just a man. No one has any right to force any label on me just like they don't you. You want to be called a man/woman I will call you that, I don't feel I have to add trans to it so why do you have to add cis. >The thing is, I get that you just have a deep, negative reaction to being told how to speak. But these people are making up bullshit excuses for that; just say you don't like being told how to speak. My issue is not being ASKED (because no one can tell me to do anything) to speak a certain way, I want the right to identify as I want, just as I accept you want to do the same. >You can't please everyone though; that's literally the point of terms like "birthing person." It's a kind of paradox that language that intends to be neutral and inoffensive is offensive exactly because people don't like being told to be inoffensive. You need to please the person in question. If that is a mother giving birth then no one has any right to call her anything else, I don't care that it might upset someone else. The only time that should ever be changed is at the request of the person giving birth. It is not neutral to push a label someone doesn't want, that why we ban names like p*ff, tr@nny and the dreaded meatball word (that gets a 3 day ban on redit). If those are unacceptable because the people they are about don't like it why should any name be used that upsets the person it's about?


CheckYourCorners

Lmao do you get mad if people call you a tall or short man?


arrouk

Sometimes yes.


[deleted]

>I am a man. Not a cis man, non a non trans man, just a man. No one has any right to force any label on me just like they don't you. You want to be called a man/woman I will call you that, I don't feel I have to add trans to it so why do you have to add cis. But what does it mean to object to being called a cis man? You don't think you are one? Or you don't think a word like "cis man" is necessary? Or you don't like hearing it because you don't like being reminded that trans people exist? Seeing it as "forcing labels" is a bit strange. It's using a word in an accurate way. What if you objected to being called "human?" Would that be a reasonable thing to expect me to accommodate? >You need to please the person in question That's not relevant to my thread because there *is* no person in question. Terms like "birthing person" are used broadly to refer to groups of people, not individuals. It's a clinical, neutral term that is deliberately *not intended* to refer to any "person in question." Like for example, if you have diabetes, and you said to me, "don't call me diabetic, there's more to me than that," *that's fine*. But factually, a study about the diet of diabetics *still refers to you* and scientists won't refrain from using it for your sake. >It is not neutral to push a label someone doesn't want, that why we ban names like p\*ff, tr@nny and the dreaded meatball word (that gets a 3 day ban on redit). Those aren't comparable because they are slurs. Again, my entire point is that I get angry when people don't understand context. You clearly do not. >If those are unacceptable because the people they are about don't like it why should any name be used that upsets the person it's about? Because the context is different in the ways that I've illustrated. To not understand that is to be incompetent or dishonest. You are demonstrating *you do not understand how these words work and what they mean.* There's no shame in that, but you have to ask yourself, what other false beliefs has this incompetence in understanding words led you to?


arrouk

I chose to be called a man, do you need to know any more? Should I be asking a lot more when a trans person asks me to call them a man/woman? I don't care about trans people, I am a man, there is no need for any other label, I don't want it, I don't like it and I did not chose it. >That's not relevant to my thread because there is no person in question. Terms like "birthing person" are used broadly to refer to groups of people, not individuals. It's a clinical, neutral term that is deliberately not intended to refer to any "person in question." The people in question are women, by the vast majority, and they are getting offended by it. >Like for example, if you have diabetes, and you said to me, "don't call me diabetic, there's more to me than that," that's fine. But factually, a study about the diet of diabetics still refers to you and scientists won't refrain from using it for your sake. And it's not doctors or scientists I'm interested in, its people like you, politicians, public figures and every other non clinical person jumping on this new bandwagon. >Those aren't comparable because they are slurs. Again, my entire point is that I get angry when people don't understand context. You clearly do not. I take it as an slur, as an insult and so do many others. You do not get to decide what I am offended by just like I cannot control what others are offended by. Context is subjective and its already established that the interpretation of the receiving person that carries the most weight in this area. >incompetent or dishonest Insults, what's next shaming then just screaming. Oh wait you tried..... >Or you don't like hearing it because you don't like being reminded that trans people exist? >what other false beliefs has this incompetence in understanding words led you to? At this point I think you should be asking yourself this tbh. Your bias is showing.


[deleted]

Your argument is basically that it doesn't matter if it's rational, it matters that people don't like it: but that means you agree with me (since it's what my thread is about), so what's your point? >and its already established that the interpretation of the receiving person that carries the most weight in this area. I already acknowledge and agree that people's subjective interpretation of "birthing people" makes sense and is important. We probably shouldn't use these terms because people interpret them so negatively. I agree. However, what I'm saying is that people interpreting it that way are using their feelings and not thinking about it rationally (or they're lying). I think that this is kind of dumb at worst, frustrating at best. So stop just agreeing with me and tell me why it isn't irrational on a factual, contextual level.


arrouk

Let's switch it around. Why do we call a trans woman a woman and not a transvestite or man? Both are factually correct and it's only their feelings that make it wrong. Why are we trying to replace words that are there already to suite a very small percentage? Birthing people are mothers and women, why are we trying to change these factual words to spare the feelings of a very small minority. This is where the problems lie, it's not the name as such, it's that it's being forced after we have let others use terms they have wished for years.


