General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't want to be identified by what body parts I have or don't have.
Women are not defined by a uterus.
We have fought long and hard to not be defined in this way, as feminists. Feminists who are great ally’s to LGBTQ.
Yes this does transect and is linguistically at odds with the preference of the trans community.
It’s muddled, but it does not make me a transphobe to not want to be identified that way.
I think best is we all decide for ourselves how to identify and respect that choice of the individual.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Walleye
(44,797 posts)How on earth does it harm anybody else?I believe that calling somebody by their preferred name is the very least amount of respect we can give each other.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)See how that works?
I totally respect anyone to decide their own appellation.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Kudos
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Others have said they don't feel comfortable with this subject is handled on DU. I think that's a shame. 
MineralMan
(151,263 posts)My wife used to have business cards that had "Mammal" printed under her name, in the place people usually put their job title. She, like me, is a freelance magazine writer. It amused her to hand out those cards to editors and sources. They were also a good conversation starter. A clever person she is.
Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)Your wife is a sly and clever person. I might do "Carbon-Based Life Form."
MineralMan
(151,263 posts)I like your chosen title, too.
I have two pronouns. "I" and "You." I refer to myself as "I." Others refer to me as "You" when we communicated. Or by my name. No room for confusion there, I think. When referring to me, people can also say, "the/that person named MineralMan."
If someone prefers to use other pronouns for me, that's OK, too. If I know who they're talking about and it's me, I'll be happy to respond.
Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)I'd prefer not to be identified as just "a person with a uterus" (especially given that I no longer have a use for it). It's not me, and it never was. I appreciate the reason for the terminology - to include trans people - and anyone who wishes to be identified thus is welcome to it, but I wish there were an inclusive term that didn't depend on body parts. A trans person clearly isn't the sum of their body parts but just the opposite; the fact is that gender isn't based just on reproductive organs and can exist completely apart from them. None of us, trans or otherwise, is just a life support system for a uterus.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)That's just a made up argument that transphobes use when they are ranting about having to show basic consideration to other people.
For one thing, it implies a cis woman who has had a hysterectomy is no longer a "woman".
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)without being organ-based, but it's not a hill I want to die on. "Pregnant person" is probably a more accurate term, since all of this has come about because of the abortion issue, and obviously a person seeking an abortion is doing so because they are pregnant.
(As to your second comment, there are those who consider women who are incapable of pregnancy for whatever reason not to be "real" women, but those people tend to be on the lunatic religious fringe.)
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)I have never met a single actual trans person who wants to use the term "person with a uterus".
It's cis and trans and yes, "pregnant person" is inclusive as well.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I see it more from well-meaning advocates who are trying to signal that they are inclusive. Transphobes took that concept and ran with it, turning it into a boogeyman. And it works. It gets people left, right, ans center worked into a tizzy.
Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)as to the underlying problem of abortion access regardless of gender or gender identification, and trans rights in general. "Person with a uterus" just seems so unnecessary; you might as well include all the other parts, person with ovaries, person with a vagina, etc. Cis and trans and pregnant covers it.
allegorical oracle
(6,480 posts)
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)particular group. They have a right to refer to themselves as they choose. I don't consider it anyone's business.
madville
(7,847 posts)They can refer to themselves however they want, just don’t expect everyone else to do the same or change just to satisfy them. It’s impossible to know what individual people want if you don’t know them, plus there are so many variables now how is one to know what even applies?
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)If I know a Matthew who wants to be called Matt, I would never say "don't expect me to do the same! having to remember that one additional detail about you is just too much to expect! īf I do that, you'll never be satisfied and keep forcing me to learn and remember more things!"
If an individual person tells you their pronouns are "they" or different to the sex they were assigned at birth, how is that any different in terms of what they are asking you than someone who uses a nickname or who changed their surname when they got married?
What the trans-community in general has agreed is that people whose gender identity doesn't match the sex they were assigned at birth are trans. People who do are cis. If you want to clarify what kind of trans person they are, they can be a trans woman (assigned male at birth AMAB) or a trans man (assigned female at birth AFAB) or non-binary (AMAB or AFAB but not identifying strongly with either binary gender).
Cis men and trans men are both men. Cis women and trans women are both women. Nobody is saying if you are cis that you are not also a man or a woman. It's just a term to help clarify the different groups that sits under that larger term.
madville
(7,847 posts)If a woman doesn’t want to be called a “birthing person” or “person with a uterus” then that should be respected as well.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)Because they are already being used as a replacement.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)respect their choices. I consider doing otherwise to be Transphobic.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)I was speaking of my business and how I wish to be identified and not be identified?
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Understandings may vary, sadly.
Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)and that not everyone wants to be identified the same way.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)argue with the need to protect trans rights to self-identify as they wish. But to deny the same to a self-identifying woman is discriminatory and wrong.
The right to self-determination cannot be limited to a few or a single group. It must be available to ALL.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)they don't have the right to determine how they (Trans folks) are identified and or perceved...yes they do actually.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)I was born a female baby, then became a girl, and grew to spend my life as a woman. I will die a woman. I also happened to be gay, but first and foremost, I'm a woman.
I don't need to call myself cis. Why should I?
If someone else wants to, then that's fine, but if they were to describe ME to ME, then I would say, I'm a woman.
Trans people should call themselves whatever they would like, and I respect that. That should work both ways.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)women.
Nobody is forcing anybody to be called "cis" or saying if you're a cis woman you're somehow not also a woman.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)"pregnant persons" ... not 'pregnant women and other pregnant persons'... i.e. eliminate the term that describes 99% of those pregnant--even while a self-chosen term for the trans individuals who may become pregnant is absolutely to be included.
And in the Ana Kasparian (?? spelling-- a host woman on TYT) text posted multiple times the responses indicated she did not have the right to determine the term she want to be referred to (i.e., woman)
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)Women can get pregnant. Some men can get pregnant. When you are talking about pregnancy, "pregnant people" or "people who can get pregnant" is more accurate and inclusive than "women". That is literally the only thing that anybody is saying.
You can still call yourself a woman. You just can't accurately use "woman" as a proxy for "pregnant person".
Response to meadowlander (Reply #134)
hlthe2b This message was self-deleted by its author.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)(you know the people we are actually talking about here who might know a little more about this than you do) "I have corrected you and pointed you to the correct info".
To hell with that condescending bullshit.
Nobody is stopping you from self-identifying as a women. That is an absolute strawperson argument.
If you can actually explain why "pregnant person" is not inclusive of women, you might have a point. But women are people, not only women can get pregnant, therefore "pregnant person" is the accurate umbrella term for people who might need access to abortions.
Keep on being a women and identifying however you want. All anyone is asking for is that people who are not cis women are not erased or pushed out into a generic and unnecessary "other" category when we are talking about this issue.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)"I am putting you on hide now & expect you to do like. Your disrespect for non-trans women is noted. I'm done with you."
