Question for those of you that are transgender...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to believe that you’re not a troll if your post uses SJW, “cancel”, “woke”, or mentions JK Rowling. See the second post of the thread.

I’m tired of the instigation that’s going on here. It’s just post after post designed to divide people. Almost as if the posts are designed by the extremist right to try to get Americans to hate each other.

The problem is you just assume people are trolls because you disagree. There are a lot of topics surrounding transgender issues and if someone wants to discuss something stop assuming it is in bad faith or they’re transphobic. That is what is causing the divide. The inability to discuss these issues without people freaking out. A couple previous posts were about inclusive language. Those posters should be allowed to bring up their concerns just like the poster in the beginning of the thread saying why that language is important to them. If you don’t want to engage in the conversation then leave the thread.

DP. I assume people are posting in bad faith when they post in bad faith.

OP has completely ignored any post that doesn’t support her opinion.

She stirred the pot (including the blatant anti-trans bigots) and was pushing to get one outcome. She wasn’t looking for a discussion. Bad faith.

You all need to watch Blair White's video below on Youtube where she is discussing this topic. Blaire White is a transwoman and a popular youtuber with almost a million followers. Since you are hell bent on thinking everything posted is in bad faith maybe listen to what she has to say and read the over 7,000 comments including many comments from transgender people.

https://youtu.be/6lhcud6nccE

Cherry picking again?

I watched the video and thought Blaire White made excellent points. I think she perfectly describes some of the issues with the transgender community and why there is even more push back against them these days. And it's posters like you above who actually do more damage to the community. Seriously shut up already with the bad faith crap and eye rolls. Are you the same poster who was labeling posts as "concerns"?

I've noticed on various threads discussing transgender topics some of the nastiest and most aggressive posters have consistently been from those arguing in favor of transgender issues whether it's inclusion in women's sports, transwomen in female prisons, puberty blockers etc. I doubt these posters are even transgender and they seriously aren't doing the community any favors acting like assholes towards other posters. There were a couple threads in the political forum that either Jeff had to delete or lock. I don't know why this topic brings out the nastiness in some people but I agree with Blaire White that the community will never reach full acceptance.

DP. I’m gonna both sides this. Not even going to pretend not to. There are rude people on both sides. Jeff will delete the reported posts if they’re rude or transphobic, but there are rude people on both sides of this issue. I think part of the problem is that the rude transphobic people have been saying their rude words, being discriminatory, and even being violent for a long time, and people on the other side are tired of it. They’ve had a taste of acceptance and they’re not going back to how things used to be, and on an Internet forum they don’t have to worry about retaliation for letting people know they won’t back down anymore.

By the way, the idea that trans people won’t be accepted until they learn to be polite while being other is BS. It’s the same as the idea that it’s okay to assume all black people are criminals and will be treated as such until they learn to stop stealing. Or that gay people will be accepted when they stop shoving their gayness in everyone’s face and keep it in the bedroom. Or immigrants will be treated like smart people when they learn to speak English fluently without an accent. Or a woman can be president when they stop being so hysterical for roughly a week each month. People aren’t transphobic because trans people and their friends are inherently rude.

Sorry but the bullying, toxic, nasty and intimidating behavior and comments are rampant within the trans activist community. It goes way beyond just trying to stand up for your rights. You must be living under a rock if you can’t see this. There was a sick poster on here wishing death on another poster. It’s a shame because I think the loudest of these people are actually the minority and they don’t represent the transgender community. But you better believe they are doing damage and more people are noticing and getting very turned off by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to believe that you’re not a troll if your post uses SJW, “cancel”, “woke”, or mentions JK Rowling. See the second post of the thread.

I’m tired of the instigation that’s going on here. It’s just post after post designed to divide people. Almost as if the posts are designed by the extremist right to try to get Americans to hate each other.

The problem is you just assume people are trolls because you disagree. There are a lot of topics surrounding transgender issues and if someone wants to discuss something stop assuming it is in bad faith or they’re transphobic. That is what is causing the divide. The inability to discuss these issues without people freaking out. A couple previous posts were about inclusive language. Those posters should be allowed to bring up their concerns just like the poster in the beginning of the thread saying why that language is important to them. If you don’t want to engage in the conversation then leave the thread.