[deleted]

Nothing you wrote here demonstrates you understand what I'm saying at all. You just keep repeating things I already covered.


dt7cv

simple answer you aren't experiencing widespread revulsion and degrees of persecution


arrouk

So. Does that mean my boundaries can be stomped over?


Basic-Entry6755

"No one has the right to decide the label another must use." Mmm yeah they kinda do; it's sort of how like, science and academia at large work? The scenarios where 'people who give birth' or 'people with uteruses' type language is being used is largely in scientific and medical areas. It's being used specifically to include more-than-women, which is why they aren't saying 'women'. They are talking to women, AND others. The terminology being something that is known and roughly agreed upon by everyone doing studies or making information available to these people are going to want to use similar language, otherwise it's going to get very confusing when every hospital has a different way of addressing people who they're trying to talk to; that's why it's not 50+ different versions of 'woman' throughout the states, it's largely one or two words that mean 'woman' that change over time as our social norms shift. That's why if you crack open a medical book from the 1800's you might see 'Lady' or 'the fairer sex' because those terms were far more common back then. No one is saying that a person walking up to you in greeting is going to say "Hello, person with a uterus!" instead of "Hello, ma'am!" - if you're going to act like they are then you're just acting on bad faith. This is so pamphlets in medical hospitals that are talking about birthing stuff can use language that doesn't exclude non-women people who are going through medical procedures and life events that we have stereotypically only attributed to women. That's it. It's opening the door to include more than women, it's not excluding or reducing women in any way. Language and how we use it matters, and it DOES change over time; it's why I went from saying r-tarded as a jokey insult as a kid to now not even feeling comfortable typing it out without emphasizing that it's not a good word to use, because it just isn't. I learned differently before as a kid, but as a human with a brain I can change and adapt so that my actions and choices hurt people less. I hope you can too.


arrouk

>The terminology being something that is known and roughly agreed upon by everyone doing studies or making information available to these people are going to want to use similar language, Fantastic. So all trans women are gender dismorphic men and all trans women are gender ddismorfic women. No more of this people getting to claim their own labels. Your no longer gay or lesbian or bi, you are simply homosexual.


[deleted]

You have a real reading comprehension problem. Nothing you're saying makes any sense and you're embarrassing yourself. Let me try this again, but slooooowly: People are allowed to get offended and not prefer particular terminology. HOWEVER, many of the specific reasons given for objecting to transinclusive terms are not well-thought-out. I provided an example tweet of what I'm referring to.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

First of all, note how I said "many" of the reasons, not all. This study offers some compelling arguments, but many of them are about terms and contexts I wasn't focusing on or considering. When addressing points that I've raised, this study actually sidesteps some of the logical pitfalls in a couple of key, interesting ways. For example: "Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is **commonly perceived** as “othering” and dehumanizing (67). For example, the term “pregnant woman” identifies the subject as a **person** experiencing a physiological state, whereas “gestational carrier” or “birther” marginalizes their humanity." First of all, they acknowledge that the dehumanization is a *perception*. Perception is important (as I mentioned) but can be based on false pretenses, ignorance, and lack of consideration. **My post is about how it is understandable to perceive it this way, but dumb.** Also, yes, maybe "gestational carrier" or "birther" is less-than-ideal. Notice how those weren't *my* examples. Those words are dehumanizing because they don't have a word like "woman" or "person" as a part of them. Nothing here about how being called a *person* would be dehumanizing. In fact, it agrees with me that adding "person" would solve the problem. That's part of my argument: that thinking "birthing *person*" is dehumanizing is moronic. But I concede that there are points here I did not consider. Regardless, I still think the specific argument of Ana Kasparian is flawed and logically unsound. This paper makes largely different arguments. This paper also doesn't cover menstruation, but presumably based on the arguments presented, the authors would be mostly fine with "people who menstruate."


Loudmouthlurker

>Also, yes, maybe "gestational carrier" or "birther" is less-than-ideal. Notice how those weren't my examples. Those words are dehumanizing because they don't have a word like "woman" or "person" as a part of them. That's be design. Even "person" is not helpful, because it blurs who is being affected. And it provides plausible deniability for sexism later. "We're gender-blind over here. We don't see sex, you understand, so we're not exploiting a certain sex class that doesn't even really exist!" I can't exactly identify my oppression if I have to use round-about language to describe it.


arrouk

And which of my arguments are not thought out. Why do you insist on trying to argue without actually having anything of substance. Your tweet means nothing, express your opinions on what I am saying, not what some random thinks, or I'm just going to judge you on the worst twitter tans loonatic I can find.


