Ana Kasparian's "I'm a woman" Tweet

[JI7]

The below is what she tweeted. While I agree with her about just using woman and not those other terms. Is this really an issue among most people ? It seems to mostly be a thing among people that spend a lot of time doing "activism' on Twitter. And then the larger media picks it up and makes it seem like it's something more than just a few people arguing on social media. And it's the right wing that often pushes these things. So it seems like she fell for the right Wing Narrative .

What she Tweeted below

I'm a woman. Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this shit.

[Mad_Machine76]

1. I'm disappointed in her

I usually enjoy her on TYT. I don't know why some people get upset about other people being inclusive. She is entitled to her feelings but not everybody feels the same way.

[hlthe2b]

3. It isn't inclusive, though. 'Women and other pregnant persons' is inclusive. You want to exclude

women from the equation. As though 99% of those who become pregnant are to be excluded. Inclusion doesn't exclude the primary group affected. It adds to it-- to rightfully acknowledge transgendered person pregnancies.

I am not an Anna Kasperian fan or TYT for that matter. My comment has nothing to do with her.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. "Women and other pregnant persons" implies that all women are pregnant.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. "Pregnant women" refers to women who are pregnant.

[hlthe2b]

29. As I've already replied... ignore

[ShazzieB]

31. Claiming that the term "pregnant people" is not inclusive makes no sense whatsoever.

"People" is a term that means any or all humans. "Pregnant people" therefore means any or all humans who are pregnant. It doesn't get more inclusive than that!

[ShazzieB]

37. Your understanding of what "inclusive" means seems to be different from that of most people here.

[ShazzieB]

43. I'm not trying to diminish ANYONE.

You have misconstrued everything I've said in every one of my posts. I really don't want to argue about this any more, but I will not stand for being accused of saying or doing something I never, ever said or did.

[Bucky]

115. It's never a good idea to use logic to dismiss other peoples' feelings

There's a detached coldness to the term "pregnant people". Ignoring other peoples' emotional reactions to how you refer to them and their identities isn't respectful.

I just don't see the benefit of going around building communicative walls between progressives and the general public we want to see supported and protected by the government.

I know the intent of phrases like "pregnant people" or "people with uteruses" or whatever is to make trans people feel included. And that's a noble intention and valuable idea. But trying to re-categorize human identity just doesn't build a sense of community and connection with the groups of people progresses are trying to find common cause with

[ShazzieB]

131. That's a matter of opinion.

"Detached coldness" is a subjective impression, not objective fact. The phrase "pregnant people" can feel one way to you, another way to me, and a totally different way to someone else. That's unfortunate, but it's a separate issue from inclusiveness, which is what the original discussion was about.

The art of using inclusive language is very much a work in progress, and it's evolving all the time, with trial and error being a big part of the process, especially as our understanding of things like gender identity also continue to evolve. New terminology can sound clunky and weird at first, and not all of it will survive the rest of time.

The phrase "pregnant people" was coined in order to give recognition of the fact that not all those are pregnant identify as women. Such people do exist, whether some choose to believe it or not, and imo, there is a need for language that reflects this.

[yardwork]

109. Not everybody who is pregnant identifies as a woman.

I work with healthcare professionals, many of whom are advocates for more inclusive, equitable care. It surprises many people to learn that there are people who give birth who don't identify as women. Nature is complicated. I'm grateful that efforts are being made to make healthcare more inclusive.

It doesn't hurt anybody to use inclusive terms.

[Bucky]

116. "doesn't hurt anybody to use inclusive terms" Sorry, but it does

The inclination to use inclusive terms is well intentioned.

But for many women who struggle to get respect and find equality in their identity as women, the coldness of the terminology "persons with uteruses" can feel not a little bit dismissive.

I absolutely agree that there should be inclusive equitable healthcare, but the language that progressives to use to communicate compassion and common cause genuinely matters. The way we talk to people shapes the way they see our desire to be supportive of them

[yardwork]

120. The only place these phrases are being used is in the context of specific medical care.

Nobody is trying to replace the day to day use of the word "woman." Nobody. This is a manufactured issue.

[Bucky]

124. Again, I have to disagree

I hear the phrase being used in the context of public policy. And like it or not, people have an emotional attachment to how they get treated both in politics and healthcare.

I don't think it's cool to dictate to people how they should feel about the way they're being treated or talked about.

In general I don't think we should get bogged down into arguments about language usage. It feels ideological and ideologists never come across as compassionate or sympathetic.

[yardwork]

126. This is a right wing trick designed to make people dislike Joe Biden.

[Bucky]

127. I believe their agenda is quite a bit broader than that

But yes, arguing about specific language is generally non productive. We should definitely focus our energies on public health policy and equality of access.

[Dr. Strange]

8. Why can't she decide what she wants to be called?

She is entitled to her feelings but not everybody feels the same way.