DP. I assume people are posting in bad faith when they post in bad faith.

OP has completely ignored any post that doesn’t support her opinion.

She stirred the pot (including the blatant anti-trans bigots) and was pushing to get one outcome. She wasn’t looking for a discussion. Bad faith.

You all need to watch Blair White's video below on Youtube where she is discussing this topic. Blaire White is a transwoman and a popular youtuber with almost a million followers. Since you are hell bent on thinking everything posted is in bad faith maybe listen to what she has to say and read the over 7,000 comments including many comments from transgender people.

https://youtu.be/6lhcud6nccE

Cherry picking again?

I watched the video and thought Blaire White made excellent points. I think she perfectly describes some of the issues with the transgender community and why there is even more push back against them these days. And it's posters like you above who actually do more damage to the community. Seriously shut up already with the bad faith crap and eye rolls. Are you the same poster who was labeling posts as "concerns"?

I've noticed on various threads discussing transgender topics some of the nastiest and most aggressive posters have consistently been from those arguing in favor of transgender issues whether it's inclusion in women's sports, transwomen in female prisons, puberty blockers etc. I doubt these posters are even transgender and they seriously aren't doing the community any favors acting like assholes towards other posters. There were a couple threads in the political forum that either Jeff had to delete or lock. I don't know why this topic brings out the nastiness in some people but I agree with Blaire White that the community will never reach full acceptance.

DP. I’m gonna both sides this. Not even going to pretend not to. There are rude people on both sides. Jeff will delete the reported posts if they’re rude or transphobic, but there are rude people on both sides of this issue. I think part of the problem is that the rude transphobic people have been saying their rude words, being discriminatory, and even being violent for a long time, and people on the other side are tired of it. They’ve had a taste of acceptance and they’re not going back to how things used to be, and on an Internet forum they don’t have to worry about retaliation for letting people know they won’t back down anymore.

By the way, the idea that trans people won’t be accepted until they learn to be polite while being other is BS. It’s the same as the idea that it’s okay to assume all black people are criminals and will be treated as such until they learn to stop stealing. Or that gay people will be accepted when they stop shoving their gayness in everyone’s face and keep it in the bedroom. Or immigrants will be treated like smart people when they learn to speak English fluently without an accent. Or a woman can be president when they stop being so hysterical for roughly a week each month. People aren’t transphobic because trans people and their friends are inherently rude.

Sorry but the bullying, toxic, nasty and intimidating behavior and comments are rampant within the trans activist community. It goes way beyond just trying to stand up for your rights. You must be living under a rock if you can’t see this. There was a sick poster on here wishing death on another poster. It’s a shame because I think the loudest of these people are actually the minority and they don’t represent the transgender community. But you better believe they are doing damage and more people are noticing and getting very turned off by it.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the trans community because of a vocal minority, but not the transphobic community which regularly bullies, intimidates, threatens and commits physical violence, and tries to repress trans rights? Even if it’s a minority of the transphobic community, why don’t you get turned off to the entire message, like you are with the trans community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to believe that you’re not a troll if your post uses SJW, “cancel”, “woke”, or mentions JK Rowling. See the second post of the thread.

I’m tired of the instigation that’s going on here. It’s just post after post designed to divide people. Almost as if the posts are designed by the extremist right to try to get Americans to hate each other.

The problem is you just assume people are trolls because you disagree. There are a lot of topics surrounding transgender issues and if someone wants to discuss something stop assuming it is in bad faith or they’re transphobic. That is what is causing the divide. The inability to discuss these issues without people freaking out. A couple previous posts were about inclusive language. Those posters should be allowed to bring up their concerns just like the poster in the beginning of the thread saying why that language is important to them. If you don’t want to engage in the conversation then leave the thread.

DP. I assume people are posting in bad faith when they post in bad faith.

OP has completely ignored any post that doesn’t support her opinion.

She stirred the pot (including the blatant anti-trans bigots) and was pushing to get one outcome. She wasn’t looking for a discussion. Bad faith.