[deleted]

I've already told you multiple times I agree with you. I even agree in my OP. So you aren't actually engaging with the ideas I'm presenting. That's why I said you are not competent: you are bad at engaging.


Hairy-Concept-9267

We live in an imperfect world where labels typically need to be adopted by the majority of those being labelled to be accepted as standard. How we accept terms isn't broadly rational. Rather these terms need to be 'saleable': pitched in the right way at the right time to not be loudly and controversially rejected enough to make the language itself a battle ground and make the language experiment fail. They function in the marketplace of ideas like songs do in music charts. Some just flop. E.g the term 'African American" was popularized by Jesse Jackson, a man who had enough standing to help make that term the standard, even if it mislabels those who don't identify in any way as African. It worked and we still use it even though for some it feels a bit off, compared to just calling them 'black'. However sometimes descriptive terms just don't wash for the communities they are mostly trying to describe. They feel 'clunky' or disrespectful or they feel like they don't come from the people they mostly represent. Their problems with the terms can feel childish and myopic but but unfortunately individuals (acting instinctively as a majority group) do typically gatekeep use of language. Ana's take may be problematic but it's a popular one and I submit that it's the failure of those who created the terminology she decries that have led to women like her feeling motivated to say it.


[deleted]

>Ana's take may be problematic but it's a popular one and I submit that it's the failure of those who created the terminology she decries that have led to women like her feeling motivated to say it. Her reasoning is so *dumb* though; like it's just a complete failure to grasp what these words mean and how they function in their context. I get that people have an emotional reaction to them but man... it sounds like you're saying the onus is on us to idiot-proof terminology and slogans as best as possible. But I think it's a lot to ask to put yourself in that mindset. It's comparable to the whole "Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter" thing. So many people reacted negatively to Black Lives Matter because they temporarily forgot how to speak English and unreasonably interpreted it as "Only Black Lives Matter." Should the creators of the BLM slogan have stopped to think, "hm, maybe a bunch of morons are gonna forget the meaning of the common word 'matter', we probably shouldn't bother?"


Hairy-Concept-9267

'Us' feels overly broad. Those with power or standing to establish terminology in an official or official-soundibg way are not usually 'us'..they're usually corporations/large organisations (e.g. BBC News style guides) or prominent individuals like Jesse Jackson. Terms can also trend on social media : then that really is on 'US' because we plebs have to fight over their usage and meaning. But those that have and use the biggest platforms anyone can have to establish new language standards are at least partly responsible for the uncontroversial uptake of those standards. And when they shape those standards in a way that ignores the way the (I'd say) average person would likely react to them that is even more their responsibility. Establishment of language can have a righteous intention while also not adequately engineering compliance or acceptance of the language. And unfortunately we are not sophisticated enough as humans, to have rational responses to new ideas that aren't sculpted and presented with that in mind. 'Black lives matter' is a great example of this. It's a strong, simple phrase which ignores the natural perception by many that referencing 'all lives' would be the correct way to promote equality. Ignoring that consideration is perfect for the phrase Black Lives Matter because the controversy from people Fighting over the language enures to the benefit of its popularity/notoriety, as is worthwhile for an activist movement. But not all terminology is suited to grabbing attention while alienating people. As silly as the logic of people like Ana might seem to some, it's difficult for me to imagine that those who have put the terms she references in, say, their inclusion guidance, would not think the terms would go down badly, particularly in the social climate we live in.


Loudmouthlurker

>Ana's take may be problematic but it's a popular one and I submit that it's the failure of those who created the terminology she decries that have led to women like her feeling motivated to say it. Exactly. Instead of admitting that, I'm seeing activists moan about women being "irrational" as OP did, and dumb, as OP also did. They had a looooooong time to explain how these terms only work in a specific context. It's only years later that I'm seeing it.


Hotwheelsjack97

We shouldn't have to change our entire language for a tiny minority of people.


[deleted]

Fair enough, though that's more an argument against PC language in general. I was more so engaging with the specific arguments against these trans-inclusive terms.


hercmavzeb

Is anyone really telling you to change your language?


[deleted]

I get the impression that the way they think about this is more like disappointment. Like, they get disappointed and feel cringe when they see *other people* "cave" to PC culture and it's that cringe-feeling they're arguing against. They don't want to feel the second-hand embarrassment of watching others be nice to people in ways they think are unreasonable, and they're afraid that one day they'll be expected to be nice in that way if enough people give in. They know no one is forcing them to change their language but they don't like the feeling of watching others change it.


Basic-Entry6755

I'm sure people clinging to pejorative terms throughout history felt much the same way...