So if she wants to be called a woman and you don't feel like calling her a woman, you get to call her whatever you want? How is that any different than right wingers who insist on misgendering people?

[Mad_Machine76]

9. She can be called personally whatever she wants and I would of course respect that

It sounds more like she is complaining about other people doing it even if not directed at her personally.

[hlthe2b]

2. well, I think we should and can be inclusive without ignoring that pregnancy is overwhelmingly an

issue of women. I have no problem saying 'women and all who can become pregnant] or 'women and other pregnant persons' but dispensing with the term "women" when 99% or more of all births are to those who self-identify as women is not the answer IMO. And yes, while I am not at all being bigoted toward transgendered people who I fully and adamantly believe should be acknowledged, I have seen a lot of people take an overwhelming amount of attacks for just stating this. So, have at it if that is your desire.

Be inclusive. NOT exclusive. And that includes those who identify as women. We are not generic "objects" with uteruses. We are not mere "baby bumps." Enough of the objectification and elimination. Inclusion, not exclusion.

[ShazzieB]

33. This is quite illogical.

"Pregnant people" automatically includes pregnant women. Adding the word women doesn’t make it more inclusive in any way.

[ShazzieB]

40. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I never said I want to do away with the word "woman." I said there is no need to ADD the word "women" when using the word "people," which autmatically includes ALL humans.

I am done arguing with you. You obviously have your mind made up, and nothing I or anyone else could say is going to change that. Several people have tried to explain this issue to you without success, and you've responded to all of us with snark and insults. Enough is enough.

[ShazzieB]

57. You can think whatever you want.

I obviously can't stop you, and I am not going to try. I will, however, point out the following:

~You do not know me.
~You know very little about me.
~You do not know what is in my heart or my mind (beyond what I've posted at DU that you may have read).
~You know nothing about anything I've done in support of women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, or the rights of other marginalized groups.

Despite all of the above, you have accused me (and some others here) of some pretty vile things, based on not much more than a difference of opinion about what "inclusive" means. I am genuinely dumbfounded.by this, but whatever!

[ShazzieB]

67. Wow, you really have a unique and imaginative way of putting words in people's mouths! 😂

To quote the Chicks (formerly known as the Dixie Chicks), "I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down," but I think I really do need to step away from the screen for a while.

I've wasted too much time on this already, and any possibility of a constructive discussion disappeared many posts ago. At this point, I'm having way too much fun and accomplishing way too little.

[ShazzieB]

100. I haven't attacked ANYONE for ANYTHING.

Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2023, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

You are the only one doing any attacking. I have merely expressed my disagreement with you. We are all allowed to do that here, you know. Disagreeing =/= attacking, Calling someone out for accusing me of saying things I've NEVER said is also not an attack.

We are obviously never going to reach an agreement. That is also allowed here. So is agreeing to disagree, and that is what we need to do.

[LostOne4Ever]

81. Thank you for standing up for the truth.

She is completely making up things and accusing you of saying things that you never said. Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that.

[BlackSkimmer]

44. Thank you. You have said this better than I.

I am was born a female, I was a girl, and I've been a woman for many, many years. No one else has the right to decide what to call me or what I call myself.

[obamanut2012]

141. Except no one is trying to decide anything like that

That is patently false.

[yardwork]

110. The term is transgender, not transgendered.

Second, switch out the word "transgender" for a word for any other minority, and read what you wrote again.

How is your post different from the complaints about using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas?" When a sales clerk wishes you Happy Holidays, do you feel outraged? Do you feel as if Christmas is being taken away from you?

[dawg]

4. All the TYT people are trolls.

Even Ana.

[MrsCoffee]

89. So so true. nt

[betsuni]

94. In my opinion, Ana was a true believer of hateful anti-Democratic conspiracy theories/propaganda

while Cenk wasn't.

[JI7]

136. Never really thought too much about this but I think this is correct

when I think of the times I have seen them. Cenk's right wing views were about having that position on issues.

But for Ana it seemed to be more about hating the democratic party and spreading shity conspiracies.

[betsuni]

137. "I'm shocked by that result": Cenk on his TYT audience polling, 80% would not vote for Hillary.

After telling them Hillary was Satan every day he was shocked they believed him. For him it's just business. I remember him publishing an essay of why he was voting for Hillary but not allowing comments. That's your Frankenstein monster, Cenk!

[yardwork]

111. I'd never heard of her before, but that explains a lot.

[oregonjen]

5. Learned a new term, TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminist

In discussing this right now with my daughter, she used the term TERF. I asked her what that was and she explained it. Thanks for posting this. I love asking my daughter, having a discussion and learning from her everyday.

[oregonjen]

7. I don't know about that

From a child of the Harry Potter era, JK Rowling’s rhetoric has really upset her and the rest of the queer community. Calling oneself a feminist and spewing hate at the same time, of course there is going to be a new acronym to describe her and others. I have no problem with it.