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)self Identify period.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)It's from earlier in the thread.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)do consider themselves women...my daughter headed an LGBTQ group in college-they did a fabulous drag show once a year as a fundraiser...and I met a fair number...they have been told their entire life they are not 'women', and do identify as women which is their right.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)I've been avoiding DU today, because of all of the gaslighting on this issue going on yesterday and early this morning. Very glad to see others calling it out for what it is.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I feel erased when you delete “women” from the phrase “women and other people who can get pregnant.” It is a very hurtful feeling.
I do not want any one else to feel erased, and I would not delete a term that includes you or others.
But as others in this thread have said, respect is a two-way street.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)There are at least five examples in this thread alone of me saying "call yourself whatever you want to call yourself when you are the only people being talked about".
If you want to post an actual example of an actual trans organisation that actually wants to replace "women" with "people with a uterus" or something else that identifies women by their body parts alone then by all means let's continue this discussion. 206 posts in I haven't seen it yet. In my view, it's a strawman created by transphobic organisations looking for wedge issues on the left.
I don't care how many terms we use, I just care that they are accurate and that they include people who are not cis women when that is relevant in context.
I'm sorry that you feel erased if "women" is substituted by "people". At least "women" is a subset of "people". I feel marginalised by being shoved into "other people" or completely forgotten about at all (which, let's be honest is what happens 99.9% of the time). Do you have a medically accurate and inclusive alternative to "pregnant people" that isn't an entire sentence in its own right? Would love to hear it.
Because what I'm hearing is "99% of people who get pregnant are women, therefore we have the right to use a term that erases the other 1%". And that's a pretty shitty and disappointing attitude to be hearing from "progressives".
And don't come back with "pregnant women and other people". That is literally "othering" people.
Withywindle
(9,989 posts)If we're going to be talking about trans people at all, which obviously we should to understand these issues better and to be inclusive, then we also need a simple straightforward value-neutral term that means "not trans." Cis is that term, and it works well.
I'm a cis woman. I'm fine with it. Trans women and cis women are just two different kinds of woman.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #6)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
Polybius
(21,900 posts)I saw many on Twitter saying the same thing, all in the last 24 hours.
Takket
(23,714 posts)
EarlG
(23,631 posts)Your OP is based on the assumption that:
1) You are being told that you, personally, have to now be identified by your body parts.
2) It is the "preference of the trans community" that you, personally, now have to be identified by your body parts.
Are either of those things actually true?
boston bean
(36,931 posts)I was just called a transphobe above for stating what I said.
EarlG
(23,631 posts)With regards to #2, you state that it's the "preference of the trans community" that a woman should have to be identified by her body parts. Where does that idea come from?
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Where is that idea coming from?
It's the transphobes that are reducing people to parts.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Who is deciding to call people "birthing people"?
Last I checked it ws not the transphobia forming these labels.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Transphobes reduce people to parts. If you have a penis, you can only be male. If you have a uterus, you can only be female.
Being inclusive by saying "people with a vagina" or "people with a penis" is opening up to those who have that anatomy but do not identify with them gender assigned at birth. It's not the way transphobes are reducing and restricting people. No one is telling you that you can't be a woman. That is bullshit peddled by RW'ers and transphobes (not all transphobes are RW - as evidenced in these threads).
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)Once again, I have never met a trans person who wants the term “birthing people” to replace women. That sounds bizarre and inhuman.
Medical documents may describe “pregnant people,” etc. to include trans men because they’re purposefully inclusive so that trans men understand that it applies to them as well.
Nobody outside of that environment wants to refer to women as “birthing people.”
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)....used by medical professionals and those writing articles regarding any aspect of pelvic health.
I actually work in an industry where we are very focused - though not limited - on the pelvic health of all genders. This includes regular pelvic health and any dysfunctions. We are very trans-friendly, but don't use "people with uteruses" or "penis-owning folks." We would if specifically requested, but we've never come across that request from anyone. However, I do see it in publications and those posting from an advocacy standpoint. In my experience, trans people are not commonly using those terms at all. And none are saying people can't identify as women.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Wrong section. Correct response below.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I haven't found a post of mine specifically referencing you personally as a transphobe. What I have been doing is talking about what *is* transphobia.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)I don’t think I stated that in the title of my OP.
However, my understanding is that the trans community would like to have all encompassing word to identify gender and woman is not it. Am I wrong in that? Maybe. Would welcome it. I also understand why and empathize with this cause.
With this very understandable preference for a universal terminology, it has been made clear that woman should not be used any longer. This is what I read. And it is quite apparent by many responses on this very website in regards to this very sensitive issue.
I agree one should identify how they wish. I do not wish to be identified with anything having to do with a body part.
EarlG
(23,631 posts)And you stated, "We have fought long and hard to not be defined in this way, as feminists."
That's the premise of your post, as stated in the OP title, so I asked who was forcing you to be identified by your body parts -- who is defining you in this way.
I think you might be...
Here's how I'm reading this: you've jumped to the conclusion that, "the trans community would like to have an all encompassing word to identify gender and woman is not it," and from there, extrapolated that, "it has been made clear that woman should not be used any longer."
So yeah, that does sound to me like you've based your OP on a misunderstanding.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)I was.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,954 posts)questionseverything
(11,836 posts)meadowlander
(5,133 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(26,954 posts)It's also most often used in health care settings centered on pregnancy. Men can become pregnant. "Pregnant people" works best in such settings. If providers are talking about an individual patient, they're likely to know the person's pronouns. If they're talking about hypothetical patients, as I did in the previous sentence, "pregnant person" makes the most sense.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)that have argued that cis women do not have the right to be called 'women.'
And #1 is emerging in discussions of how to officially refer to the pregnant, even while all agree on the need to include trans individuals who can become pregnant.
Ocelot II
(130,525 posts)who is reproductively female regardless of gender identity that isn't about body parts. Obviously that's because the whole abortion issue is about reproduction, and only people who have certain female-specific body parts would ever need an abortion. It's certainly true that a trans person who does not identify as female could become pregnant (possibly as the result of rape) and need an abortion, so how should that person be identified? As they want to be identified, I guess. But we don't have a universal, non-body-part word and I don't have an answer.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)wants to define themselves AFTER the words pregnant WOMEN. Given 99% of pregnancies are among those who self-identify as women, I resent having that term deleted. Trans men with a uterus need to be included in the discussion, no doubt. But I am neither a uterus, a baby bump or a generic "person." who happens to have pregnancy "plumbing" and I am admittedly angry that some are advocating for cis-women to be erased in this society--even while I DO strongly advocate for inclusion for the trans community.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)"Pregnant women and trans people"
"Pregnant women and others"
"Pregnant women and other pregnant individuals"
Inclusion does not need to exclude the preferred term of millions of those who self-identiify as 'women'
Since when does it need to be a zero-sum gain. Women must lose if trans are to be appropriately respected? NO.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)or lumps them unnecessarily into a "miscellaneous" category.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Where are all of these threads stating that cis women don't have the right to be called women?
