15

19 comments

[–] zuubat 1 points Edited

There is some irony in "pregnant people."

I have long loathed the common, routine practice of using the word "people" to refer to men. Even a recent book by Jared Diamond had a line that infuriated me - in discussing the roots of warfare, he wrote that "People fought wars over women."

So the irony is that "pregnant people" should make me happy - after all, it's finally a case where the language assumes women as the default.

Of course, that's not at all what "pregnant people" is about.

I agree that gender-neutral words can be helpful. For example, changing words like waitress to server or fireman to firefighter or mailman to letter carrier are fine. They describe jobs that can be done by men or women. You’re not defining the person, you’re defining their occupation.

When we are describing people we should not be reducing them to their functions. This “inclusive” language reduces people to their functions. It’s dehumanizing.

I don’t even like getting rid of femininitives always. There’s nothing wrong with being an actress for example. Forcing us into a neutered category doesn’t affect or change sexism or misogyny. It just hides sexism and misogyny behind a supposedly neutral veil. There isn’t anything wrong with being female. I know you know this, just a general musing. Neutral language hasn’t helped us and it arguably was the thin end of the wedge for atrocities like chest feeder.

I don’t disagree, but the problem is when things are feminized it is (almost) always that male is both the male word and the neutral, which implies male as the default and female as “other.”

Just look at the Spanish language:

A group of 6 girls?

Latinas.

A group of 6 guys?

Latinos.

A group of six girls and one guy?

Latinos.

A group of six guys one girl?

Latinos.

I see this POV too. The underlying issue is that males are always seen as the default no matter the situation and language both reflects and influences that. I’ve just always thought it better for women Not to disappear into the formless sea of neuter or male neutral.

Years ago, I was upset by the MSM dropping the word "actress", but I couldn't quite say why. Well, now that women's categories are being abolished by many acting/music awards shows, I know: Language was just the first step. I now ONLY use the word "actress" when I'm talking about women who act.

[–] legopants 21 points Edited

There isn't inclusive language, if there was men would be called ejaculators or penis havers, it's only women's words being changed and distorted definitions, how is it not taking away from us?

Inclusive words: all, everybody, everyone, every person

Not inclusive: calling women things like uterus havers and menstruators

Telling that it only applies to women and not men. Just from the title alone.

F u c k o f f .

Unless they have an IQ of 50, non-binary and TIFs know they have a female body and they have to go to a gynecologist for care. I’m not sure why a gynecologist wouldn’t take them seriously just because of their identity. To claim they will get dysphoric if they are referred to as women speaks to how delusional they are.

[–] Hera 13 points

Ok sure, so what about the almost 50% of women who don't know what a cervix is? How are they supposed to know to go for screenings if we don't use the word "woman"? Even if you don't know if you have a cervix, if you know that "all women should be screened by their doctor for cervical cancer" then you, as a woman, know it's something to bring up with your doctor. Saying "all people with a cervix..." leaves about 50% of those "people with cervixes" out of the discussion.

Inclusive language is by and for decadent individuals belched out by wealthy, white academia, and I hate it so much. Wealthy, white delusional assholes get the pleasure of feeling righteous while poor women (many of them woc) suffer.

It was never about inclusivity. It’s about not making “transwomen” feel “unsafe” by acknowledging that women have shared biological characteristics. If it weren’t so, we would see far more “women and transmen” language, but we don’t.

The whole point of words is to exclude things that don’t fit the definition of the word and to include the ones that do. ‘Woman’ includes people who want to call themselves non binary or transmen.

Yes, using "womb havers" and "menstruators" in the name of inclusivity doesn't take away women or womanhood from the equation.

🙄🙄🙄

I am not a 'cis' woman, and I resent having that identity forced on me. The author doesn't understand that for most people there is no such thing as an abstract gender identity.

Being called 'cis' is being told that we have been assigned a name by a religious sect we don't belong to (gender identitarians), and that we must use it now, even if it's like Christians or Muslims demanding those who are not in those religions to call themselves 'heathens' or 'kaffir' or similar terms created WITHIN a sect or religion or group, and not by some public debate or more generally.

I am a woman.

[–] Women2Women 5 points Edited

This is such a good example of how backward we are going on women's rights. In second wave feminism, we fought the use of only male centered language, like the use of "man" to indicate both sexes, and won the right to name women as separate but equal. The purpose of todays genderists lies about "inclusivity", is to once again erase women as a sex class, giving men access to, and power over, all that women are and have.

Load more (4 comments)