[oregonjen]

11. Wow, you're snarky. No, it's about people not being inclusive. JK Rowling was just an example that

most people have heard of. I don’t know why you’re having a hard time with an acronym. Hope you have a better day.

[DonCoquixote]

14. how is the term that describes a subset

offensive to all women?

[DonCoquixote]

16. snark does not communicate your point well

So because some people decided to hate trans, all feminists are somehow tarred, includign ones that came out for trans?

[DonCoquixote]

19. asking for you to explain your logic

should not be an considered an insult.

But, I do thank you for inspiring me to post this article to general discussion, here it is first

https://www.cltampa.com/news/mcc-tampa-withdraws-from-pride-this-weekend-still-encourages-others-to-go-and-experience-joy-15336860

[Caliman73]

30. It is relatively new but not a "nasty new acronym"

Here is some history.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/03/02/terf-meaning-jk-rowling-definition-what-is-robert-webb-graham-linehan/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened

The feminist movement is not monolithic. You may want to ask women of color around in the late 60's through 80's what some of their opinions are about the feminist movement around that time.

Overall, you are absolutely correct. Feminism as a concept and movement has sought to advance the needs of women, LGBTQ people, and men as well. There are however, not insignificant subsets of the movement who have taken on a more exclusionary approach, hence the term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

It should not be used to tar women, but it should also not simply be cast aside as a slur...

[ShazzieB]

35. Thanks for this, especially the links.

Everyone who cares about LGBTQ rights needs to know what TERF means and why the TERF mindset is divisive and problematic.

Well done.

[LostOne4Ever]

76. I think assigned male comics showed this very well

TERFs should be reworded to mean Trans Elimination Reactionary Facist.

[BlackSkimmer]

45. Please show me where Rowling said she "hates" trans folk?

A link?

[DonCoquixote]

79. here ya go

https://news.yahoo.com/j-k-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-102506549.html

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Don't expect a response...

You might get a bit of a 'we're not allowed to discuss such things at DU' but when I supplied them with links to info on why JK Rowling is a bigot, they totally ignored me.

[BlackSkimmer]

25. I have read Rowling's comments.

Please link to where she "spews hate."

[Violet_Crumble]

39. She 'spews' indirect bigotry against trans people....

I put 'spew' in dit-dits because as a very successful writer, she chooses her words carefully and they've got some nuance. There's a world of difference between the Twitter swarm I've had the misfortune to encounter yesterday and someone like JK Rowling.

Not sure if any of you have heard of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. She's an anti-trans 'activist' who's having rallies in most Australian cities called 'Let Women Speak' because she claims to be an activist for women's rights. She's not. I would have used her as an example of a TERF rather than JK Rowling, who I do think has made bigoted comments, but not the base and extremely ugly type that I saw yesterday on Twitter from the KJK mob.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull

Anyway, I'm the first to acknowledge that I know very little about trans issues and when in doubt I think it's best to turn to a trans woman to explain why what JK Rowling has been saying is in fact bigoted.

[yardwork]

112. My Millennial kids feel the same way about JK Rowling.

She's a big disappointment to a lot of people.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. .

Big, bad feminists are the problem?

So called radical feminists who believe that trans women are not women are a problem, yes.

[BlackSkimmer]

24. Thank you.

Glad you said it. I wouldn't dare.

[Oneironaut]

42. TERFs are bad feminists - especially the ones who ally with the far / Christian right.

The term TERF was actually created by TERFs. The number one TERF organization in the UK, the “LGB Alliance,” which is supported by J.K. Rowling, is a far-right Christian hate organization.

FYI if you didn’t know - “TERF” isn’t referring to all feminists. It’s referring to the lunatic fringe of feminists who obsessively focus solely on trans issues.

[BlackSkimmer]

46. I find it difficult to believe that Rowling supports a far-right Christian organization.

That's against everything she writes. Have you read her books?

[Oneironaut]

47. Oh yes. She very much does.

She supported the LGB Alliance’s attacks on the UK Charity, “Mermaids” and openly praised attacking it. She had also openly praised the “LGB Alliance” and believes trans people should have their rights taken away (e.g. spaces segregated by birth sex, gender clinics shut down, throwing trans women in jail with men, no gender care for kids or adults).

[BlackSkimmer]

50. Well, I'll have to research that. I will do so, and thanks for the info.

Sadly, none of that can be discussed, so we'll just have to leave it there.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Why can't it be discussed?

I'm hoping you watch the video about JK Rowling I posted for you in this thread and I'd like to hear what yr thoughts are after you watch it and do some research on her views. Her views on trans women are totally unacceptable and I suspect a lot of people struggle to separate those views with the Harry Potter books. It's very possible to love the books and her as an author, but hate her views on trans women.