EarlG
(23,631 posts)I see plenty of talk in these threads claiming that women are being forced to identify a certain way and are no longer allowed to call themselves women, but where is this coming from? Who is doing the forcing?
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)I'm not intent on breaking any rules or other catch-22.
EarlG
(23,631 posts)I'm genuinely interested in where this general idea is coming from -- that it is the preference of the trans community that women should not be allowed to identify themselves as women. I have not seen anyone on DU saying that "cis women do not have the right to be called 'women'" so the claim struck me as hyperbole.
If you want to PM me with evidence to the contrary by all means do so, but I'm here for the conversation, not to try to catch anyone out.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)them of being a Transphobe? As follows:
33. These tactics
These tactics (" all these people say I can't self identify and I'm only a uterus-haver" are extremely common among transphobes. They cover up with vague statements that seem trans supportive, but are often more sinister.
Is that what's going on here? I don't know. I've seen how this plays out in other arenas, though.
I know you have done a lot to make stronger efforts against bigotry here, but DU still has a transphobia problem.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)are regularly called transphobic. These kind of personal attacks are routinely ignored.
However, one can post a pic of Putin and tfg in full gay leather regalia, and everyone snickers. Call Lindsay Graham "Miss Lindsay" and that's just lovely. Talk about the "shrillness" of a woman's voice, the way a woman dresses while working as a foreign correspondent, a woman looking fat or old or frumpy or slutty or flirty....no problem there!
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I have called those posts out plenty. I have alerted on those posts and am most often unsuccessful. So those posts remain standing. Posts telling people it's not acceptable, but it still happens with regularity. I agree with you 100% on those counts and share your distress that nothing ever really happens when those things are posted.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Earl G seems to have a grip on what is and isn't transphobia. That may be why he is allowing my posts to stand?
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)I am quite sure EarlG knows the term (and likewise will not allow you to continue this violative behavior).
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I'm calling every other a DU'er a transphobe? Wow, I've been busy.
Pointing out what is and isn't transphobia is not the same as calling "every other DU'er" a transphobe. Not by a long shot. Your personal attacks are noted, though.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)And all of a sudden EVERY Republican claimed she called them deplorable.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)No one, NO ONE, Called anyone in this thread a "person with a uterus". Yet some people are getting worked up about being called just that.
I find that interesting....
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)And no, nearly everyone is not everyone.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)These tactics (" all these people say I can't self identify and I'm only a uterus-haver"
are extremely common among transphobes. They cover up with vague statements that seem trans supportive, but are often more sinister.
Is that what's going on here? I don't know. I've seen how this plays out in other arenas, though.
I know you have done a lot to make stronger efforts against bigotry here, but DU still has a transphobia problem.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I've been in these spaces for a LONG time and I am well aware of the tactics used.
Having just read yesterdays thread, I am even more confident in my assertion.
TERF is a slur? Only to transphobes.
Feel free to block me if you disagree with my lived experiences as a queer person.
FreeState
(10,702 posts)And if people dont think there is a problem with it here they are not paying attention. Nearly every Trans poster I have had here no longer posts on DU - largely due to transphobia and bias.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I have been in contact with a few. They have felt very unsafe here.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)The poster you are responding to is not a transphobe, and these thinly veiled attempts to personally attack people are much more obvious than you think. And they are all over the other thread.
Anyone who dares say they want to be called by their own born gender is automatically a homophobe to many responding in both threads.
That is disingenuous at best, and passive-aggressive attacking at worst.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)The other thread where it is claimed that TERF is a slur? That one? That's a transphobe claim.
I don't think people are being called transphobic simply because they want to be identified by their own born gender. That's not the reason people are called transphobic.
I stand by my original comment. This is a very common, though seemingly innocent, tactic. If you disagree then feel free to block.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)It is not used towards ALL feminists. It's used to describe trans exclusionary radical feminists. Feminism is not monolithic. "TERF is a slur" is a well-known dog whistle.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)I’m incredulous at this. I have never met a trans person who doesn’t want cis-women to call themselves “women.” I’m trans and I don’t believe that either. Where are you getting this from?
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)Can you point out comments that you believe say that you shouldn’t be able to refer to yourself as a woman?
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)I think you’re misinterpreting it.
Also, referring to the previous thread that spawned this one. I didn’t see a single post in that thread erasing the term, “woman” or discouraging people from calling themselves women.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)I’m not asking out of laziness, but more because I think we have vastly different interpretations of what was said.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)read for context. I am at work and I have to go back to it. Have a good afternoon.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)Trans men can have a uterus. If you’re putting out a medical warning for people who have a uterus, for example, and if you don’t include them, they may not think it applies to them. Some women also don’t have a uterus.
They’re not saying women in general should not be able to call themselves women. The point is more inclusiveness in certain situations where it’s medically beneficial to be inclusive. That’s how I read that sub thread.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)while an inclusionary term is an absolute requirement, the insistence on removing the word "woman" is at issue. A refusal to acknowledge "pregnant women and other pregnant persons" or referencing pregnancy specifically, "woman and others who are pregnant" or any other term to insure inclusion of trans individuals that may be pregnant with the term, "women". Inclusion does not mean subtraction and in this case removing the term for 99% of those who can become pregnant definitely IS. I'm not a generic object, uterus, belly bump, or just a generic "person." I am a woman and the term needs to acknowledge the self-identity of 99% of those impacted--just as it includes a preferred addition for trans individuals.
All of the above is the context for that subthread.
Beyond that subthread is the myriad responses to the tweet from Ana Kasparian and her demand to be self-identified as a "woman" which MANY ATTACKED. I have no idea if she is as pro-trans as most on DU are (myself included) but the assumption that she is not had many attacking her and her demand for her self-identity as a woman. The latter is simply wrong. She has that right as do all trans inividuals.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)What term would you suggest? You acknowledge the need for inclusionary terminology - is there a term you'd suggest? Apologies if you've already posted such an example.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)That type of reasoning is constantly being used by Gender Critical/ Trans Exclusionary Radical Fascists to attack trans women.
The transphobic reasoning is that pregnancy/having a womb/ is inherent to womanhood and since trans women are incapable of that, then they are not true women. Of course this invalidates many many cis women as well but TERFs don't care.
We need a term that does not give that impression. Not just for the trans men. Not just for the trans women. But for everyone who does not want their ability or inability to get pregnant to be the defining trait of their gender. There are cis-women who do not want to ever get pregnant and would NOT like their womanhood linked to a single reproductive role.
