"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.

Sex is distinct from gender ID! But also, in the medical context where sex is most relevant, you’re forbidden from stating in plain language the phrases “women”, “female”, or even the capitulation “biological women”!

I think it’s also worthy to point out the strategy or accident of choice paralysis in these language games. While you’re busy fretting your head over which euphemism for women you’re going to use today, you’re being successfully distracted from more pressing matters like whatever the fuck women are actually trying to find urgent solutions to, please. TRAs Pavlov’d women into tying the shoelaces of both feet together and exalting it as progress.

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

I doubt TRAs would agree to that given that you'd just be saying the same thing but in Greek rather than English ("gyne" just means woman).

Weirdly, no one seems to be campaigning against changing the name of the gynecology specialty, or choosing some other word for birth attendants rather than "midwife," and every single advocacy organization with "women" in its name that is lecturing us about "inclusive language" is not making one move toward changing its name.

And it's a shame, it'd be really funny if NOW changed their name to National Organization for People because the acronym would be NOPE which is my answer next time they ask for donations.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 0 points

NOW won't stop being NOW. Organizational names rarely, if ever, change.

Witness the NAACP, still so called even though "colored" has been considered a slur at least since the '60's.
The Mississippi University for Women has been co-ed since 1982 (a condition of either Federal or public land-grant funding, I think) but still has that name, nicknamed "The W".