You all need to watch Blair White's video below on Youtube where she is discussing this topic. Blaire White is a transwoman and a popular youtuber with almost a million followers. Since you are hell bent on thinking everything posted is in bad faith maybe listen to what she has to say and read the over 7,000 comments including many comments from transgender people.

https://youtu.be/6lhcud6nccE

Cherry picking again?

I watched the video and thought Blaire White made excellent points. I think she perfectly describes some of the issues with the transgender community and why there is even more push back against them these days. And it's posters like you above who actually do more damage to the community. Seriously shut up already with the bad faith crap and eye rolls. Are you the same poster who was labeling posts as "concerns"?

I've noticed on various threads discussing transgender topics some of the nastiest and most aggressive posters have consistently been from those arguing in favor of transgender issues whether it's inclusion in women's sports, transwomen in female prisons, puberty blockers etc. I doubt these posters are even transgender and they seriously aren't doing the community any favors acting like assholes towards other posters. There were a couple threads in the political forum that either Jeff had to delete or lock. I don't know why this topic brings out the nastiness in some people but I agree with Blaire White that the community will never reach full acceptance.

DP. I’m gonna both sides this. Not even going to pretend not to. There are rude people on both sides. Jeff will delete the reported posts if they’re rude or transphobic, but there are rude people on both sides of this issue. I think part of the problem is that the rude transphobic people have been saying their rude words, being discriminatory, and even being violent for a long time, and people on the other side are tired of it. They’ve had a taste of acceptance and they’re not going back to how things used to be, and on an Internet forum they don’t have to worry about retaliation for letting people know they won’t back down anymore.

By the way, the idea that trans people won’t be accepted until they learn to be polite while being other is BS. It’s the same as the idea that it’s okay to assume all black people are criminals and will be treated as such until they learn to stop stealing. Or that gay people will be accepted when they stop shoving their gayness in everyone’s face and keep it in the bedroom. Or immigrants will be treated like smart people when they learn to speak English fluently without an accent. Or a woman can be president when they stop being so hysterical for roughly a week each month. People aren’t transphobic because trans people and their friends are inherently rude.

Sorry but the bullying, toxic, nasty and intimidating behavior and comments are rampant within the trans activist community. It goes way beyond just trying to stand up for your rights. You must be living under a rock if you can’t see this. There was a sick poster on here wishing death on another poster. It’s a shame because I think the loudest of these people are actually the minority and they don’t represent the transgender community. But you better believe they are doing damage and more people are noticing and getting very turned off by it.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the trans community because of a vocal minority, but not the transphobic community which regularly bullies, intimidates, threatens and commits physical violence, and tries to repress trans rights? Even if it’s a minority of the transphobic community, why don’t you get turned off to the entire message, like you are with the trans community?

Wow somebody missed the whole point. Transphobic people weren’t mentioned because it’s not the topic of the post. It’s about toxicity within the transgender movement and how it is ultimately damaging it. Watch Blaire White’s video I posted if you don’t understand. She also contrasts this movement to the gay rights movement. Transphobic people aren’t causing people to get turned off you are doing it all on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to believe that you’re not a troll if your post uses SJW, “cancel”, “woke”, or mentions JK Rowling. See the second post of the thread.

I’m tired of the instigation that’s going on here. It’s just post after post designed to divide people. Almost as if the posts are designed by the extremist right to try to get Americans to hate each other.

The problem is you just assume people are trolls because you disagree. There are a lot of topics surrounding transgender issues and if someone wants to discuss something stop assuming it is in bad faith or they’re transphobic. That is what is causing the divide. The inability to discuss these issues without people freaking out. A couple previous posts were about inclusive language. Those posters should be allowed to bring up their concerns just like the poster in the beginning of the thread saying why that language is important to them. If you don’t want to engage in the conversation then leave the thread.

DP. I assume people are posting in bad faith when they post in bad faith.

OP has completely ignored any post that doesn’t support her opinion.

She stirred the pot (including the blatant anti-trans bigots) and was pushing to get one outcome. She wasn’t looking for a discussion. Bad faith.