Also, there is no subtraction going on. People includes both men and WOMEN. So women were NOT subtracted. Pregnant women are pregnant people too. Kinda like how Lions are members of the family felidae. Referring Lions as members of Felidae does not make them any less a lion.
Kasparian was criticized for making a transphobic talking point. I believe you can't respond in this thread any more so (if you do wish to respond) you can just reply to me here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17755798
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Please quote word for word where that was said or supply the image I used where you think that is the case.
I can and will show that is NOT what is being said.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)"The ACLU wants to force the city of St. Louis to change their name!" This was in response to public schools being told they couldn't force children to pray to Jesus.
A reasonable, inclusive step forward in medical terminology is being weaponized by chaos agents, and now progressives are turning on one another. Mission accomplished.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Nobody has said that in this thread.
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)mcar
(46,055 posts)BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Wish I could rec a thousand times.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Who told you that your cannot identify as a woman?
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)It’s the mythical “them,” without any specific examples, which is so common in anti-trans rhetoric.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)I was directed to another thread where the transphobia was even worse.
I said in another post - which has been honed in on by these folks - that this is a very, very common tactic by transphobes.
Takket
(23,714 posts)Transphobia abounds in that thread.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)What you’re referring to is medical text that is purposefully specific, (e.g. including trans men who have a uterus).
Many trans people haven’t had “the surgery.” They still identify as women. I’m not sure why you think that they would want to be identified by their body parts?
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)It is not degrading to be a person with a uterus or birthing person. Some of us would give everything we own to be a person with a uterus capable of giving birth.
It in no way denies any women their womanhood. It in NO WAY prevents a woman from identifying as a woman.
It is Inclusive as all women are people, so it includes them as well. To say otherwise is to just ignore that fact.
It also includes trans men who deserve recognition. Further, by not saying women it does not link the concept of pregnancy to womanhood which is then weaponized against trans women. Trans women are Constantly attacked by Gender Critical/ TERFs claiming they are not real women because being able to get pregnant is inherent to real women. Which not only is invalidating to trans women but to cis women unable to get pregnant or born without a uterus.
Ultimately, this entirely a right wing tactic to try and antagonize women against trans people. Don’t fall for it!!!
Also this is a great response:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cftsc0dLPV0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Rob H.
(5,849 posts)
boston bean
(36,931 posts)It is about how for me specifically do not want to be reduced to a body part.
Pregnant person ok. But person with a uterus, no.
The terminology goes beyond pregnant person.
I’m willing to give up the word woman, just not for anything that includes a body part or function. I am not that. I am a person.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Nor should I have to.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Yet it is offensive to some.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts) boston bean
(36,931 posts)Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)And who is offended by the term?
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Also, keep in mind it goes much further than pregnant person. I have no problem with pregnant person.
Others like person with a uterus instead of woman is not how I wish to identify.
And yes, because the word woman is not universally acceptable, for reasons I understand, it becomes offensive.
yes, there is a movement to replace it to be more encompassing. Please I just don’t want to be referred to as a body part.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)The cartoon graphics seem to support the idea that women can refer to themselves women, and, using inclusive language in a medical context does not erase the term “woman.”
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Quote where you think it says that and I will prove that it does not.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Post 32 literally says that no one is stopping a woman from identifying as a woman. It is right there in their own words.
ETA: These exact words are in post 32, "It in no way denies any women their womanhood. It in NO WAY prevents a woman from identifying as a woman."
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Over and over
EarlG
(23,631 posts)This has been spelled out elsewhere in the thread, but here's the logic:
A trans man is not a woman. But a trans man can get pregnant because of the body parts he was born with. So if you're in the business of talking about reproductive healthcare services, and you're exclusively using the term women, then you're excluding trans men who might need said reproductive healthcare services.
So *in that context* it is more inclusive to use a term like "people who are pregnant" or "people who need an abortion".
But somehow, this is being spun out and spun out until it becomes, "The trans community is FORCING women to stop identifying as women!" Which is false, and pure hyperbole.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)EarlG
(23,631 posts)Quibbling over how something should be phrased in order to be most inclusive is one thing, I guess what I'm repeatedly trying to find out in this thread is why and how does something like the use of that particular phrase get whipped up into trans people are DEMANDING that women are no longer allowed to call themselves women! and trans people are DEMANDING that women can now only be defined by their body parts!
Where is the hyperbole coming from?
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Doesn’t include a huge bunch of women
Even though I can’t possibly ever need an abortion again, it is still my fight as it has been my entire life and frankly, I wouldn’t expect a man to understand that as they could never be in that position.
To say we are “quibbling “ over how we are addressed is the perfect example of “man splaining”,
To me
I never said anything like what you reference in your last paragraph so I can’t address that
EarlG
(23,631 posts)In fact I'm simply trying to seek understanding.
I've been given the impression by a number of replies here that making changes to reproductive health care terminology is going to eventually erase or eliminate the word "woman" from society at large -- that women will no longer allowed to identify as women -- with the follow-up suggestion that the "trans community" is to blame for this.
Is this a legitimate fear? I've literally been asked today whether I'm going to allow women to continue to call themselves women on DU. I gave the person a serious answer (of course I'm going to allow women to continue to call themselves women on DU), but I'm amazed that the question was even asked.
The question I was getting at in my last paragraph (which was not directed at you but was a reference to the content of the OP and to the hyperbole which is going on in this thread) is how does the phrase "people who need abortion services" get spun into "the trans community wants to tell me that I'm not allowed to identify as a woman?"
boston bean
(36,931 posts)You can Google that.
But they aren’t removing man or men.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Brought in that discussion to give an example of why the term women isn’t necessary
So actually the example of not needing to say the word women when discussing abortion ( the right for women to control their own bodies)
Kind of shows some people wouldn’t be bothered by people no longer identifying as women
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Just wanted to drop in to say my post #206 says it about the best I can express: Respect is a two-way street.
As a formerly straight but apparently now cis woman, I have run into some of this stuff here, e.g. the proposed deletion of the word “woman” to prove how inclusive we are. (I have not known how to respond and on the whole have avoided interaction until I feel my vocabulary has caught up.)
But as several posters in this thread have vehemently denied that any such thing has occurred, I started to get a sensation of gaslighting. Every time I returned to this thread throughout the day, it had grown larger — and now feels like something toxic is going on.
There are posters I have reason to believe are well-intentioned and trying to grapple with an unfamiliar and difficult issue — but have been accused of terrible intentions. And DU itself is being accused of what? Apparently so much transphobia that all the trans people have left. Yes, someone said that, or at least it sure looked like it to my tired eyes. — That’s an accusation DU does not deserve, and that’s what I mean by toxic. Respect, as I and a few others have said, is a two-way street.
