3 ms·

No one is denying exceptions exist. Humans have two arms. Anything else is an exception to the rule, but the rule still applies.

socialismisok 4y ago
Atoms are binary in your model, every atom is hydrogen or helium, or an exception? I believe that we can be inclusive of those exceptions and treat them as unique things that are within the definition, rather than placing them outside the definition. I would rather spend the energy to evolve definitions to include people rather than tell people they are marginalia. It sounds like you disagree.
- rolobio 4y ago
  I don’t understand what atoms have to do with gender. It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not. We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.
  - detaro 4y ago
    > it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense. EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    I think you might be misunderstanding the way language is evolving here. Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women. What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate. So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people". But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women. So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
    - snoozing 4y ago
      If women don’t agree with being a large part of their identity being renamed, then it doesn’t feel inclusive.

socialismisok 4y ago

Atoms are binary in your model, every atom is hydrogen or helium, or an exception? I believe that we can be inclusive of those exceptions and treat them as unique things that are within the definition, rather than placing them outside the definition. I would rather spend the energy to evolve definitions to include people rather than tell people they are marginalia. It sounds like you disagree.

rolobio 4y ago
I don’t understand what atoms have to do with gender. It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not. We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.
- detaro 4y ago
  > it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense. EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I think you might be misunderstanding the way language is evolving here. Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women. What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate. So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people". But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women. So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
  - snoozing 4y ago
    If women don’t agree with being a large part of their identity being renamed, then it doesn’t feel inclusive.