QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for?

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Obligatory not QT, but trans. I hope it’s okay for me to answer.

I feel like women’s words are being targeted the most is because the usual reasons. Women are always expected to make sacrifices, perform emotional labor, put the needs of others above their own, etc. Apparently, the feelings of trans people are more important for many people who make decisions about what language is used. Men words aren’t being targeted the same way because those things aren’t expected of men.

I don’t like the new words. They are less imprecise and more difficult to understand. I can’t imagine how non-native speakers figure it out. Is it trans natal females or trans natal males who want these changes the most? I feel like trans natal females are the ones who would be because words like woman applied to them, but I guess it could also be trans natal males who don’t want it be that women have certain biology. Either way, it’s not good. 😐

For males who identify as trans, would you like people use terms like ejaculators, prostate havers, impregnators, individuals with testicles, non-birthing parents, bepenised people, and etcetera? If not, then why not? After all, if this kind of language is inclusive of natal females, then it should be the same for natal males, right?

“Identify as trans” seems like an weird way to put it, but I think I understand what you mean. I feel like this type of language is bad for everyone. I guess if someone wanted to call me a prostate-haver in a medical setting that would be okay, but a little strange. If they wanted to refer to specifically something about male biology stuff, they could just say male. It’s not like I’d melt away, lol. I had to have a pelvic CT scan about 5 years ago (cyst worries, unrelated to any trans stuff) and there were a bunch of notes explaining my surgical history so it would make sense, but they didn’t have to use prostate-haver I don’t think.

For all, don’t you think it’s contradictory that you complain that GC reduce people to their genitals when we insist on a sex-based definition of women and men, and then you impose new words that reduce women to their body parts and body functions?

I don’t really make those arguments, but I agree that it seems contradictory.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, it's ok to answer. I'm asking because I want to know from which side the push for inclusive language. I used to assume that it was coming from trans natal females, but I'm not sure anymore.

As a non-native speaker I think it would be pretty confusing to learn English right now, and much more so for migrants. For example, the first times I read "folx", "womxn" or "Latinx" I thought they were typos. It took me a while to understand they were suppposed to be inclusive. I'm still don't know what is wrong with "folks", isn't it already gender neutral?

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm asking because I want to know from which side the push for inclusive language.

I wish I knew more, but I’m not really involved in trans communities or activism.

I'm still don't know what is wrong with "folks", isn't it already gender neutral?

I feel like all of those x words are confusing. A lot of times, the group that being referred don’t even really like those terms (latinx seems to only be push by white people). I don’t understand the folx thing either. It’s so stupid to be obsessing about words anyway I feel like.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know if it helps, and I'm not saying you identify as a woman, But when it comes to trans identified it sort of strikes me like this... You can't change your sex, you can't be something you're not, though you can change your appearance, yes you do this by transitioning, and while it's not the transitioning that you identify as, it kind of is? You identify as someone who we'll need to transition, therefore as a transitioning or transitioned person.

I think it certainly makes more sense to say trans identified than woman identified? because you can't change sex, and woman is a sex-based term, but you can change your features, therefore you can make yourself trans. .Also think about saying I guess, you identify as a Catholic, or are a Catholic. If somebody asked you what religion you identify with, you probably wouldn't be like I don't identify as a Catholic, I am a Catholic. You would probably just say you were Catholic.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks! Your explanation makes sense. I guess using identify as seems weird to me because I guess I think of it more like a physical reality. Maybe that’s not everyone though and I’m sure for many people it’s not physical so much as something they believe about themselves. I feel like if someone erased any conscious sense of myself or made me believe I was like the manliest man ever 💪, I’d still be trans because my body. I think maybe I just find it super cringey, probably because of too much exposure to “identify as” being used in stupid ways.