You all need to watch Blair White's video below on Youtube where she is discussing this topic. Blaire White is a transwoman and a popular youtuber with almost a million followers. Since you are hell bent on thinking everything posted is in bad faith maybe listen to what she has to say and read the over 7,000 comments including many comments from transgender people.

https://youtu.be/6lhcud6nccE

Cherry picking again?

I watched the video and thought Blaire White made excellent points. I think she perfectly describes some of the issues with the transgender community and why there is even more push back against them these days. And it's posters like you above who actually do more damage to the community. Seriously shut up already with the bad faith crap and eye rolls. Are you the same poster who was labeling posts as "concerns"?

I've noticed on various threads discussing transgender topics some of the nastiest and most aggressive posters have consistently been from those arguing in favor of transgender issues whether it's inclusion in women's sports, transwomen in female prisons, puberty blockers etc. I doubt these posters are even transgender and they seriously aren't doing the community any favors acting like assholes towards other posters. There were a couple threads in the political forum that either Jeff had to delete or lock. I don't know why this topic brings out the nastiness in some people but I agree with Blaire White that the community will never reach full acceptance.

DP. I’m gonna both sides this. Not even going to pretend not to. There are rude people on both sides. Jeff will delete the reported posts if they’re rude or transphobic, but there are rude people on both sides of this issue. I think part of the problem is that the rude transphobic people have been saying their rude words, being discriminatory, and even being violent for a long time, and people on the other side are tired of it. They’ve had a taste of acceptance and they’re not going back to how things used to be, and on an Internet forum they don’t have to worry about retaliation for letting people know they won’t back down anymore.

By the way, the idea that trans people won’t be accepted until they learn to be polite while being other is BS. It’s the same as the idea that it’s okay to assume all black people are criminals and will be treated as such until they learn to stop stealing. Or that gay people will be accepted when they stop shoving their gayness in everyone’s face and keep it in the bedroom. Or immigrants will be treated like smart people when they learn to speak English fluently without an accent. Or a woman can be president when they stop being so hysterical for roughly a week each month. People aren’t transphobic because trans people and their friends are inherently rude.

Sorry but the bullying, toxic, nasty and intimidating behavior and comments are rampant within the trans activist community. It goes way beyond just trying to stand up for your rights. You must be living under a rock if you can’t see this. There was a sick poster on here wishing death on another poster. It’s a shame because I think the loudest of these people are actually the minority and they don’t represent the transgender community. But you better believe they are doing damage and more people are noticing and getting very turned off by it.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the trans community because of a vocal minority, but not the transphobic community which regularly bullies, intimidates, threatens and commits physical violence, and tries to repress trans rights? Even if it’s a minority of the transphobic community, why don’t you get turned off to the entire message, like you are with the trans community?

Wow somebody missed the whole point. Transphobic people weren’t mentioned because it’s not the topic of the post. It’s about toxicity within the transgender movement and how it is ultimately damaging it. Watch Blaire White’s video I posted if you don’t understand. She also contrasts this movement to the gay rights movement. Transphobic people aren’t causing people to get turned off you are doing it all on your own.

Why exactly does it “turn you off”?

Sounds like you are looking for an excuse. Take some responsibility for being “turned off”. No one is forcing your opinion. Certainly not anonymous people on a DC mommy forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

This is the crap that turns people off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

This is the crap that turns people off

Why? What specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, a few people have sincerely tried to explain how to be respectful. Did you read them? Have questions about that?

If you were actually sincere…

You’re a manipulative, tone policing lunatic like most of your kind. I don’t know why anyone is entertaining you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain chest feeding to me. If you are nursing (which both XX and XY can do with the right hormones) you have breast tissue making the milk. Therefore they are breasts. You can be a man with breasts or a woman with breast or intersexed with breasts but breasts make milk, not your pectoral muscles.

+1000. Only a nutjob objects to a factual term like breastfeeding. We shouldn’t be indulging mental illness and/or ignorance of science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Genuine question. Is it transphobic to not want to be called a menstruator? Or to say that I want to be called a mother, not a breeder or a birther? I do not care if other people call themselves those terms. But I don't want them applied to me, because they are dehumanizing.

Exactly. I’m not going to be reduced to my genitals and bodily functions because an insignificant minority of people have a problem with how they were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

This is the crap that turns people off

Why? What specifically?

