Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature
by next_xibalba on Saturday November 19, 2022 @10:41PM
(#33677967)
You missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear. These are all things that happen to women (and can only happen to women). You have to be born with a uterus in order to have it removed. Somehow, individuals born without a uterus and/or ovaries are recognized as women/female in whatever source it is you're not citing.
Let be very clear, I'm not advocating against trans people. On the contrary, I think all people who aren't hurting others are deserving of respect and dignity within the limits of reason and the law of "your reach ends where my nose begins."
But that doesn't entitle them or anyone else to unilaterally (and with a strong authoritarian bent, I might add) change our language or to proclaim "Trans women are women." I would counter, "No. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK."
1% certainly doesn't strike me as definition destroying counter evidence. Again, not sure what your source is.
Women who’ve had their ovaries removed? 200k per year.
Women who’ve had their uteruses removed? 400k per year.
Women born without a uterus? 1 in 4500 or about 900k women in the world.
Women who are born without a uterus and ovaries? About 7% of those born without a uterus so 63k women worldwide.
But you know what the definition destroying counter evidence is? That if current estimates are accurate that about 1 in 100 people are trans. If trans people were rarer it would be easier to argue that they should just be an asterisk.
Edit: For my own curiosity I wanted to see if being trans would qualify as a rare disease and apparently the FDA’s threshold is 1 in 200k.