News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature. Parent comment

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by cedilla on Saturday November 19, 2022 @07:09PM (#33676522)
The author does. She calls biology a "set of delusions so demonstrably false that even infants can see through them." Then calls trans-exclusionary feminism "biology based".

And she literally denies the Dylan Mulvaney being a trans-woman, calling her an "adult biological man". Which is so revealing because trans-woman obviously aren't the reason why some push for gender-inclusive language in pregnancy literature. They don't have uteresus. Only trans-men have them. It's about trans-men.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by bequanna on Sunday November 20, 2022 @04:09PM (#33685329)
I guess I don’t understand this new language.

If a biological male either wants to be a woman or thinks he is a woman, I must call him a woman or I am “denying trans people exist”?

They can live their life however they want but why are they requiring me to participate?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by cedilla on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @04:35AM (#33703840)
You don't need to participate, but that doesn't make "biological male" any less exclusionary.

Especially since it's a nonsense phrase. And even if it wasn't, I sincerely doubt the author actually knows about the chromosomal or endocrinological status of that person Biden spoke with.

[ Parent | on HN ]