Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature
by detaro on Saturday November 19, 2022 @05:37PM
(#33675584)
> it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth
Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense.
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature
by socialismisok on Saturday November 19, 2022 @05:45PM
(#33675672)
I think you might be misunderstanding the way language is evolving here.
Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women.
What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate.
So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people".
But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women.
So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not.
We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.