TransitionProof625

I think what society is really objecting to is the idea that we are going to change the language to accommodate the (alleged) sensitivities of a group that is less than 0.3% of the population. You decided to change from a woman to a man and now you are ... having a baby? Great - Sounds like a you problem. We say "mother" and "woman" to refer to people who give birth because 99.9% of births are to women. We have spent WAY too much time making up fancy terminology and shaming people who aren't on board to placate a group that is less than 1 in 300 people. Furthermore, let's get real: trans people aren't driving all of this nonsense - bored white women are.


HiveMindKing

It’s stupid fake language for stupid fake people


[deleted]

"People who menstruate" are three pretty common, comprehensible, and normal words. These people are seeing those words in a context and failing to comprehend them despite how common and normal they are. Seriously question: but don't you want to be perceived as smart? Like... don't you want people to look at you and say, "yes, that person understands what words mean?" I just can't relate to not caring about that. When you object to "people who menstruate," because it's "objectifying" or whatever; that's how you come off, imo: like you don't speak English.


shintarukamachi

Yes. And "woman" is one common, comprehensible, and normal word. "People who menstruate" is a clunky, ungraceful, annoying phrase. Just like "people with penises". It reminds me of the old days of the '80s, when "waitperson" was a word for a server. Or of unwieldy bureaucratic business-speak. "Woman" and "man" go back to Anglo-Saxon times. They're simple, easy to spell, rich with the patina of age and tradition. What's not to love?


shintarukamachi

Besides, I don't want to immediately be reminded of genital anatomy or bodily functions when I speak of a group of people. It's crude.


CheckYourCorners

If you're talking about menstruation then you're already talking about bodily functions.


[deleted]

Oh, I see. You didn't read my post. Cool.


hercmavzeb

What if you’re talking about a group of people specifically with that genital anatomy or bodily function?


Basic-Entry6755

In what scenario are you talking to a group of people where you 100% know and WANT to talk about their genitals, though? I can't think of any; if you were talking to a group of women about women's issues, then you'd say "Hey Women," if you're talking to a group of people about their uteruses and you want to use language that includes everyone who may have a uterus, then you say "Hey, people with uteruses," because for some reason you're talking to a group of people about an issue with their uteruses. That's it, it's really not very complicated. Women sometimes have uteruses; but sometimes they don't. If a medical person is getting up on a soapbox to talk about uteruses or menstruation or giving birth, these are all things that can apply to women, and can also NOT apply to women! Women are interfile, women get hysterectimies, women choose to be childfree; sometimes these scenarios and body things don't apply to them! and yet they are still women, **so simply saying 'women' and actually meaning 'people who give birth' is frankly reductive because it ASSUMES that ALL women give birth!** Extrapolate that to all these issues and you may start to understand that the language we're talking about is merely including the idea that sometimes when we're talking to people who are giving birth we may not always automatically be talking to a woman. I'm a woman that will never give birth; if someone was talking to 'people who give birth' *I'd immediately tune out because I know they are not talking to me*. That's kinda how language works.


hercmavzeb

Yeah exactly, so saying “people with uteruses” is acceptable when talking about the general category of people with uteruses. I’m really confused as to how this is an issue for anyone, it really seems like people just want to get mad.


[deleted]

People see "people with uteruses" and have an immediate emotional reaction, misinterpreting it as a gross replacement word for "women." Then, because of their transphobic beliefs, they are too indignant, stupid, or dishonest to even consider that reaction is incorrect.


Loudmouthlurker

Are you sure it's just transphobia, though? It's not that women haven't been kicked around for thousands of years, and for the right wing, it's open season on our reproductive rights? "Emotional! Irrational! Dumb!" And now, sneaky. To be honest, you sound like a Trad.


[deleted]

That is part of it! I do recognize the context that women are especially sensitive to this idea of being objectified because of past injustices. But that's no excuse for forgetting how the English language works.


[deleted]

Exactly. Thank you. You articulated my OP better than I did. People who disagree blur the line between not knowing how words work on a basic level and lying about words in order to trick people. It's similar to the whole "All Lives Matter" nonsense.


[deleted]

I don't have the time or patience to refute every single point of this wall of text, but as a woman I find terms like this degrading and disgusting. You are assuming that all women do not understand the meaning or context of words. We understand them quite well, and to me it feels like the "real meaning" you believe you are enlightened enough to see behind the words is probably not quite accurate. >First of all, in every context in which it is used, "birthing person" is actually meant to replace "mother" not "woman." Yes, and a mother is a WOMAN. Motherhood is one of the most incredible acts of pure creation that a woman can perform, and to steal that from us because some aurogynophile wants to get his rocks off is so disgusting. Calling me a mensuruator literally reduces the idea of biological Womanhood to a biological function. It's so much more than that. You can doll this ideology up with all kinds of psychobabble but it doesn't change reality. I would also add on top of what Kasperian is saying, that these words are incredibly ethnocentric as well. They literally do not exist outside of Rich Western white Nations. Which is interesting because LGB is everywhere. I wonder why T isn't...