As I am responding to you openly in the midst of this donnybrook, others will no doubt feel compelled to reply. That’s okay. It’s almost 2 a.m. now, and I am exiting.
As always, thank you for all you do for this community.
EarlG
(23,631 posts)But, in what context?
I absolutely believe that you have seen posts on DU suggesting that more inclusive language should be used in certain circumstances because the word "woman" is no longer inclusive enough in those specific circumstances.
But that's not what the thread is about. The OP states that "I don't want to be identified by what body parts I have or don't have" and furthermore states that this desire is at "at odds with the preference of the trans community." In other words, the "trans community" want women to be identified by what body parts they do or don't have. Which is not true.
The OP also states that "I think best is we all decide for ourselves how to identify and respect that choice of the individual." Again, implying that this is something the "trans community" does not want, which is 180 degrees from the truth.
The OP even frames this in terms of a fight -- "We have fought long and hard to not be defined in this way" -- as if the trans community is joining misogynists on the battlefield in the fight against women's rights.
Perhaps the reason this is so jarring to many is because the fight to use more inclusive language has historically been a fight championed and led by feminists, whereas the pushback against more inclusive language has most often been the practice of bigots.
For example, I would argue -- and I think you would agree -- that as society became more accepting of women as first responders, society was also correct to change from "firemen" to "firefighters" and "policemen" to "police officers." I would also argue -- and again, I think you would agree -- that the many, many men who have complained over the years that such changes would emasculate them, or feminize them, or destroy the fabric of society, were dead wrong.
The tactic that those men used -- to spread fear and uncertainty about the use of more inclusive language, based on the idea that if such changes occurred then "men would no longer be men" -- is echoed in the OP.
As I mentioned elsewhere, someone actually wrote me yesterday to ask whether DU's policy towards trans people meant that, and I quote, "are we now to be unable to refer to ourselves as women?" I was honestly baffled that someone would even think to ask such a question because the idea that I would tell women on DU that they can no longer refer to themselves as women just seems absurd.
But along with some of the responses in this thread, it's helped inform the answer to my initial questions -- what is this all about, and where is it coming from -- and the answer is fear.
So if you want to know why the word "transphobia" keeps getting thrown around, it's because the fear of trans people and what acceptance of them might mean for society -- which is literally the definition of transphobia -- is palpable throughout these threads.
I 100% agree with you that most here are "well-intentioned and are trying to grapple with an unfamiliar and difficult issue." Yes. And my position on this is that unintentional bigotry which comes from people trying to grapple with the unfamiliar is very different than bigotry which comes from people who are being bigoted on purpose.
But that does not mean that such public grappling is not coming across as bigotry.
I don't really know how to wrap this up beyond saying that it is truly not my goal to admonish well-intentioned people here. I genuinely just want to try to provide another point of view.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)I detailed it to you directly precisely to avoid the interjections that confuse the subject.
And no, you are wrong about some of the comments made on that thread. Very much so. I'll end now but after 22 years here, to see women so continually disrespected (especially feminists) while they gladly applaud and embrace your efforts to end transphobic or homophobic attitudes here is just depressing as hell, especially given your allowing so many here to accuse us of being transphobic when we make clear we are simply advocating to not lose the term "woman." as part of the term when referring to those pregnant. I know, WE really don't count. We've heard that for decades. Never more than now and not merely on DU, but YES also on DU.
And apparently, "we are all transphobes" for merely speaking up for the right for those who self-identify as women to ALSO continue to do so and be respected for it. Or because we are feminists and some here have decided we are all part of that term they love to throw around, TERF (something I'd never heard of until yesterday).
Well, I have not given up on you to interject and do something to help this situation. Hope springs eternal, I guess.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Please quote me or use the images where you think it said that and I will show you that you are either misinterpretting it or misunderstanding what was meant.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)In several ways our interests on this actually intersect. For instance, in your OP you said,
We have fought long and hard to not be defined in this way, as feminists."
I completely agree. Women are not defined by body parts! A person can be a woman and not have a uterus/womb/cervix! Whether this is because she is a cis woman had a medical condition that prevented it from forming or lost it, or because she is a trans, they are still women.
Conversely, just because someone does have a uterus, does not make them a woman. Whether they are a cis man with a condition like Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome or a transman. They are men!
This is completely in keeping with the goals of everyone who support trans people!
The fact of the matter is that many many trans woman have had TERFs and other transphobes try and invalidate them this way:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58698406
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/10ma89r/reducing_women_to_fertility_is_the_problem_but/
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/sh1379/this_just_in_if_you_cant_or_dont_get_pregnant_you/
Gender Cynical is a great place to see this in action. It is a subreddit devoted to exposing the transphobia of Gender Critical/ Trans Exclusionary Radicals. In the above links you can see how that has been weaponized to hurt us.
So, Rather than argue lets come up with some solutions. Preferrably ones that make everyone happy!
Tell me what term you think should be use instead? An inclusive term. One that includes cis women who will need care for the body part we are talking about, and transmen who will also need said care.
And we need to do it in a way that doesn't link said body part, or reproductive role to womanhood so that it won't be used against trans women. Like you said, we don't want to define being a woman to having a uterus. So what should we call this group?
[/hr]
I disagree. Trans Exclusionary Radical Facists want us to think this. To put cis women and trans women at odds with one another. It does not have to be so.
Julia Serano is both a feminist and a transwoman. There is no conflict. Or as another transfeminist, Sophie Lobelle, put it:
https://assignedmale.tumblr.com/image/631962249560555520
29
Completely agree. However, the OP that started this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17752530
Was about about an internet personality criticizing the term for an entire group. Even more so, I suspect that Ana Kasparian was referencing the Biden Administration and their use of terms like pregnant people. I found an article referencing it but it is very long and only slightly references the Biden Administration position I am referring to. Sorry, the rest that discuss this are all super transphobic and far right wing sites attacking inclusive gender neutral terminology:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/pregnant-people-gender-identity/620031/
So what we are looking for here, is a term for a broad group of people. Lets start brainstorming. Since you are the one who got offended I will listen and let you go first in deciding this.
betsuni
(29,075 posts)The Young Turks, especially Ana, hate Democrats. Has to be.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2023, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Thank you for posting this. Excellent explanation.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)
LakeArenal
(29,949 posts)They had to wait to see how this person identified.
But where does this fit into the GOP agenda.
No bathroom use in public?
No sports in school.
Pronoun it?
It’s so cruel.
Scrivener7
(59,520 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2023, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Right now, it is not satisfying or particularly descriptive.
Do men, trans or cis, want to be described as "people with penises?" Or "People without uteruses?" or "People who can't become pregnant?"
I do, though, think that "people who can become pregnant" is an appropriate and necessary description for use in this age of diminishing abortion and healthcare rights.
However, it doesn't accurately describe women. I am a woman, but I can't become pregnant ever again.
