166

19 comments

"Inclusive language in specific medical contexts"....yeah, rigghhht!🙄

And, of course, those contexts are where women most frequently come together to have female health concerns addressed.

And, I'm sorry, male-identifying females, if you find such labels as "menstruator," "chest feeder," "womb carrier," "cervix haver" and "bleeder" more welcoming, less female than the label "woman," then I don't want to be included in any mutual health care systems that might serve us both.

Inclusive? Not of me and my dignity or humanity.

One does have to wonder...these "more inclusive" atomizing, dehumanizing, and even disgusting terms almost seem to have been chosen to create division between women and male-identifying females. I would have been okay with a less toxic choice (replacing "women's health" with "gynecological health," for instance), providing the trans lobby paid for such a neutral change, not my taxes. But these terms are just god-awful. Who came up with them? I WANT NAMES! Who decided that the group formerly known universally as women should, henceforth, be called "bodies with vaginas" or "bleeders"?

Because it's a real strategic move. It infuriates women who know that they are women, and lessens the possibility of connection with male-identifying females during times of vulnerability: when both sets of females are giving birth or undergoing treatment for serious female problems.

Another argument I’ve heard is that using terms like “uterus haver” etc is “more accurate” and why are terfs so against accuracy ! It’s just MORE PRECISE to say people who menstruate rather than woman , because not every woman menstruates! And I have to laugh at this absolute bollocks, as if pedantic “accuracy” is something that we actually care about in language. Yes, it may be more “accurate” to call me a “menstruator” but it also makes me feel like a dehumanised piece of shit . My only solace in all of this is if I have to be reduced to body parts then I will be damn sure to refer to TIMS as prostate owners.