[Ms. Toad]

85. EarlG put his foot down on advocacy of discrimination against trans individuals.

For your information, our definition of transphobia includes, but is not limited to: Misgendering, deadnaming, or otherwise refusing to recognize a trans person's gender identity; Arguing that trans people are not "real" men or women; Arguing that trans people should not have the same rights as cis people -- for example, the right to use public restrooms or play sports that match their gender identity; Arguing that there is any scientific basis for discriminating against trans people.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/101312142

Because the EarlG was very explicit, blatant advocacy of discrimination against trans individuals is now fairly regularly being hidden. Unfortunately, it has been replaced by snide "we can't discus it" comments and more nuanced hostility that it too slippery to be pinned down such as gaslighting using gender-neutral language to addressing health care/products applicable to all people with applicable body parts, regardless of gender, into a passive voice claim that someone is somehow telling individual women that they can't self-identify as women

Unfortunately, this still leaves the environment on DU intolerable for a number of trans individuals - including by inserting "why can't we talk about such things" into groups which are expressly safe havens from such hostility.

[BlackSkimmer]

96. Yes. Well said again.

So sad, but so true.

[obamanut2012]

143. JFC just stop

[DonCoquixote]

99. we know who does support people

At least, for myself admittedly, I am saying, watch out for the right which is trying to use feelings against trans as a leapfrog. Also, as far as JK, she is someone who gets paid a lot of money to espouse her views, something few of us do. Why is that important, because, just like we woudl tell the Tuicker Carlsons, Joe Rogans and other media types, no one is telling you what to say. They all have enough money and power to where they do NOT need to indulge peopel with evil agendas. If anything, the respect I do have for Feminist activists is what makes me go "hey, watch out, those fascists just spiked you beer with the political date rape drug!"

[obamanut2012]

142. Seiously, many of teh non-hidden posts in thsi thraed are as bad

As the hidden ones. They are being oh so cutesy.= because bigotry is not allowed )or supposed to be allowed).

[yardwork]

114. Actually, there are a number of problematic issues in her books.

I enjoyed her books - until the later ones got too long and dull - but even at the time, I noticed some cringy issues. Fat shaming, for one thing. The names of some Black and Asian characters are... problematic. And, as a gay person, I didn't appreciate her offhanded "Oh he's gay" outing of Dumbledore, during an interview years later. If she wanted him to be gay, why not write him that way? Why the cutesy "oh Dumbledore's gay" years later? A small thing, maybe, but it bothered me.

I still enjoy the books and movies. But it's not wrong to point out that the books aren't uniformly wonderful. Writers are complicated.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I've encountered a few on Twitter yesterday...

This thread has interesting timing. Until I was felled earlier this week with Covid (I'd successfully avoided it until now), I was going to join the counter protest yesterday of Posie Parker's 'Let Women Speak' rally at Parliament House. It's an anti-trans sideshow where she tries to shut down women who don't agree with her anti-trans views. She's anti-abortion, gets support from the extreme RW, and seems obsessed with importing the US culture war anti-trans ugliness to places like the UK, Australia and NZ.

While most of the Posie Parker mob seem to be of a RW leaning or misoogynists (one man told me to shut up and stop silencing women lol), I did encounter one who told me she was 70 and had a strong history when she was younger of supporting all those things you mention and that she was very LW. When I asked her why with her views she'd be supporting a creature like Posie Parker, she vanished and I never got an answer. While I don't see anything radical about those feminist views, I would call her a TERF because she's wanting to exclude trans women from being thought of or identified as women.

I'll use old DUers as examaples. Remember Iverglas? She was my friend for a long while and she was a first wave feminist. Her abhorrent views on trans women were on full display here for a while before she was banned. She was a TERF. Remember Seabeyond? She was also a first wave feminist, but she was inclusive of trans women in her feminism. She definitely wasn't a TERF. Like I said, many I saw weren't feminists at all, but I think the term may have come into being from feminist discussions on gender and trans women so that's why Feminist is in the acronym. TERFs hate the label and insist they should be labelled as 'gender critical'.

Me, I don't call them TERFs. I call them bigoted fascist creatures, though with the character limit on Twitter I had to shorten it to 'fascist c**ts'

[hlthe2b]

62. I appreciate your post, Violet_Crumble and it is good to see you.

Yes... I do remember all of those particular DUers and the fights that went on back then.

I also remember the "feminist" wars when we got little support from many others on this board, including at times the administrators, despite the ugly ugly ugly misogyny that went unaddressed.

The term TERF being thrown around so casually is undoubtedly going to reverberate on DU's feminists and outside (irl) and its use is unlikely to be limited to those who truly are non-inclusive. I know many will decry that assumption, but I saw what happened a decade and a half ago on this board. You make a good differentiation on the term and I've never heard of Posie Parker, but I can appreciate the label in that respect. However, I know what will happen. And throwing around the term "Radical Feminist' is just the start. Seems I remember being called that here decades ago, primarily by that group comprised of anti-feminist straight men, but by others as well.