So the language is not capable of doing this well right now. We can fight and point at each other and call each other bigots over it, or we can create appropriate and accurate language to describe ourselves and the possible situations we might find ourselves in.
haele
(15,394 posts)One uses the overall term for people in that subject.
I know someone, who was transitioning to male who ended up pregnant early during his transition. He (as he was identifying then) had an abortion, because he needed to continue with his hormone therapy as well as not wanting a long-term reminder of the reason he ended up pregnant ( not a good story there).Until he got a doctor to perform a hysterectomy, he was "a person who could become pregnant".
In my opinion, when used in the context of discussing pregnancy issues, that term does not demean me as a woman, then or now that I can't become pregnant.
I do understand why some cis-women or lesbians may feel that those born female but not identifying as female are "free riders to the movement" - because it's easy to get caught up in the "us v. them" thinking when fighting for equal rights, but I do think if one is honest about inclusivity, one has to realize that the outliers must be included for everyone to be equal.
After all, you can't be yelling "same rights for same capabilities" but turn around to then say "well, this one issue doesn't count because I'm really a woman and you aren't or don't wanna be."
I'm a woman who can't get pregnant. So, I'm not a person who can get pregnant. I still need the same rights as I did when I could get pregnant. What about any of this makes me any different than a trans woman?
Haele
old as dirt
(1,972 posts)They are part of the coalition.
Suárez Gold – Afro-Colombian miners defending their heritage
Language: Spanish
Subtitles: English
Produced by: Minority Rights Group
Directed by: Hollman Morris
Runtime: 30 mins
Afro-Colombians have been carrying out small-scale mining in Colombia’s Cauca region since their ancestors settled there in 1637. Today their descendants continue to chip away at the red rock in search of gold, seeing it not only as a means for earning a modest living, but also as an activity deeply linked to their culture. Between 2002 and 2010, Colombia’s government gave out 7,500 mining exploration titles to national and foreign companies eager to exploit the country’s precious resources. In the film we hear of the Afro-Colombian community of La Toma’s brave, and sometimes deadly, struggle to prevent the invasion of mining companies and defend their ancestral livelihoods at all costs.
The documentary was premiered in Madrid, Spain, on 9 December 2011.
“I Am Because We Are”: A conversation between Francia a Márquez Mina and Angela Davis
In March of 2010, activist, author and Distinguished Professor Angela Davis met with Afro-Colombian activist, human rights lawyer and former president of the National Council for Peace in Colombia, Francia Márquez Mina. Later that year, Davis went on a solidarity trip to Márquez Mina’s hometown of La Toma, an important community in the movement against dispossession and extractivism. Later, in 2014, Angela Davis sent a video expressing her support for Márquez Mina when she led a 10-day, 350 kilometer, march of 80 women to Colombia’s capital, Bogotá. This mobilization demanded the suspension of all illegal and unconstitutional mining, as well as the removal of all the mining equipment from La Toma. Now, as Francia and the Soy Porque Somos “I am Because We Are” embark on the campaign to be elected President of Colombia, they meet again to discuss radical politics in Colombia and the U.S. today. They will discuss black radical politics, left coalitions, black women’s movements, the carceral state, paths to abolition, and issues related to environmental justice. This conversation will be moderated by Mamyrah Dougé-Prosper at the University of California, Irvine and International Coordinator of the Community Movement Builders' Pan African Solidarity Network.
Colombia's Incoming VP Francia Márquez in Her Own Words: "A New Form of Government Is Possible”
Following the historic victory in Colombia's presidential election of former guerrilla member, former senator and former mayor of Bogotá Gustavo Petro and his running mate, the Afro-Colombian environmentalist Francia Márquez Mina, we feature interviews with each of the candidates on Democracy Now! Francia Márquez Mina is set to become Colombia's first Black vice president. We spoke to her in March, when she was running for president. She later lost in the primary to Petro, who went on to choose her as his running mate. "We are giving impetus to the idea that in Colombia a new form of government is possible, governance that is built up from the Black, Indigenous and peasant peoples from the very different sectors of the community, LGBTIQ+, from the youth, from the women, from the small farmers of Colombia, those who have been no one — that is to say, who have never had a voice in the government," says Márquez Mina.
Hometown looks to aspiring Colombia VP Marquez to deliver on inequality promises
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/hometown-looks-aspiring-colombia-vp-marquez-deliver-inequality-promises-2022-06-16/
boston bean
(36,931 posts)vercetti2021
(10,481 posts)We don't fucking matter. Never will. Everyday I'm getting closer to giving up on life.
Response to vercetti2021 (Reply #68)
Post removed
vercetti2021
(10,481 posts)Much more given everything that's happening. But I'm fighting the same battle with women and here we are debating parts.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)and in particular the trans folks. But that doesn't mean non-trans women should not have the right of self-determination as well--self-identification as women if they so desire. I've been told the past 24 hours that the best I can hope for is "person." ... You and I have worked well together on other issues. Maybe we can find common ground to extend to both groups on this.
Response to Post removed (Reply #70)
Post removed
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)You matter. You matter. You matter. You matter.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)
delisen
(7,366 posts)Not so long ago women in the US were forced to identify themselves as a Miss or a Mrs. This was for the benefit of male-dominated culture.
We fought this and won the right to not be identified but our marital status or by our relationship to a male.
But we did not win equality and our personhood is under vicious attack. There are men standing up in legislatures all over America disputing our right to life.
The attempts to bifurcate us or reduce us to a reproductive organ is a matter of life and death, as well as a matter of equality.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Using a more inclusive term for something does not ‘eliminate’ the less inclusive term. The less inclusive term could still be used in appropriate situations. Asserting that the term ‘woman’ has been eliminated because, for example, the more inclusive ‘pregnant person’ is used instead of ‘pregnant woman’ is an odd stance for feminists to take. The demand for more inclusive language is very much a central part of the feminist movement. And rightly so. Our language reflects our social consciousness. If we advocate for a more inclusive, diverse, equitable society, we should reflect that in the language we use. Rather than taking offense at the gender aware expansion and inclusiveness of ‘pregnant person’, we should incorporate it into our vocabulary.
When Tom Jefferson wrote All Men are Created Equal, he in fact meant not only men specifically, but white propertied men. Our social consciousness has evolved since then. We would reject that phrase today as insufferably patriarchal and we understand it today as not only misogynistic but racist, and anything but a declaration of universal rights. All People are Created Equal does not eliminate ‘men’ it expands a concept of equality.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,954 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)And now I'm in the crosshairs for pointing it out. Unfortunately, even the left isn't immune to transphobia (or racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc...). It's a lot less on our side, but it still happens.
Trans people are being harmed, killed, pushed to suicide, stripped of rights and identity. But, the RW will have you believe they're trying to strip womanhood. No one should be falling for those.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,954 posts)
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Has this dramedy become an unintended satire?
