You're allowed to disagree but you've already asserted that my view is hateful and ignorant which was my original complaint.

You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities or those with disabilities over time. How you approach it is up to you, but how people perceive you is up to them.

Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture.

As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.

I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can.

Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.

That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.

And that language changes doesn't mean all changes are equally good. When language loses its grip on reality, we've lost. We've become Orwellian.

Among people who are Very Online this might be a sizable fraction. But if you look at the public at large it isn't. Language is about usage. It's not about usage by an elite minority. Reminds me of latinx, favored more by white college grads than by hispanics.

Maya Forstater was fired, and JK Rowling still receives death threats for their use of the word "woman" to signify adult human females. That's domestic terrorism, to present it as "the language is always changing" is Orwellian.

> It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities

What if the USA declared all citizens to be "black"? Blacks would now perfectly match all the USA's demographic averages, income, crime, lifespan, etc, etc.

Racism solved, right? Or the beginning of a vastly worse racism that must be endured in silence because the words to describe it have been taken away?

I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but you choose not to use that language, then you are just expressing your opinion.

I think it's fair for folks to probe why you choose the language you do, and even to suggest that the reasons you supply might be considered ignorant.

We only improve if we all try to understand the reasoning behind each other more.

That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost.

Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.

I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for.

My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.

This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.

I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use.

And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally.

But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.

> There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.

This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.

Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.

> My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.

Where is someone denying that people use these terms in these new ways? I haven't read all the comments but haven't seen it so far.

I'm genuinely curious: If you do not want to use the word 'woman' for someone whose sex / gender assigned at birth is male and whose gender identity is female, is there another word you think fits better?

This is getting my brain rolling, so: In how I use the words and think about this topic, trans women and cis women would both be subsets of women (because for me, that refers to gender identity and expression). For you, are trans women and cis men a subset of men, with biological sex being the deciding factor? Or are women, men, trans women and trans men each seperate categories for you? Or something else?

In the end, none of the options I can think of the top of my head are really satisfactory (if acceptable at all) in all contexts... Using the word 'woman' only for cis women / for exactly everyone assigned female at birth ignores quite a few aspects of the daily life of trans women, especially those who 'pass' (= are perceived by others as women / like cis women), and would also just suck because gender dysphoria is a thing. But on the other hand, having 'women' mean 'exactly everyone whose gender identity is female' (like I use it) leads to the trouble in contexts where pregnancy, menstruation, ... are relevant, which is what parts of the article are about. Using terms like 'people who menstruate' when you are talking about, well, people who menstruate, is precise, after all not all (cis) women menstruate, but some trans men etc do, and all that. But I can totally see how it might come off as reductive, creepy or potentially even discriminatory to some, like the author of the article describes. And of course it all gets more complicated when you consider that most trans people (in maybe not all parts) experience the first parts of their lives as the gender they're assigned at birth; how things like HRT, surgery and potentially even transplants change someone's body; the fact that people exist whose gender identity and/or sex don't fit into either 'male' or 'female', etc etc etc

It seems to me that the words in question ("man", "woman", etc), were used to refer to both biological sex and gender for centuries under the assumption that they always co-occurred. The conflict has arisen now that we've realised they don't always co-occur because different people have taken different views on which of part was primary or definitional. Neither view is inherently wrong. But taken together they're hugely problematic because we're using the same words to mean different things, which is leading to lots of confusion.

(there is additional conflict as some people have decided that we ought to not talk about one or other of biological sex and gender at all - which one depends on who you ask of course)

Ultimately the solution will need to be a second (and perhaps a third) set of words that are clear in their meanings. I don't think it really matters too much which word means what, so long as we all agree on the meanings. Possibly it would be better to ditch "man" and "woman" entirely so nobody feels hard done by that other people can use them but they can't.

I think I've articulated my position and held it firmly, but at no point did I feel upset about people who disagreed.

I don't believe I called anyone a bigot or was any more rigid in my language than folks who hold a more traditional meaning of the word in their minds.

You ask questions rather than name call and finger point.

While I personally struggle with these new definitions and their potential cost to certain groups (someone pregnant like the post’s author), I feel like I can actually discuss and learn something new, and feel heard myself.

We need more activists like you.

Inevitably, patience wears thin and comments get more bitter, and the polarization continues.

I'm sure the reverse happens for folks who disagree with me. They get tired of everyone just assuming they are a bigot, and start just assuming that's what's coming from the other side.

I wish there were more forums to have small, moderated chats where anyone who makes sweeping generalizations about their opponents ("you lefties always..." "All your right wingers...") were clipped out.

There’s a lot of fearmongering on both sides. I think people already come to the table really amped up quick to throw stones.

Hear, hear on the forums part, though.