At a time when abortion bans are taking away the basic rights of all who have a uterus, the majority of which are still self-identifying as women, self-autonomy for ALL is a big issue. Dividing those of us who are likewise proud of their civil rights efforts-- for all--and who identify as feminists could not come at a worse time.

Thank you for the post.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. It's good to see you too, old friend....

Personally I find it easy to use the term 'transphobic' rather than TERF. I don't think most women who want their safe space are particularly radical and those who self-identify as TERFs tend to be extreme RW types and misogynists. I got told last night on Twitter that I was a pedo man with a beard lol.

What I hate so much after watching the 'Let Women Speak' shitshow over the past few days (I wanted to go and breathe my spicy covid germs all over them tbh) is that they're hijacking the language and arguments of feminists and trying to turn our cause into something very ugly and exclusive. Urgh...
Anyway, I got a great deal of happiness about watching Posie Parker aka KJK or whatever it is she calls herself fleeing from New Zealand after discovering her brand of hatred and intolerance isn't the slightest bit welcome there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/25/anti-trans-activist-posie-parker-ends-new-zealand-tour-after-violent-protests-erupt

[ForgedCrank]

65. I'm just

generally tired of the overall trend of demanding that we put people in groups at all.
I find it not only annoying and misguided, but self-defeating.
People are individuals. It's not my place or anyone elses to decide what group to tag someone with. The entire concept is silly in my opinion, and it leads to nothing but arguing and bickering for no good reason.

[hlthe2b]

71. Yup...

[LostOne4Ever]

51. One of the hallmarks of a lot of TERFs

Is that they hate that term, that it is a slur, and anyone who uses it is a misogynist.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/03/02/terf-meaning-jk-rowling-definition-what-is-robert-webb-graham-linehan/

TERFs (also known as gender Criticals) are truly nasty bigots.

[ShazzieB]

63. Thanks for this link.

It was very interesting reading. I knew what TERF stands for and what it means, but I didn't know the story of how the term came to be coined or who came up with it. I find the whole thing fascinating, the way a train wreck is fascinating!

[Bucky]

121. Actually some people revel in the term TERF

The two I know about are Dave Chappelle and KJ Rowling. Rich people who earned their wealth through creativity can be egotistical dicks sometimes. I hate bullies. The worst are the ones who take pride in being a bully.

[Bucky]

117. Anyone who identifies themselves as exclusionary of anyone else...

is a butthead

[betsuni]

13. This has to be about the Biden administration using "birthing people."

Otherwise she wouldn't be mad about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. I'm glad you've pinpointed that this has nothing to do with discrimination against transpeople...

Hello Betsuni. Let's have a conversation about discrimination about our trans sisters. It has fuck all to do with Biden, nor some person I've never heard of before. But of course, let's push trans issues to the side and focus on something else entirely. Your turn.

[betsuni]

107. I know Kasparian, why I say it's about Biden admin. documents referring to "birthing persons."

Haven't seen any context about her comments, despite looking. Maybe someone who does can comment? Will bet it's about Democrats because I'm familiar with Kasparian and The Young Turks.

[yardwork]

128. I agree with you.

This is a typical right wing manufactured non-issue designed to scare and upset people, launching just as the 2024 campaigns gear up.

"They're coming for your gas stoves" didn't work as well as they'd hoped. More and more people think gun control might be a good idea. Even Republicans have decided that Obamacare is not a bad thing. Roe v Wade has been overturned. What's next? Scary trans people! That's the ticket.

[betsuni]

138. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. All of those should only be used in a situation where the qualifier is relevant

And then, it's fine to say "person" instead of "woman".

The thing is, you should only say "person with a uterus" if the uterus is important in the discussion (eg uterine cancer). If not, then you shouldn't be excluding women who have had a hysterectomy. Similarly, "birthing" is only about the time around which individuals are giving birth, and similarly for "who menstruates".

We don't know what caused her to write the tweet (it's not in reply to anything specific), so we can't tell if she's calling out an inappropriate usage, or an appropriate one.

[Celerity]

23. +1

[ShazzieB]

36. Agreed 100%!

I, for example, haven't menstruated in over 20 years. Did I stop being a woman at that time? I think everyone knows the answer to that!

[yardwork]

129. In the absence of a reasonable example, I'm assuming she's just trying to cause trouble.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

48. Paradoxically, terms like "person with a uterus" and "people who menstruate" are more "inclusive" in

their precision that excludes people. A woman doesn't necessarily have a uterus, menstruate, or get pregnant, while a man might do all of the above. In discussions and contexts where the focus is having a uterus or menstruating, it makes sense to focus on that distinction.