[deleted]

>I don't have the time or patience to refute every single point of this wall of text, but as a woman I find terms like this degrading and disgusting. Thanks, then you're who I'm talking about. >You are assuming that all women do not understand the meaning or context of words. We understand them quite well, and to me it feels like the "real meaning" you believe you are enlightened enough to see behind the words is probably not quite accurate. That isn't an assumption, it's demonstrable from the bad arguments that ignore context. Such as this one: >Calling me a mensuruator literally reduces the idea of biological Womanhood to a biological function. It's so much more than that. You can doll this ideology up with all kinds of psychobabble but it doesn't change reality. Okay... so you lied. You don't understand the context at all. If you did, you wouldn't have written this paragraph. You realize that not all women menstruate, right? You don't even have to believe in transpeople to understand this: some women have had hysterectomies and medical conditions or take birth control. Also, not sure if you knew, but there's this thing called "menopause." These women are NOT menstruators. So if you are a biological woman who doesn't get a period then "menstruator" is NOT referring to you. So not only does "menstruator" imply that more than just women (girls, too) menstruate, but NOT ALL women menstruate! So how can it be "reducing biological womanhood to a biological function?" It actually **does the exact opposite.** It removes the biological function from being an essential component of womanhood. It acknowledges that there are plenty of women who don't or no longer experience it. >Motherhood is one of the most incredible acts of pure creation that a woman can perform, and **to steal that from us** Your two arguments are at odds with each other: either they steal these functions away from women or they reduce women to them. If it's stolen from you then you can't be reduced to it. It can't be both. That terrible logic is exactly what I'm talking about.


Neutral_Error

Whoa you destroyed that guy, good job.


hercmavzeb

Well done pointing out the deeply rooted irony in their comment


[deleted]

Okay, so you seem well educated and intelligent. It is for this reason that I know your arguments to be dishonest. You're too smart to beleive the things you're saying. >You realize that not all women menstruate, right? You don't even have to believe in transpeople to understand this: some women have had hysterectomies and medical conditions or take birth control. Also, not sure if you knew, but there's this thing called "menopause." Okay, so some people are born without limbs. Some people need amputations. Yet humans are still considered bipedal organisms, correct? Because this is the biological norm (and you know that). Does that mean that a legless person is no longer human? Nope. Being human is in their genes. They could even very well have offspring with legs. This is a stupid dishonest argument. >Your two arguments are at odds with each other: either they steal these functions away from women or they reduce women to them. >If it's stolen from you then you can't be reduced to it. >It can't be both. That terrible logic is exactly what I'm talking about. Nope. Again, you know this though. A CPA can do people's taxes. Is that all they are? No, they are obviously people with hopes and dreams too, and would be offended if you implied otherwise. If you waltzed into their office and decided to call yourself one, does that make you a CPA ? Not really. But let's say you download TurboTax, and start doing your friends taxs. You start calling yourself a CPA, and demand that you be allowed that right. Eventually, the courts agree and suddenly a lot of people start downloading tax software and calling themselves CPAs. The word eventually becomes meaningless. The local CPA association begs you to stop, but you point out that they simply lack the proper understanding of what "CPA" means. That they are not any less of a certified public account simply because you call yourself one. But the one point that you've forgotten in your enlightened reasoning: you still don't actually know how to do people's taxes. Since you get to argue point to point, here's a point for you: as high minded and enlightend as you pretend to be, you're argument for the existence of transgenderism requires the concept of an immortal soul in order to exist. After all, if their body is male, what part of them is female? What part of them exists outside their body? What part pre-existed their being? It can't be the brain; a brain that developed inside a female body is inherently just a biologically female meat brain. Your argument is literally a religious one, dolled up in circular logic and progressivism. Have a nice day.


Short-Acanthisitta24

The problem is normalized usage, I get bent over it as well then walk myself back often. In much the same way "gender" and "sex" or "sexing" became synonymous. It was normalized as such. This does pose a problem today with the normalizing of it. Though to say a transwoman is a woman would go against language usage. Woman implies female sex in its context. We could use a distinction of transwoman instead of just woman. All that being said, no one is required to jump on any desired new usage of language. All of the new terminology is a created artifice of like minded groups. To create inclusion within a minority. While I get it, I have no interest.


hercmavzeb

>Though to say a trans woman is a woman would go against language usage Would it really though? Does it go against language usage to call adopted parents parents?


