6 ms·
> Some people who give birth aren't women. Those people are also cool, whether they are men, non binary, agender, or whatever else. > Can we not just let peopl
by slibhb 4y ago
> Some people who give birth aren't women. Those people are also cool, whether they are men, non binary, agender, or whatever else.
> Can we not just let people be who they are and recognize gender minorities do exist? Acknowledging the existence of trans men doesn't reduce the incredible experiences of any woman who gives birth (or doesn't!)
I understand both sides of this argument, I've thought about it a lot, and I've come to a different conclusion than you. Being a man or a woman is a brute fact. It has nothing to do with identity. Only women give birth.
What bothers me is not our disagreement but that my view has been labeled "hateful" or "problematic".
- duped 4y agoBecause you're conflating biological sex and gender. That has led to ignorance of the latter and a lot of hate, which is why people will argue with you over it.
- slibhb 4y agoI'm not conflating anything. I'm asserting that being a man or a woman is a question of biological sex not a question of gender. You're allowed to disagree but you've already asserted that my view is hateful and ignorant which was my original complaint.
- socialismisok 4y agoI believe your view is not keeping up with the times. I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but you choose not to use that language, then you are just expressing your opinion. I think it's fair for folks to probe why you choose the language you do, and even to suggest that the reasons you supply might be considered ignorant. We only improve if we all try to understand the reasoning behind each other more.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y agoThere's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.
- socialismisok 4y agoI didn't suggest that new was correct, I suggested new exists and we should acknowledge it. I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for. My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.
- crackercrews 4y agoThis completely misses the point. No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage. They are saying the usage is imprecise. It commandeers an existing word. Using that word in the conventional way is portrayed as archaic or bigoted. This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.
- socialismisok 4y agoI disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect. I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use. And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally. But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.
- crackercrews 4y ago
- dahdum 4y agoYou're arguing definitions, but ultimately language is use, and use is always changing. You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities or those with disabilities over time. How you approach it is up to you, but how people perceive you is up to them.
- slibhb 4y agoIt's not quite as simple as arguing definitions. My argument is that the categories "man" and "woman" really exist, independent of language, and that they don't have anything to do with identity. Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture. As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.
- red_trumpet 4y ago> and that they don't have anything to do with identity. That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.
- HyperSane 4y ago
- dahdum 4y ago> Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can. Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y agoI would posit that OP isn't conflating biological sex and gender, but rather the trend nowadays is to reuse words that have had static meanings for centuries, and then get unreasonably upset at folks who don't immediately agree with the new definitions.
- socialismisok 4y agoI would say I strongly believe in the new definitions, have I been unreasonably upset in my responses? I think I've articulated my position and held it firmly, but at no point did I feel upset about people who disagreed. I don't believe I called anyone a bigot or was any more rigid in my language than folks who hold a more traditional meaning of the word in their minds.
- snoozing 4y agoI think you’ve communicated your beliefs and experiences clearly and respectfully. You ask questions rather than name call and finger point. While I personally struggle with these new definitions and their potential cost to certain groups (someone pregnant like the post’s author), I feel like I can actually discuss and learn something new, and feel heard myself. We need more activists like you.
- socialismisok 4y agoI suspect that what happens is that folks like me tend to get very tired. I'm happy to have good faith discussions all day, but in places like HN it can be difficult to maintain a conversation with all the anger directed at me. Inevitably, patience wears thin and comments get more bitter, and the polarization continues. I'm sure the reverse happens for folks who disagree with me. They get tired of everyone just assuming they are a bigot, and start just assuming that's what's coming from the other side. I wish there were more forums to have small, moderated chats where anyone who makes sweeping generalizations about their opponents ("you lefties always..." "All your right wingers...") were clipped out.
- 4y ago
- civilized 4y agoPersonally I think you can believe whatever you want, it's just that if you call people something they don't want to be called, they could have a problem with you. And if you're in an organization where the leaders want everyone to get along (most orgs) it shouldn't be surprising if they see you as the cause of the disharmony.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
- slibhb 4y agoI don't believe changing how we talk will help trans people suffer less. But even if it did, I think it's a bad idea to constantly modulate our use of language based on the small probability of offending a small part of the population. And I believe that if you take that view to its end, you'll arrive at a tortured, humorless, jargon-filled newspeak.
- red_trumpet 4y ago> I don't believe changing how we talk will help trans people suffer less. Why don't you believe trans people when they ask you to do this? Apparently you think that you know better than trans people themselves, what will make them suffer. Just for the record (because you asked above): This is exactly what I consider problematic.
- slibhb 4y agoNo trans person has ever asked me to change how I speak. It seems unlikely that trans people as a group would feel better if everyone changed how they speak. I don't believe gender dysphoria works that way.
- concordDance 4y agoI very much disagree but think this is an opinion worthy of discussion, so have upvoted to counter the downvotes.
- ummonk 4y agoSome white people feel distressed from being white, but I’m not going to pretend they’re a different race to spare their feelings.
- misnome 4y ago> Only women give birth Right, so, by your definition, most women over 50, and women incapable of having a child, are actually men? Or just perhaps there is a more complicated nuance here…
- slibhb 4y agoSaying "only women give birth" is not the same as saying "if you can't give birth you aren't a woman".
- rofrol 4y agoonly woman means no men give birth. it does not imply there are no woman who can't give birth.
- 8note 4y agoWhich on the face of it is not true -- trans men can give birth, and aren't women The sense I get from the article is definitely that she thinks people who can't give birth are unworthy of the title "woman" and that follows with the comments about menstruation at the bottom. Aka, if somebody hasn't bled through their shorts in gym class, they are not a woman
- perryizgr8 4y ago> Which on the face of it is not true -- trans men can give birth, and aren't women I think you're missing the point.
- Latty 4y agoHave you come to the same conclusion for parenthood? Are adopted children not real, and we must not refer to their adoptive parents as "parents"? You understand why that is hateful, right? Biology may be a fact, but we can, and do, choose to value the link between parent and child socially as the most important part, not the biological link. We can do the same with gender, referencing identity over biology in the general case. Why have you come to the opposite conclusion?
- slibhb 4y agoBecause, unlike with parenting, I think the biological part is the most important part when it comes to "man"/"woman".
- Latty 4y agoWhy? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?
- nicoburns 4y agoFor me the difference is that the parental relationship is a wonderful thing. Whereas gender norms (which as far as I can see is all you are left with once you remove biology from gender) are pretty problematic and harmful in their own right.
- Latty 4y agoGender expression (the norms you talk of) is distinct from both gender identity and biological sex, and identity doesn't prescribe them. The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that, but until you succeed, don't dictate to trans people that live in a society with those words that they (and they alone) can't use the ones they identify with.
- 4y ago
- JBits 4y agoI wouldn't say your view is "hateful" or "problematic" but trans men can give birth, and if they are ignored then their quality of care will be impaired. It's also important to note that it's necessary to be flexible about definitions or ackowledge that the words have different consequences in different circumstances.
- HyperSane 4y ago
- HyperSane 4y agoWe have basically made opinions on membership in ontological groups to be a fraught moral issue.