[hlthe2b]

56. It is removing the ability of the majority of those who can become pregnant to be referred to as

they wish--as women. The choice is not and SHOULD NO be limited to the minority of those who have a uterus but who do not identify as women, though their wishes should be respected. Nor should the choice of self-identifying women be taken away. That is exclusion, elimination, and subtraction, diminishing of countless millions of women's right to self-identify as women. 'Pregnant women and other pregnant persons' is fine. Removing choice from women who elect to identify as women--pregnant or not, is NOT. We are not a mere uterus, baby bumps, or objects.

At a time when the RW wants to remove all autonomy from self-identifying women and others with a uterus--to remove their choices and ability to make decisions about their own bodies and futures, this is a horrendous thing to see--advocating that women should not be able to identify as women, including pregnant women. Inclusion means respecting the choice of self-identification and the terms associated for ALL. Depersonalizing women who elect to be called women--99% of those with a uterus such that they are no longer to be called women is just bigoted and wrong. Trans men and women should have the freedom to choose the manner in which they are addressed and referred. So, too, women. Neither you nor the RW nor any other group should have the right to tell them otherwise.

[BlackSkimmer]

59. Again, THANK YOU.

I think Yoko Ono had it right...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

60. .

women should not be able to identify as women, including pregnant women.

Are women not people?

[Oneironaut]

66. I'm with you. I also see the argument that's it's necessary to include trans men.

There is a possibility of trans men getting pregnant. If you don’t include them, they may believe that what’s being talked about doesn’t apply to them.

Example - “Pregnant women can have X complication.” A trans man might read that and believe that they can’t get that complication.

I personally think it’s better to just say “cis-women and trans men.” That’s very precise language. However, I also acknowledge my opinion doesn’t matter one bit because I can’t get pregnant as a trans woman, nor am I tasked with writing medical articles.

[Silent3]

72. Not to argue against the inclusive language, but I'd give trans men the benefit of the doubt...

...that they are smart enough, if they still have a uterus and can get pregnant, to completely understand a warning like "Pregnant women can have X complication" applies to them to.

If a trans man transitions purely via clothing, cosmetic, and social changes, it would be hard for them not to realize that, biological speaking, they remain female.

If a trans man starts down the road of hormonal and surgical and other medical interventions, that very experience will force them to learn a lot about the biology and medical consequences of what they're going through.

[leftstreet]

75. +1

At a time when the RW wants to remove all autonomy from self-identifying women and others with a uterus--to remove their choices and ability to make decisions about their own bodies and futures, this is a horrendous thing to see--advocating that women should not be able to identify as women, including pregnant women.

I think everyone's missing the larger context here. This is NOT the time for divisions. And yet...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

49. Also?

You can support the transgender community without doing this shit.

If by "doing this shit" she means using the phrases she objects to, I'm wondering how a person might do that.

[Oneironaut]

52. I agree that it's cringe, but, where have these terms been used?

I’m sure there’s been some bone-headed instances of using them. Stuff like this, or words like “Folx” are just horrible. However, is it such a common problem that it needs to be condemned?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

55. It's neither cringe nor bone-headed.

The terms in the OP are increasingly used in public health and reproductive care to recognize a wider range of experiences.

[ShazzieB]

102. Hard agree.

The way I see it, there is a difference between the words we use when referring to ourselves or another individual and the words we use to refer to a group of people who may or may not all identify in the same way.

I refer to myself as a woman, because that's what I identify as. I was assigned female at birth, and have always identified that way. There are a lot of people like me, and there are also people who were assigned female at birth but have come to identify as men.

Many afab people (though by no means all, due to age or other factors) are capable of getting pregnant and giving birth, at least in theory (infertility often does not become apparent until there is an attempt to reproduce). This applies both to afab people who identify as women, like me, and afab people who identify as men but still have the female reproductive organs they were born with.

If I could draw a venn diagram in here, I would draw 2 slightly overlapping circles, one labeled "afab people who identify as women" and the other labeled "afab people who identify as men." The overlapping part would be labeled "people assumed to be capable of pregnancy."

If I'm talking about the circle that identify as women, I'll refer to them as women. If I talk about the circle that identify as men, I'll refer to them as men. If I want to talk about everybody in both circles, I'll use a word that takes in all of them, regardless of how they identify. "People" is a word that does this.

Using the word "people" includes everyone by using just one word, It's shorthand for "this whole bunch of assorted humans here." Likewise, "pregnant people" is shorthand for "this whole bunch of assorted humans who happen to be pregnant."

It doesn't erase or even imply anything about the way any of them identify as individuals. It's weird to me that anyone would think it does.

[yardwork]

119. Yes. Ana and others are taking this out of context to fear-monger.

I think that people are being misled into thinking that there's some kind of movement afoot to take away women's rights. There IS such a movement, but it's not coming from people who care about trans rights!

As usual, the right wing has found a bright shiny object to scare, upset, and divide people. "They're coming for your guns, your gas stove, your right to celebrate Christmas, and the word woman!!!!"

