you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Monday November 9 in the early afternoon, they made a second tweet saying this:

The webinar panelists used the term "birthing person" to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as "women" or "girls." We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women.

The new tweet is getting ratioed too.

[–]MezozoicGay 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

How exclusion of 99% is inclusive?

[–]denverkris 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Hopefully they're being told to eat shit.

[–]oyasuminasai50 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please tell me how many people out there giving birth identify as trans or non-binary. Please. I guarantee it's around 0.01% of all bIrThInG pEoPLe.

[–]teacherterf 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's time to put these people on the defensive. We use a definition of woman that includes ALL "birthing people", regardless of identity. Genderists (and apparently Harvard Med) favor a narrower definition that excludes some people with uteruses. And we all know there's nothing worse than excluding people. We don't have to explain why we don't require female people to have specific feelings in order to count as women. It's on genderists to justify why their exclusionary definition of "woman" is better than our inclusive one.