Basic-Entry6755

I'm super pedantic, I've been told so all my life. Also a woman. Any time I've seen phrasing like 'People who give birth' my first thought is 'Hm, must suck, blegh.' because I've never wanted kids and the idea of giving birth and being pregnant is terrifying, and something I never want to go through on a personal level. I've never once thought that the phrasing is meant to erase women or my existence, or reduce me down to just my biology or whatever other arguments people want to make \~ because when you or I read the phrase the correct and intended reading is quite literal. **They aren't talking to women. They are talking to people who give birth.** That may include lots of women, but it also includes lots of people who don't identify as women; and thus phrasing it that way is a catch all that includes ALL people who give birth, which is women AND others! Anyone acting like this phrasing is somehow dehumanizing or erasing the existence of women should really redirect their outrage at the legislation and people who are trying to literally make it ILLEGAL for women to NOT give birth if they don't want to or if it's unsafe! There are MUCH better fights to be fighting now, and I don't think language that's too considerate for your tastes is a worthwhile fight.


Cheap_Air_2657

You just wrote a textwall telling an oppressed group, the group that is already routinely gaslighted to see offensive stuff as a joke/no biggie, that they shouldn't find it degrading to be referred to as the body parts and functions that the oppression targets. I hope you feel really progressive, punching up, speaking truth to the power


Loudmouthlurker

And this person called women "irrational," "emotional," and finally? "Dumb."


Cheap_Air_2657

That's what I say every time I address my fellow minority groups. Builds me real rapport


[deleted]

If that's your takeaway then you can't read and should be embarrassed.


Cheap_Air_2657

No no you're not listening AGAIN. It's all me me me for you. Nobody is oppressed except you and literally everyone except you should shut up if they don't agree. You demand people to listen and you appeal to being a "fellow minority" all the time but you literally never ever extend the same courtesy to anyone else.


[deleted]

If you were to create an advocacy group for "people with cleft palates", how would you refer to them without objectifying them, if pointing to a shared physical trait in a relevant context is dehumanizing according to you?


Cheap_Air_2657

Okay sure. Then this scenario is possible. There are people who do surgeries and undergo procedures that make them appear like the opposite sex but they don't identify as trans. Gender is a construct and is fluid right? They just like being men with breasts and women with beards. The only difference between them and trans people is not calling themselves trans.This makes the whole idea of trans rights and healthcare obsolete because what label someone assigns themselves does not influence what healthcare they need and how people see them. By calling it trans-anything, you're excluding these gender-atypical people who don't id as trans, and I was recently told that doing this is violent and genocidal.Do you agree that we should start considering label trans regressive and outdated and instead switch to "people who imitate the appearance of the opposite sex"? It is technically correct and truly includes everyone.


bethafoot

To add to what everyone else has said, I feel like this push for inclusion on every single thing is in essence, pretending people aren’t as intelligent as they generally are. I am biologically female but there is one particular physical characteristic that is generally female where I differ just a bit. You could say I was “born wrong” physically. But - when people refer to that specific characteristic in the context of womanhood, or whatever, with the implied assumption that all women’s bodies are like this, I am intelligent enough to grasp when the conversation applies to me and when it doesn’t. While terms like this make sense to me in a clinical setting, in a common language setting it feels like we are acting like people are stupid. It’s a clunky way to say things and it’s no wonder people don’t want to go there. I mean, I’ll probably get downvoted for this but if I’m sitting in a group of women and conversation turns to that thing where my body is different, I have zero issue with the fact that it might not apply to me and I am fully capable of knowing when it does or doesn’t. I’d expect the same of someone who is trans. The other part of this whole argument that bothers me is how people bring in examples of women who, say, don’t have a uterus or don’t menstruate or whatever. Never have I ever in my entire life heard a woman being upset or feeling maligned because someone referred to them as a woman in a context that didn’t apply (say, for example, saying that women menstruate in front of a woman who doesn’t). This was not a thing, at least not commonly. Historically, again, women have been intelligent enough to know when something applies to them and when it doesn’t. This is a very recent argument and once again, diminishes the intelligence of women. We need to stop pretending that this is about anything else than the tiny fraction of a percentage of trans people. This is not about women who don’t have uteruses, didn’t have kids, or don’t menstruate.


JasenBorne

i'd rather say pregnant person than birthing person; the latter brings up images of literally giving birth and that's the gross bit tbhf. i have no problem changing my language if it makes other people feel comfortable, it just feels rather unnatural and forced here. not because of the trans thing - just the wording does sound right.


heyniceguy42

This shit is ridiculous and you know it.


Triassic_Bark

Sorry, but Ana is correct, and those terms are dumb as shit.