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,954 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Sometimes quite unironically, I might add.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)It's disheartening.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Medical and social service providers need some standardized terminology to identify which individuals can become pregnant. If that term is going to be "female" or "woman", then you are ipso facto defining women by their body parts.
If you are defining "woman" or "female" in such a way that you are excluding trans individuals from that label, then you are ipso facto transphobic.
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)meadowlander
(5,133 posts)hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)that is both unnecessary and far from INCLUSIVE. It is EXCLUSIVE, subtractive, reductive, and eliminating.
I'm in medicine. I treat all comers and I respect them. I would never objectify a woman that I knew identified as a woman by using a generic term for her pregnancy, i.e., "pregnant person" rather than "pregnant woman" coming in for an appointment. If it were a trans male, I would certainly respectfully refer to them as a pregnant person. Each has the right to be respected. No one here has the right to tell them otherwise.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)There are women who are not pregnant and who cannot get pregnant and there are men who can get pregnant.
Insisting that when you talk about pregnancy you must in the first instance say "cis women" and then "others" is pointlessly overcomplicating things. Saying "pregnant people" isn't excluding cis women. It is just recognising that not all people who get pregnant are "cis women".
hlthe2b
(113,953 posts)Post# 135. Bye
boston bean
(36,931 posts)It is important to both groups.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)That doesn't impact how you want to identify yourself.
But when you are talking about a broad category of "people who are capable of being pregnant" the Venn diagram does not stop at "cis women" so it is medically accurate to say "pregnant people" not just "pregnant women".
Keep on self-identifying however the hell you want. Insisting that "pregnant women" encompasses everyone who might need to access an abortion is inaccurate and erases trans men who still have a uterus.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Should be able to state and have recorded she is a pregnant woman/female. It can’t just be erased to be more inclusive. It is a self identifier just as much as any other. Why is it less important?
I won’t ever get pregnant again so I guess ultimately it is moot. But as some who identifies as a woman, not womanhood, I would prefer it not be erased. We are already erased enough.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)But if you are talking about "the whole set of people capable of being pregnant" then "pregnant people" is more accurate and inclusive than "pregnant women".
Call yourself when you are talking to your friends, etc. whatever you want.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Person?
Female?
Person with a uterus?
Person without one?
Cause this crosses passed pregnancy.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)boston bean
(36,931 posts)meadowlander
(5,133 posts)we don't use a term which does not include all people capable of being pregnant.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)meadowlander
(5,133 posts)boston bean
(36,931 posts)I thought the point was to have one inclusive term for their records.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)There is an umbrella term where we are talking about everyone capable of pregnancy (e.g. "pregnant people" or "people who can get pregnant" ) for the purposes of discussions like "access to abortion services for pregnant people" recognising that this is not just pregnant women.
Then within that umbrella term there are any number of subcategories - pregnant women, pregnant trans men, pregnant intersex people, etc. Having the umbrella term doesn't mean that people can't also identify within any of the subcategories that they like or have their medical provider list that subcategory on their records.
It doesn't stop anyone from being a woman or from identifying that way. It's just saying "women aren't the only people who get pregnant".
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Pregnant
Y
Or
N
Would be sufficient.
Because beyond pregnancy there is also a cry for inclusivity, which is understandable, and I have seen the suggestions and it does erase woman from the equation. And it includes identifiers of body parts. I am not in favor of that.
Ie person with a uterus.
Can you help me out on this one?
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)but I don't think the term "person with a uterus" is an appropriate substitute for "woman" or even "pregnant woman" and neither does any trans person I have ever met or interacted with.
Women are people so I don't think they are erased by having an umbrella term for "pregnant people". There might be circumstances where in the context of what you are saying you mean only pregnant cis women and not trans men in which case go for "pregnant women". If my cis female friend wants to say something like "As a pregnant woman, I'm tired all the time" that's always going to be perfectly fine because she is referring only to herself, a cis woman.
One term doesn't have to erase the other but we should be careful in what we're saying that it's accurate to what we mean and that we aren't, as a default, using a narrower term than what we mean because we forgot the other category of people exist. That's where trans erasure comes in.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)and the discussion revolves around how forms of all sorts could be more inclusive.
ie female doesn’t come close to being inclusive. The arguments being put forth is that is not inclusive and should not be used it as it excludes a bunch of people. One of the suggestions I have read was to instead ask/record/offer this… person with a uterus. I object to this.
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)All I'm saying is when the context of what you are meaning is wider that cis women, use a term that is inclusive of more than cis women. In my view, "pregnant people" is accurate and unobjectionable *in that context*.
When the context is only cis women, use "pregnant women" or whatever you like.
Nobody is insisting on being inclusive of trans people in contexts where it is fine not to be inclusive because it's obvious from what you mean that it doesn't apply to trans people.
Just don't forget that we exist in contexts where what you're talking about applies to us too.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)What do they ask on your medical forms? This varies from office to office. Many have checkboxes for Male and Female. There are also many that have "Male, Female, Other" checkboxes. Some go even further and add on trans specific or non-binary checkboxes. I have not encountered any that don't have at least "male" "female" checkboxes.
I see medical records from other offices on a daily basis. I work in a field that is mostly focused on pelvic health for all genders. I mention that part because we do see patients who are dealing with reproductive issues. Since we're often getting referrals from other practices, we see a lot of medical records. I've never seen any practice send over paperwork referring to a patient as "person with a uterus" or "person with testicles." It's Female, Male, Transgender/MTF, Transgender/FTM, non-binary (AFAB or AMAB), Intersex. Sometimes we also see "AMAB" and "AFAB" included with transgender. "Woman" or "Man" is pretty much never used.
I don't know if that helps relieve any anxiety you have over medical records.
The only time I have personally seen people not labelled as they prefer in records has been for transgender or non-binary people. There are some practices that refuse to use anything other than "male" or "female" and will only refer to sex assigned at birth.
This is not to argue or anything of the sort. You asked about medical records. Since I work extensively with medical records, I thought I could share insight on how people are commonly labelled in the "paperwork" (almost all digital now). Now, this is a good convo to have with your provider the next time you see them. You can double check how they identify you - you have a right to view your records (some practices still give people a hard time with this!).
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So, no, that's not going to work.
Ideally, medical and social services records should inquire as to one's gender and to their biology separately, as the two aren't related. Figuring out how to phrase this is both beyond my pay grade and out of my wheelhouse, but if I were take a stab at it, I would do something like this:
Name:
Age:
Gender:
Sex assigned at birth:
Medical History:
So on, so forth.