It's ridiculous but, unfortunately, it works, over and over.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

122. Yep. It's working right in this thread.

[yardwork]

125. It's the third such thread I've seen on DU in recent days.

I've known many of the posters for many years, and I know they're not trolls. They care greatly about women's rights and progressive ideals. They're being misled.

I think this is a manufactured issue designed to turn people away from the Biden administration. It's pretty transparent.

[obamanut2012]

145. Many posts not hidden, too, even though they are supporting TERFs

And being snarky about trans folsk.

[ForgedCrank]

61. Ana Kasparian's

feelings on the matter are as valid as anyone elses and should be respected.
That doesn't mean we have to pick a team and start fighting about it or agree with her, it means we need to have respect for everyone. Isn't that what we demand of others?
People need to spend less time being outraged and focus on being human (and humane) toward one another.

[Silent3]

69. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, using language to increase feelings of inclusion...

...is a noble thing.

On the other hand, it can be overdone to the point it simply grates against natural language use.

Like replacing "blind" with "visually impaired". And then deciding that this isn't good enough, because it "doesn't put people first, but rather identifies people by their disabilities".

So how do you "fix" that? "People living with visual impairment".

Sorry, no thanks. I'll stick with "blind", or, if degree of visual impairment needs to be considered, "visually impaired".

"People living with visual impairment" is just fucking ridiculous, especially if that phraseology is treated not merely as an optional way of referring to blind people, but the ONLY way to express the concept, otherwise you're somehow an insensitive troglodyte who must be shamed and punished.

[lanlady]

73. This is a great post. Thank you!

To me, visually impaired is not synonymous with blind. All blind people are visually impaired but not all visually impaired are blind. The eyesight of many visually impaired people can be corrected to one or another degree with glasses or surgery but the same cannot be said of people who are blind. Ditto for the deaf and hearing impaired.

The problem is not the word used (blind, deaf, etc) it's the exclusively negative connotation that we've been conditioned to attach to the word. If we can train ourselves and teach our children not to regard the blind and deaf as lesser/diminished members of the human race, that would be ideal and we would not have to tie ourselves into knots to find just the right euphemisms.

[Bucky]

118. You said it better than I can

Inclusive language works best when people feel included, not recategorized into sub functions of their anatomy.

[Ilsa]

133. Thank you. I really got rubbed over someone telling me that

the phrase "cognitively disabled" (or "impaired"? ) was tantamount to calling a person "retarded," which is extremely hurtful. Then I was picked at for not knowing the new terminology, even though I was constantly in contact with the professionals in this field.

Sometimes this just gets too nitpicky and makes it easy to lose sight of the bigger issue at hand.

[Evergreen Emerald]

134. I was in a training once where we had to list what our pronouns were and how we identified ourselves

I said that I am a woman. A person identifying as "they" was offended because I said I am a woman.

Apparently, openness to identification only goes one way sometimes.

[LostOne4Ever]

139. I do not believe this actually happened

At least as it is being described

[Evergreen Emerald]

140. It actually did happen

Just as I described. Apparently I can say that I want to be addressed as a woman, but that I cannot claim that I AM a woman.

I honestly think that however/ whatever anyone wants to be defined is fine with me, as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

[boston bean]

74. When we can call cis men people without a uterus, non birthing person and person who does not

Menstruate, will I agree with this bologna which in effect is misogynist towards cis women. Cis women can’t identify or be called a woman because why?

[JustAnotherGen]

77. +1

[Voltaire2]

135. The correct analogy would be 'people with prostrate issues'.

But keep on insisting that you are being harmed by inclusive language.

[ecstatic]

78. My take

I'll be honest, I don't know who Ana Kasparian is, but it sounds like she's caught up in a whirlwind of trolls/imposters. No sane and compassionate persons would be referring to women in that way. There are a lot of trolls on Twitter who pretend to identify as a member of a group in order to misrepresent the views of that group. Their goal is to divide, create tension, and chaos where it wouldn't normally exist. For me, one of the telltale signs of an imposter is constant faux outrage over the dumbest shit. It's really sad because a lot of well-meaning people get wrapped up in the chaos as well.

[Ms. Toad]

80. She fell for the right wing narrative, as to trans individuals - as have a number of people on DU

Ana has a right to call herself a woman. **No one** is disputing that.

But through clever wording she makes it seem that people are refusing to allow her to choose what she calls herself.

When we are talking about health care, or hygiene products, generally, the language used needs to include all people whose bodies need that care or use those products. To be inclusive, that term needs to be gender-neutral since there are both men and women who have uteruses, give birth, menstruate.

To respond to general statements about people who give birth, menstruate, have a uterus, etc. as if those statement deprive you of the right to call yourself a woman in transhostile. Period. It is disappointing to see it supported on DU.