Go back and reread what the previous poster wrote. She explained in detail why those terms are offensive and dehumanizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

The equivalent for men does not exist and you know it. I haven’t seen politicians or publications refer to men as ejaculators and penis havers because men won’t put up with it. I’m seeing terms like birthing persons being used more and more though. It’s women who are expected to be ok with dehumanizing language. How is that not misogynistic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

These changes aren't just in the context of bodily functions, and you know that, though they would still be pretty problematic in that context. These terms are being proposed as more widespread ways of talking about women. And these really are just used for women, which also shows that it's not about bodily functions only in the context about bodily functions. If that were true, there would be as many similar terms being proposed and pushed for men. But there aren't.

The only example you could even find that's vaguely close is sperm donor. Let's talk about that. Nobody is proposing that men in general be referred to as sperm donors, whereas terms like 'menstruator' and 'breeder' for women under the guise of "inclusivity" is a real discussion now. The fact that you can't come up with an example that is nearly as bad for men should be demonstrative of what is going on here. This is a peculiarly woman-focused language emphasis.

Look, you can ignore the misogyny and racism in these terms if you want. It doesn't mean it's not there. It is not progress to refer to historically marginized populations by the function of their body parts. I want trans people to feel included, but this is not the way to do it. Maybe the answer is that we just get a lot more wordy and long-winded to include all people, but the answer is absolutely not to adopt language that reflects a history of systemic misogyny and racism. We can do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, a few people have sincerely tried to explain how to be respectful. Did you read them? Have questions about that?

If you were actually sincere…

You’re a manipulative, tone policing lunatic like most of your kind. I don’t know why anyone is entertaining you.

“Your kind”? What is “my kind”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the PPs who doesn't want to be transphobic and who also thinks terms like birther, menstruator, chest feeder, etc. are misogynist (I don't want to be reduced to being a body part; the language is dehumanizing, and it's telling that there are no male equivalents used). Does this video discuss this? If so I will watch.

How is using functional, inclusive terms “misogynist”?

I suspect this isn't a genuine, good faith ask, but I will answer as though it was.

Traditionally, women (cis and otherwise) have suffered and been killed over their bodies. Their bodies and body parts are policed in a way that men's bodies aren't. Women's bodies have thousands of years of abuse and torture inflicted on them specifically because of the fact that they are women's bodies and have the functional aspects of women's bodies. This is not to take away from abuse transwomen have also suffered, but the vast, vast majority of violence directed towards women for being women in the history of the world has nothing to do with transwomen.

Words like "menstruator" and "birther" and "bleeder" as a replacement for "woman" are dehumanizing and misogynist because they reduce women to their functional value. This is precisely what generations of violence against women is based on. Furthermore, the terms are deeply ableist; not every biological woman is a bleeder, for instance. Overall, this reduction of womanhood to menstruation and birth is something that the Taliban does. It is telling that men are not facing similar demands. This reduction of women to what you describe as "functional" language is focused only on women. It is directly out of a history of violent misogyny, and the terms are deeply misogynist.

Finally, in the US, these terms are even more problematic for WOC, because of the ghastly history of slavery and gendered violence directed specifically towards WOC. Reducing a WOC's identity to her bodily functions is particularly horrific given the history of the US.

Excellent post! People advocating for language changes need to educate themselves on why those terms are dehumanizing and offensive to women. Your post did a great job explaining why it is offensive and the misogyny surrounding it. And I agree I find it very telling the equivalent does not seem to exist for men. I don’t see men being called ejaculators or penis havers.

They’ve certainly been called “sperm donors”.

“Woman” is not tied to bodily functions. That is not what defines them. There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate or give birth. Those are not a requirement to be a “woman”.

Calling out a bodily function when discussing a bodily function isn’t misogynistic or offensive. It’s just discussing a bodily function. It’s not pejorative like using the term “breeder” or “vessel”.

This is the crap that turns people off

Why? What specifically?

Go back and reread what the previous poster wrote. She explained in detail why those terms are offensive and dehumanizing.

I did. It’s irrational. And probably why you can’t explain why that “turns you off” yourself.