Question for those of you that are transgender...

[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”.

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.

How exactly is talking about bodily functions “problematic” in the context of discussing bodily functions?

Examples of those terms being used *outside* of those contexts?

“Racism”? How so?

“People with prostrates” would be an inclusive equivalent for transwomen / men.

[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”.

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?

In the context of pregnancy, birth, post birth care and treatment.

It’s not like it’s the new term for “women” in general.

[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”.

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?

In the context of pregnancy, birth, post birth care and treatment.

It’s not like it’s the new term for “women” in general.

How many transmen even give birth? You are talking about a tiny fraction of a percent of pregnancies. It is ridiculous to change a term like mother and breastfeeding to offensive terms like birthing persons and chest feeding if it doesn’t apply to 99.9% of pregnancies. This is not a difficult concept. Unless you are specifically speaking with a pregnant transman then there is no need to change language for a minute percentage of the population especially if it is offensive. Your off putting, dismissive attitude is what turns people off. Face it this is a losing argument and most women don’t want to be called those terms. And once again why aren’t men being called terms like ejaculator and penis havers?

[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”.

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?

In the context of pregnancy, birth, post birth care and treatment.

It’s not like it’s the new term for “women” in general.

How many transmen even give birth? You are talking about a tiny fraction of a percent of pregnancies. It is ridiculous to change a term like mother and breastfeeding to offensive terms like birthing persons and chest feeding if it doesn’t apply to 99.9% of pregnancies. This is not a difficult concept. Unless you are specifically speaking with a pregnant transman then there is no need to change language for a minute percentage of the population especially if it is offensive. Your off putting, dismissive attitude is what turns people off. Face it this is a losing argument and most women don’t want to be called those terms. And once again why aren’t men being called terms like ejaculator and penis havers?

Mother still exists. Breastfeeding still exists.

There isn’t some forced global change in terminology. In some contexts, some people are using inclusive terms.

Your hyperbolic overreaction is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

Racism?

It is 100% irrational to jump from referring to bodily functions when discussing bodily functions to..."women are being erased".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

You never answered the question. I agree you come across incredibly entitled and irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

You never answered the question. I agree you come across incredibly entitled and irrational.

How do I sound “entitled” or “irrational”? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

You never answered the question. I agree you come across incredibly entitled and irrational.

How do I sound “entitled” or “irrational”? Be specific.

So I take it you are either a white man or a white transwoman. That’s why you are incapable of seeing the misogyny and racism of those offensive terms and fail to see the entitlement of those who demand offensive language be used to suit them. You also never answered my question on why there isn’t equivalent language for men being used such as ejaculator and penis haver if we are trying to be so inclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

You never answered the question. I agree you come across incredibly entitled and irrational.

How do I sound “entitled” or “irrational”? Be specific.

So I take it you are either a white man or a white transwoman. That’s why you are incapable of seeing the misogyny and racism of those offensive terms and fail to see the entitlement of those who demand offensive language be used to suit them. You also never answered my question on why there isn’t equivalent language for men being used such as ejaculator and penis haver if we are trying to be so inclusive.

My race/gender/sex is irrelevant.

And you can't seem to actually describe how I'm entitled or irrational. You're just throwing those terms around. No one is demanding offensive language. Some people sometimes use inclusive language about bodily functions while referring to bodily functions.

Racism? Was that a joke?

And I already posted earlier that the equivalent is "person with a prostate".

[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”.

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.

How exactly is talking about bodily functions “problematic” in the context of discussing bodily functions?

Examples of those terms being used *outside* of those contexts?

“Racism”? How so?

“People with prostrates” would be an inclusive equivalent for transwomen / men.

Still waiting on answers to these.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not that poster but I have a question for you: are you a young white man or young white trans woman?

FWIW I disagree with the anti-trans person who is saying that gender is immutable when it clearly isn't (the person who keeps talking about truth). But you sound irrational yourself, or more specifically, wildly entitled. The fact is that body-part-focused language as identity has a very, very long history of being used in the service of misogyny and racism. You don't care about that, I get it, but it isn't irrational to point that out. It's factual.

You never answered the question. I agree you come across incredibly entitled and irrational.

How do I sound “entitled” or “irrational”? Be specific.

So I take it you are either a white man or a white transwoman. That’s why you are incapable of seeing the misogyny and racism of those offensive terms and fail to see the entitlement of those who demand offensive language be used to suit them. You also never answered my question on why there isn’t equivalent language for men being used such as ejaculator and penis haver if we are trying to be so inclusive.

My race/gender/sex is irrelevant.

And you can't seem to actually describe how I'm entitled or irrational. You're just throwing those terms around. No one is demanding offensive language. Some people sometimes use inclusive language about bodily functions while referring to bodily functions.

Racism? Was that a joke?

And I already posted earlier that the equivalent is "person with a prostate".

How much do you want to bet this is the same poster who wished a poster on here would die along with others like them. Funny how threats, violence and sick things like wishing death on someone mostly come from males not females.

[Anonymous]

And since we clearly have a penis haver and ejaculator on here then he needs to use his white male privilege and mansplain to the rest of us cervix havers why language like “black birthing bodies” is not offensive, misogynistic and racist 🍿.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would like to learn more about this. I genuinely don't want to be transphobic. But I also hate these terms being propagated. I'm a mother not a birther, I'm not a menstruator (and what happens when I hit menopause?), especially because there aren't equivalents applied to biological men. It feels like very old rehashed misogyny, where biological women are only valued for the sum of their body parts.

This breeder, menstruator, birthing person shit is absolutely ridiculous. That CNN article that was posted above really turned me off. If that crap becomes mainstream, I’ll be livid.

I agree that it’s dehumanizing.

+100. It is really upsetting. I would be offended and hurt if any service provider or person referred to me as such.

[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”.

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.

You win the internet for the day! Can we find this poster and make her(or, him) a pundit on these issues? Knowledgeable, reasonable, articulate, and not a fanatic.