[Ms. Toad]

90. No one is telling her she can't identify as a woman. Period.

No one is telling you that you cannot self-identify as a woman. This conversation is not about self-identification, it is about being inclusive when generically addressing services/products/activities which are tied to the anatomy one was born with. Kasparian is deliberately twisting an inclusive general description into a non-existent prohibition on her own self-identification. That is gaslighting, pure and simple.

The point is that trans or non-binary individuals assigned female at birth menstruate, give birth, etc. The label "woman" no longer applies to them. Many of them still menstruate. Many of them still have a uterus. Some of them give birth. Some services and products are tied to the anatomy one is born with (access to abortion, birth control, giving birth, dealing with menstruation, going through menopause, dealing with a high risk for breast cancer). The inclusive approach when discussing things which apply to individuals with a variety of genders is to use a gender-neutral term (people/individuals), which includes trans men and non-binary individuals who still need those care/services/products/.

This particular conversation is just gussied up version of the womym-born-womyn crap I first encountered at the Michigan Women's Music Festival closer to four decades ago than a decade and a half ago, in that it is now addressed to excluding AFAB men and non-binary individuals from care/services/products they still need based on their anatomy. And, as a secondary benefit, it continues to imply that trans women aren't real women because they can't give birth, menstruate, etc.

[yardwork]

130. Agreed. This is the latest right wing manufactured outrage.

It's designed to get people riled up, turned against one another, and feeling suspicious and angry toward Democrats.

It's just another version of "war on Christmas!!!"

[Ms. Toad]

91. Not at all. People who are reframing general gender-neutral statements about people whose anatomy

includes menstruation, having a uterus, etc. into assertions that someone is somehow telling individual women that they can't self-identify as women are gaslighting.

No one is telling any person they can't self-identify as a woman.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

101. Where?

[LostOne4Ever]

82. She is being disingenuous

It is not degrading to be a person with a uterus or birthing person. Some of us would give everything we own to be a person with a uterus capable of giving birth.

It in no way denies any women their womanhood. It in NO WAY prevents a woman from identifying as a woman.

It is Inclusive as all women are people, so it includes them as well. To say otherwise is to just ignore that fact.

It also includes trans men who deserve recognition. Further, by not saying women it does not link the concept of pregnancy to womanhood which is then weaponized against trans women. Trans women are Constantly attacked by Gender Critical/ TERFs claiming they are not real women because being able to get pregnant is inherent to real women. Which not only is invalidating to trans women but to cis women unable to get pregnant or born without a uterus.

Ultimately, this entirely a right wing tactic to try and antagonize women against trans people. Don’t fall for it!!!

[LostOne4Ever]

83. Also this is a great response:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cftsc0dLPV0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[ShazzieB]

103. This is great!

Thanks for this. I love the way this breaks the whole thing down into easily digestible chunks, accompanied by amusing illustrations. Kudos to whoever created this!

[Croney]

98. I see an analogy to Black Lives Matter here.

When a Rethug says to me that ALL lives matter, my response is that white lives have ALWAYS mattered. Recognizing that non-white lives matter is not saying that I, a white person, do not matter.

Calling a person by their preferred word(s) doesn't change me in any way. I identify as a woman, actually as an old white woman, and in the 1970's I fought like hell just to be called "Ms" instead of "Mrs." in the office. I'm not about to tell a person what they should call themselves.

[yardwork]

108. She's way off base. Those terms are used in medical settings.

She's punching down while pretending to be a victim.

I'm a cis woman. Far from bothering me, I'm glad that medical care is available for everybody, including the tiny minority of people who don't fit into neat "man" or "woman" categories. Trans folk have always been with us. It's nothing new. What's new is that some of us are beginning to understand and accept that nature is complicated.

Nobody is going to stop calling Ana a woman. She's having a mean-spirited hissy fit because of inclusive terms being used in medical care. Care being provided to other people is none of her business.

What will she complain about next? What vulnerable minority will she go after next?

[Bucky]

113. Renaming people groups is an exercise in futility. It minimizes their struggles

Last edited Sun Mar 26, 2023, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Rebranding identity groups of humanity is always gonna sound awkward & dumb. It's how you build walls and create unnecessary divisions.

A good analogy is the effort by all my artist friends to start using the term Latinx, but pronounce it "latinex". When I discuss this with my students in the government class I teach, they universally dislike it. You don't try to rebrand somebody else's heritage and sense of belonging, especially people who have to fight against oppression based on their identity. It's dismissive of their struggle to enjoy the full American equality they deserve.

[yardwork]

123. Nobody is trying to rename women.

DUers are falling for a right wing trick. The phrases in question are used in the context of specific types of medical care, to ensure inclusive, equitable care. That's it. The Biden administration is not trying to get people to stop calling themselves women.

This is a typical right wing trick.

[BannonsLiver]

132. What's terrific about this issue is it brings people together.