Not being trans, I likely overlooked something here and might wind up with my foot in my mouth. To which, I can only say mea culpa and learn from the experience.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I have to give up on this thread, though.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)boston bean
(36,931 posts)
H2O Man
(79,048 posts)I've read through the OP/thread. People have expressed a variety of opinions. My thoughts are that we should respect everyone, even if their thinking is different than our own. (I admit I have no idea about the posts that have been removed, and in those cases, I respect the process that removed them.) It is better to try to be kind and respectful of other people. Just my opinion, and I respect those who may disagree with me.
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)telling you that YOU are not permitted to self-identify as a woman.
NO ONE is telling you that you can't self-identify as a woman. Period. It is gaslighting to suggest that when others describe activities (giving birth, having a prostate exam), services (birthing support), or products (menstrual) using gender-neutral terms that they are telling you, as an individual, that you cannot self-identify as a woman.
Claiming birthing and menstruating or having a prostate exam inherently belong to women or men, respectively, is transhostile.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Think you missed the point.
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)No one is advocating labeling individual people as "people with a uterus," or suggesting you cannot identify yourself as a woman.
The suggestions that trans individuals are demanding that gender be erased are ridiculous, and are right wing/transphobic talking points. It is really disapointing to see that kind of gaslighting on DU.
Generically, this is the same fight we previously had with gendered job descriptions - fireman, for example. There were tons of men who fought having the name of the job made gender neutral (firefighter). But even though the employment checkboxes now generally use a gender-neutral term, no one told individual firefighters they could not continue to use fireman to describe themselves. Using the gender neutral term did not exclude men; it included women.
As to medical records it is even more critical to stop linking gender with body parts. That doesn't mean your gender will be erased (i.e. you're still a woman, and your medical records will reflect that). What it does mean is that if you happen to be a man who is pregnant or a woman with a prostate, the medical care related to your body parts will be covered. My HS sweetheart was denied a prostate exam because of her gender. Without even consulting her, her doctor changed her gender marker to male in order to get the exam covered. Had the care been available to anyone who has a prostate, the fact that she is a woman (and yes, as a trans woman she proudly self-identifies as a woman) would not have been a barrier to having her health care covered. Her insistence that she is a woman, and that her medical records reflect that, resulted in the insurance company changing its coverage rules so that anyone with a prostate has prostate care covered.
In other words, insurance covers prostate exams for people with prostates. That is the context in which phrases such as person giving birth, etc. are being used - to generically include all who need/would benefit from services, care, products related to the body part in question.
Withywindle
(9,989 posts)There is a lot of fearmongering that doesn't really exist. No one, literally no one, is talking about taking away one's rights to identify as a woman or a man or nonbinary based on body parts. That is exactly what trans people and allies are fighting FOR, in fact. Liberation FROM being reduced to body parts.
NO ONE is telling cis women (I am one) that they can't identify or be identified as women.
It's just more inclusive and more accurate language when referring to specific issues. When you're talking about getting access to hygiene products for people who menstruate, that should include everyone who menstruates, not all of whom are women. The Venn diagram of "Women" and "People Who Menstruate" has a huge overlap but it's not a circle and there are lots of people who belong to one group but not another. I used to be in that overlap of "women" and "people who menstruate" but I'm not anymore, for example. I'm with trans women in that group now. It's fine.
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)I am a cis woman, but I love a number of individuals who are trans or nonbinary. They are the primary targets of the right and their lives are being used by the right as political weapons. I remember the gaslighting that went on in 2004 when my marriage was under attack by the right - and how agonizing it was when the gaslighting was so effective that it was echoed on DU and in my faith community by people who said they supported me. I found myself not only fighting the right, which I expected, but also being forced to explain over and over to friends and allies why their assertions were flat out homophobic - and borrowed directly from the right's rhetoric.
Speaking up here is, frankly, the least I can do.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Really.
Thank you so very much!
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)currently being widely displayed in the US is truly heartbreaking, and disgusting.
Seems it's still cool to hate on transfolk. Makes me suspect that some who display bigotry and hate toward transfolk are still unconsciously harboring institutionalized feelings of bigotry and hate towards other historically hated minority groups as well, including women.
Transfolk are the new primary targets of the nazis, fascists, and wanna be inquisitioners in the US. Anyone hating on transfolk is supporting these political vermin, as well as the idea that it is ok to hate someone just because of the way they were born.
Key West has a lovely motto:
"WE ARE ALL EQUAL MEMBERS OF ONE HUMAN FAMILY"
Anyone who has a problem with transfolk should consider pasting a note above their computer with this mantra written on it, if this is what you truly believe in your heart.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)It's understandable to me, a woman, why people, including the OP, have concerns about women's rights of self determination being pushed aside. That's a perennial problem for women. The struggle never ends.
However, I don't think that using medically inclusive language that will help vulnerable people get the healthcare they need is going to hurt women's rights.
Thank you for explaining that so clearly.
Ms. Toad
(38,635 posts)
Haveadream
(1,632 posts)There has been a rallying cry to :
And an insistence there be ONLY one, single, solitary catchall phrase to refer to anyone who becomes pregnant. For God sakes, WHY? Who decided it was essential that an umbrella term was the only way to be inclusive? I disagree with that premise on its face. The demand for only one nomenclature actually guarantees exclusion of those who have preferences of different self-descriptors when experiencing an issue (pregnancy) with this much complexity. I would further posit that to demand a catchall term for medical contexts would almost certainly prevent the appropriate pregnancy healthcare recommendations for those facing such a nuanced situation.
1) Women who can or become pregnant is non-exclusionary for women who identify as such.
2) People who can or become pregnant is non-exclusionary for people who identify as such.
3) Transmen who can or become pregnant is non-exclusionary for transmen who identify as such.
There may be other descriptors I have omitted; apologies to those identifying otherwise in the context of pregnancy.
There also seems to be a not-subtle-at-all insinuation that those who identify as women and wish to be referred to as that in all contexts, including pregnancy, are somehow confused, possibly transphobic or misunderstanding the point if they don't want to be defined as "people" or by body part.
How condescending.
Reminds me of being told as a child that "mankind" meant women, even when men were described and depicted.
Gaslighting abounds.
Withywindle
(9,989 posts)Inclusive language is only an acknowledgement of the FACT that are people who can and sometimes do become pregnant, who have uteruses, who menstruate, etc. who are not women.
This is inclusive of people with those body parts and experiences who are men or non-binary. So when you're talking about issues like abortion or access to menstrual products or care of conditions like uterine cancer and endometriosis, you need to learn to talk about those things INCLUSIVELY.
I'm a cis woman, and the fact that I am a person with a uterus pretty much never comes up in conversation outside of a medical context (since I never wanted kids and I've aged out of menstruation) but if I'm talking with medical professions, I do not mind one bit being called a person with a uterus because it's just literally true, and as long as I'm treated like a PERSON and not an object, we're cool.
I want the same comfort level for my trans siblings. I want them to be able to talk about their bodies and organs without being misgendered.