all 18 comments

[–]Femaleisnthateful 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The terminology is meant to detach women from the lived experiences of their bodies and uniquely female functions, and effectively render the word 'woman' meaningless. For that reason it's offensive. I also feel it's a step towards the commodification of women's bodies.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have a different view. I don't think these terms are meant to detach women from the lived experiences of our female bodies. I think they are meant to anchor & limit women to a few uniquely female & short-lived functions of some of our bodies.

Referring to us as "people who menstruate" reduces us to a process that only occurs during approximately 40 years of our lives, from age 11 to 51 on average. Moreover, this terminology suggests that during those 40 years, we menstruate 24/7/365. When, in fact, most of us menstruate for at most one week out of every four.

As for calling us "birthing people," for most women labor & childbirth takes up a day or two of every FT pregnancy. I'd have no problem saying that humans are breathing people because we breathe every second of our lives. But birthing is a very specific, time-limited endeavor that can only occur once a year at most, & which the vast majority of women experience only on occasion in our lives - and which many women never experience at all.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. I too read speculation that it was to soften us up to the commodification of women's bodies, but also I've read speculation that it's to prepare us for artificial wombs.

[–]limeindecoconut 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here is the argument: I know it's sexist because the woke crowd is only demanding that we change the words used to describe women. Where are the demands to erase man with penis havers or semon producers?

[–]Cass 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the definition of dehumanizing is "depriving a person or group of positive human qualities."

The reason they use "people who bla bla" is specifically because they want to deprive women from positive things like menstruation and birthing. So it's very simple.

They do this because these qualities being related/applied to women don't allow for an easy reworking of what a woman is.

[–]Basghetti 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting. "Yellow people" tends to be taken as a pretty damn derogatory and dehumanizing set of words, doesn't it? "Fat people" tends to piss off people too.

Weird how words can seem shitty and dehumanizing, huh?

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

Dehumanizing isn't the word I'd use. I think insidious, totalitarian and misogynistic are better fits.

[–]our_team_is_winning 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I wish I had a gif with audio to put here of Justin Trudeau saying "we prefer peoplekind."

Haha, my autocorrect underlined that non-word in red!

Women who menstruate or women who give birth, as there are no men who do either. There are TIF, but they're still female or they couldn't menstruate or give birth.

Language Fuckers -- the LF. Sounds Orwellian. Langfuck.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Trudeau reminds me of the young politician in my local area who said one of his promises are more "live music" events (he's the only politician who said this) in a city with horrible sound insulation, I would not mind him being assassinated. I don't want to hear other peoples' music unless I feel like it. I assume younger politicans are a bit more innocent and aren't very worldly, older politians are lesser naive but are more corrupt, it really shows in their campaigns.

[–]aloris342 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are several reasons I dislike these words. First, despite containing the word "people," these terms focus on body functions rather than the actual human person. Boys jeer at girls who are on their period. Men still make jokes in the workplace at times that a woman who is sharp towards them must be having "that time of the month" (notice that, even here, men are using a euphemism). Things like tampons were empowering because they allowed women to hide the fact that they were menstruating, which removed a tool that had been used to bully or humiliate women and therefore to gain social power over them. Calling women "people who menstruate" brings a physical vulnerability of women's bodies to the forefront of the conversation and to the forefront of the listener's mind, and therefore changes conversations to give us lower status. That is why it is dehumanizing.

Birthing people is problematic because it separates the physical (animal) (never forget that the idea is to position women as mere animals, in comparison to men who are the full and default humans) act of giving birth from the wholeness of the relationship between mother and child. Once I've given birth to my child, what am I then? No longer a birthing person, I suppose, but what? The fact that I gave birth to the child is unlinked from the fact that I am that child's mother. Terms like "birthing people" carefully slice up motherhood into functions that can be sold off or controlled from outside. And, as with "person who menstruates," it paints a particular picture in the mind (a partly naked woman, in pain, probably bloody, with her legs apart), and the goal of painting that picture is to disempower the woman in the social interaction of the person with whom she is talking.

Altogether, the big issue with redefining womanhood according to individual body functions, is that it attempts to separate each woman from the other. Little girls, adult human females, and postmenopausal women (even those without a uterus) have fundamental interests in common with each other. We have solidarity with each other (or, we should). But if we can't even speak about ourselves as a coherent class, then we can't organize or talk to each other about our common concerns.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Men still make jokes in the workplace at times that a woman who is sharp towards them must be having "that time of the month" (notice that, even here, men are using a euphemism).

Little do they know that PMS affects women in different ways and accounts very little (or none) for her behaviour. You can respond to them "what's wrong, can't handle a bit of hurt feelings" or something like that, they think they can put the focus of their problems on you, put the focus of their problem at them by implying they're whingy little bitches.

It's males like those that hold those views are part of why I'm so cautious about dating (I haven't dated anyone before and haven't had sex with anyone) as someone who tends to experience the horny type of PMS (and goddamnit when I get it, it's distractingly strong). Try learning a new technical skillset required for your hobby without scratching any itches and within a specific time frame before life hits you and stops you from indulging in your hobby and cripples your skillset and you'll know what I mean!

[–]one1won 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, the word woman used to be ours, but factions are working OT to completely remove it from us. Don’t “you” (notOP) consider it a possibility that the words people or person could be forbidden for us next? (Or weaponized against us?)

I never imagined this particular linguistic attack would occur in my lifetime. Campaigns/plans have outlined steps to achieve goals…

[–]angelduster 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I hear phrases like that, to me it's dehumanizing in that it sounds like it's just reducing women to their reproductive organs. Isn't that what people argue against anyways? But also some women don't have periods or can't get pregnant so if we're going to call women "people who menstruate" are those women just not women then?

I saw an ad today for the pain reliever Midol and they just used the phrase "menstruators" which definitely felt dehumanizing.

[–]ausernamee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Autstic people have written a lot about how person first langague is dehumanizing because it suggests that the person with x is a person inspite of x.

[–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know if you made a typo but from what I've read it's just the opposite. Person-first language ("he has autism" rather than "he's autistic") is meant to highlight our shared humanity. No matter what hardship you face, you are a person first and foremost.

Importantly, this is in direct contrast with intersectionality and identity politics, which make strategic efforts to spotlight group membership based on victimhood. To say that the woke have fallen afoul of the ideals of the original civil rights movements is an understatement; they've completely reversed their tactics. We used to pursue equality; now we flaunt our oppression.

I don't like policing others' language, but it's interesting to think about the political and ideological motivations behind linguistic choices, whether good or bad.

[–]ausernamee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

when you make it an awkward point to highlight the humanity of autistic people we see it as dehumanizing. to insist on "person with autism" implies that there is something shameful about being defined as autistic.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes.

[–]sisterinsomnia 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is an erasure. Any woman whose gender identity is embodied, i.e., who is a woman because she lives with a female body has her gender identity erased (to use the trans-cult language). She can no longer be a woman on an embodied basis but is told that she possesses an abstract identity which just happens to coincide with the sex of her body, and that other people have the same body but do not identify as women so 'pregnant people' is required to replace 'pregnant women.' To be inclusive.

But that inclusiveness denies many, many women the basis on which they accept the label 'women.'

A corollary is that there is now no non-pejorative name for those who are of the female biological sex. Yet that is the very group which is suffering from sex-based forms of oppression.

Another way to think about this is to ask what would happen if, say, communists were called just 'people' because they clearly are people. Doing that erases the focus of what they identify with (in trans-cult language).