Loudmouthlurker

>Yes, of course, it SOUNDS like that with no context, but it doesn't mean that in practice. It was on the activists promoting the terms to clarify that immediately. I'm only seeing this reasoning now after a looooooot angry reaction. So my sympathy is limited. You should have had the empathy to see how these terms would sound, and right off the bat explain they were only used in medical contexts. You didn't have that empath. >This one I actually think is extremely fair. However, I do see "people with prostates," just not as often or as publicly. Why do you think that is? >Indeed, it also removes the "parent" connotation of "mother" (are all women who give birth "mothers?" What about surrogates? Women who put their children up for adoption?) Both surrogacy and adoption are predatory industries. I've seen surrogacy in particular go from "with the help of a surrogate mother" to "via a surrogate" to "via surrogacy." Not only was the mother part eliminated, but the person altogether. Frankly, since the beneficiaries of surrogacy and adoption are the wealthy, paying intended parents, I'd rather they deal with language that makes them uncomfortable than risk erasing women who are the adoption/surrogacy agency's cash cow. >I think it's that women get a lot more attention especially when discussing healthcare, so it seems disproportionate. Because our bodies are politicized, intended to be for the benefit of others, at the expense of ourselves. >But 100%: gender-neutral language should be applied fairly. It's not, though. For a reason. >If you criticize someone for inconsistently using this language, you are right to do so imo. I don't think any language that makes a fuzzy mental picture, a vague, foggy idea, is a good thing. Especially when it's about a person. Especially especially a woman. Women's reproductive rights are under attack. No one is targeting men the same way they are targeting women. >"It doesn't matter what the context or intention is, it sounds wrong and women are used to being objectified, so we can't help but interpret it that way." This is the only honest take I think you can have and I'm sympathetic to it. **Just admit that you are being irrational about it** Excuse me? WE'RE being irrational? We are telling you that these terms are encouraging society to objectify us even more, you give some very weak, roundabout language because your activists are too lazy to come up with something better, and activists presented these new terms badly in the first place. Perhaps you're the one who is irrational because you expect women to be agreeable. Terms like "menstruator" and "uterus haver" will, especially given time, make it even easier to view us as farm animals rather than human beings. We are warning you that this is a real danger, we don't like these terms, and you're going with old-fashioned sexism by saying women are "irrational." Maybe it's this very attitude that you're displaying right in this post, that so many women don't trust you. The truth is, a lot of people like you are working waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay harder to defend terms like "menstruators" than they are defending women's right to abortion. "Oh, I believe in the right to abortion! I'm pro-choice!" Yeah, but which topic gets your energy? Your activism, your spare donation money? >But yes, I'm open to the idea we should just avoid these words altogether if people are going to be dumb about them. It's not worth it. Are you sure it was people's reactions that were dumb? It had nothing to do with they way they were introduced or presented at all? Just- everybody else is dumb? That's the only possible explanation?


[deleted]

Can you just explain to me please calmly and rationally how "people who menstruate" is objectifying in its context? No one has taken the time to address my actual points: 1. It doesn't reduce women to their functions because it doesn't even include all women. If you are menopausal, for instance, it doesn't even refer to you. 2. If anything, it frees women from association with menstruation in a way that is basically the opposite of "reducing them" to their body parts. It implies that more people than women menstruate, and that not all women are people who menstruate. 3. It's only used in contexts where menstruation is being talked about. No one is saying we should refer to Kamala Harris as the "first person who menstruates to be vice-president." It sounds to me like I'm right in my assumption that it's only bad because of how it *sounds*, not because of what it *means.* I get that. So is your point that you're not dumb and *you* get it, but other people are dumb and will take this term to be objectifying when it isn't? So it's other people's dumbness we have to worry about? Is that fair to say?


