News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by adastra22 on Saturday November 19, 2022 @05:40PM (#33675627)
But the gender-inclusive language is not clear. It was downright confusing to be honest. If I were pregnant, anxious and trying to find info online, I wouldn’t want to wade through that either. The purpose of language is to communicate clearly, not to make you feel included.
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by SV_BubbleTime on Saturday November 19, 2022 @05:45PM (#33675668)
>The purpose of language is to communicate clearly, not to make you feel included.

My brother was mentally ill his whole life; she is trans now. I showed her this comment and we both agreed.

It’s a good way to put it. We can try and do both, but clearly has to come before feelings.

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by anon291 on Saturday November 19, 2022 @11:28PM (#33678253)
My wife left her online breastfeeding support group after several incidents of obvious males (self identified trans women) would join, despite not even having children. They just wanted to observe the moms breastfeeding. It's just not a comfortable space anymore. Very sad.
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by cluedos on Sunday November 20, 2022 @06:43AM (#33680174)
That is disgusting, but sadly not unexpected these days. The elephant in the room is that many 'transwomen' identify as so because of sexual fetishism; these men want to become the pornified image they have of women.

It's easily witnessed in their forums, for example the 'MtF' subreddit, there are countless posts of men asking if it's normal to be sexually aroused while cross-dressing, fetishising their own breasts, talking about their longing to be a 'hot woman', and so on.

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by sangnoir on Sunday November 20, 2022 @01:54AM (#33678930)
Deferring to how people want to be called seem like the non-asshole default.If you prefer to go by "Ty": people ought to call you Ty- it may be inconvenient looking you up in AD (is it Tyler, or Tyson?)

If someone who's pregnant wants me to address them as "sir" or "them", that's exactly what I'll do, even if the author of TFA may be offended.

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by tablespoon on Sunday November 20, 2022 @02:22AM (#33679040)
> Deferring to how people want to be called seem like the non-asshole default.If you prefer to go by "Ty": people ought to call you Ty- it may be inconvenient looking you up in AD (is it Tyler, or Tyson?)

That only really makes sense on an individual basis. The OP article (which I can't read due to a paywall), appears to be talking about pregnancy literature, and your solution can't really apply to literature. If you have group of 1000 people, where 999 want to be called "pregnant women" and 1 who wants to be called a "person experiencing pregnancy," what term to you use in your literature to refer to the group?

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by adastra22 on Sunday November 20, 2022 @05:05AM (#33679740)
Weird. It wasn't paywalled when this first hit HN. They must have noticed the traffic.

Anyway, you're on the right track but the article was actually far worse than your example. There was a chart showing "recommended gender-neutral language" for pregnancy literature which had some real head-scratchers on it. For example, instead of "penis" you should say "erect erogenous zone." That's almost bad enough, as if I had encountered it in the wild it would take me a moment to figure out what they are talking about (erect penis? erect nipples?).

But it gets better! Guess what they recommended you replace "vagina" with? Also "erect erogenous zone"! (wtf?!) Now beyond the fact that its is anatomically wrong, I can't even know if they're talking about male or female genitalia. If I am on a medical website reading something about changes to my "erect erogenous zone", does it apply to me? Heck if I know!

That's part of what the article covered and what I was responding to in my above comment. This goes way, way beyond the relatively harmless change of "mother" -> "birthing person."

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by bradleyjg on Sunday November 20, 2022 @06:17AM (#33680041)
> Deferring to how people want to be called seem like the non-asshole default.

Lots of women don’t want to be called menstrators, a tiny number of transmen do. To whom should we defer?

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by cluedos on Sunday November 20, 2022 @06:44AM (#33680185)
Your personal choice is just that. The more important conversation is about what gets imposed on everyone else via law and organisational policy.