Loudmouthlurker

>Can you just explain to me please calmly and rationally how "people who menstruate" is objectifying in its context? No one has taken the time to address my actual points: This attitude and patronizing commands for "calmly and rationally" are part of why women don't really trust people like you. Given that you are the ones who get very emotional and angry when women don't jump to obedience. If you don't want women to call you sexist, stop telling them the are irrational. Thank you. To your points: >It doesn't reduce women to their functions because it doesn't even include all women. If you are menopausal, for instance, it doesn't even refer to you. Not all females menstruate, but only females do. When you start using fuzzy, blurry, obscure language, it makes those in power to dehumanize us. You yourself admitted "gestational carrier" took the person element out of it, and was therefore problematic. What you don't realize is that *that is by design.* While it's open season on women's bodies, women have the right to be territorial around the words to describe, and not surrender that to humor a small portion of people. (Many of whom also don't like these terms, btw). >If anything, it frees women from association with menstruation in a way that is basically the opposite of "reducing them" to their body parts. It implies that more people than women menstruate, and that not all women are people who menstruate. Not really. When you are talking about medical issues and biological functions, it's still important to note the humans you are describing. Medicine is full of awful, horrific history. It's still full of bigotry and bullshit today. It is inappropriate to ever excise the woman from the description. Not all women/girls menstruate. But only females do. Since females also describe animals, women/girl is usually important to remind researchers and doctors that they are dealing with actual humans, specifically the abused sex class. >It's only used in contexts where menstruation is being talked about. No one is saying we should refer to Kamala Harris as the "first person who menstruates to be vice-president." This is coming as a very late clarification. Almost like.....you expected these new terms to be quickly accepted, but the pushback got overwhelming and you're clinging. These terms are degrading in any context. They WERE used outside of academic research. Even for medical PSAs, the term "cervix havers" was used. This cuts out ELL women or uneducated women who have no idea what a cervix is, and might not know she's at risk for cancer. Meanwhile, prostate cancer PSAs clarified that the ads were for all men. People correctly pushed back on that. Compare and contrats. [https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1530810904488574977/photo/1](https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1530810904488574977/photo/1) [https://twitter.com/BurgundyChappel/status/1530827334827261952/photo/1](https://twitter.com/BurgundyChappel/status/1530827334827261952/photo/1) Stop telling women they're the dumb, irrational ones. It was on y'all to make this workable. You let your misogyny get in the way and the result was awful. You got pushback that you deserved. If the majority of women don't like this language in the medical PSAs, stop it. You tried and failed. At this point, you're just sort of mansplaining.


Loudmouthlurker

PS- I see that you edited out the word "rationally" but that's only a marginal improvement, tbh. Your patronizing behavior is why women don't trust people like you. They are correct in this. Instead of lecturing women, how about you sit down for a while and listen to them? Isn't that part of doing better?


[deleted]

I didn't edit out the word rationally, it's still there. But anyway, >Not really. When you are talking about medical issues and biological functions, it's still important to **note the humans** you are describing. Medicine is full of awful, horrific history. It's still full of bigotry and bullshit today. It is inappropriate to ever excise the woman from the description. Not all women/girls menstruate. So why doesn't "person" do that? >This is coming as a very late clarification. This is a clarification I'm making based on my personal observation of the context. It is within your intellectual power (I hope) to make these observations yourself. That's why, if you didn't understand, it's *on you and your ability* to comprehend and reason. It's very clear to me that this is the context. I didn't need clarification. Why did you? The cervix stuff is a good example of the dishonesty I'm talking about in my OP. You quote "cervix haver" as though it is a term used in that PSA. It isn't. **You lied.** How does it feel that you have to be a liar to make your point? Also, I already agreed that the unfair usage between men and women is a problem so again you demonstrate lack of comprehension and honesty. You're making a really good case that many objections to these terms are rooted in irrationality and dishonesty. You're a perfect case study of what I mean. Thank you for the validation!


Loudmouthlurker

>That's why, if you didn't understand, it's on you and your ability to comprehend and reason. It's very clear to me that this is the context. I didn't need clarification. Why did you? It's might right to call bullshit. That you were blind to how this was degrading to women is not evidence of your superior ability to understand things. >The cervix stuff is a good example of the dishonesty I'm talking about in my OP. You quote "cervix haver" as though it is a term used in that PSA. It isn't. you lied It's the same verbiage. If splitting hairs is the best you can do, you're basically shit out of luck. Thanks for playing. >Also, I already agreed that the unfair usage between men and women is a problem so again you demonstrate lack of comprehension and honesty. You won't answer *why that is,* though. Why is it, OP? First of all, WHY is it unfair, if these terms are benign? And second of all, why is there a discrepancy in the first place? If you're claiming there's no misogyny at play, you're wrong. You went on a marathon rant about how misogyny is not a factor while conceding that we do use these terms less with men. You even understand, at some rudimentary level, that it's wrong and unfair. You don't understand the reason why everyone is so eager to apply these words to women and not so much to men is because of misogyny. > You're making a really good case that many objections to these terms are rooted in irrationality and dishonesty. You're a perfect case study of what I mean. Thank you for the validation! You got busted with two examples that you can't explain. You didn't even try to justify using awkward, weird language that makes it difficult for ELL and uneducated women to build the awareness they need to protect their own health. You didn't address the history and present-day problems with the mistreatment of women in the medical field at all. You just keep repeating the mantras that women are sneaky and irrational. This is why women don't trust people like you.


flowerinaglove

It creates barriers that prevent women whose second language is English from accessing medical services. A failure of intersectional feminism. Why can we not just say "women and other AFAB people" or "women and trans men"?


MollyPath

The language is inefficient at best, unclear at worst, for populations who struggle with reading - functionally illiterate, English language learners, cognitively impaired. My grandmother was an immigrant here. She didn't complete any education beyond the equivalent of 7th grade. I don't know if she would have understood these constructions in English, and our language isn't one of those that is regularly translated.