5 ms·

So it's not confusing, you're actually just opposed to it on a political basis. The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give

So it's not confusing, you're actually just opposed to it on a political basis. The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth. It's better for their mental health if we use gender affirming language. This is supported by research and the health services of many countries support it. Dictionaries change every year. I think it's better to consider the health and happiness of the people around you than to be slavish to dictionary definitions. Apologies for making this political point on Hacker News, I know it's discouraged. Just felt the need to call out the assertion that the language used was "confusing" as I know we're all smart enough here to understand simple words.

fractallyte 3y ago
In mammals, only the biological female has a womb. That's not "political", it's reality. It sounds like you have an axe to grind...
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  In humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children. > It sounds like you have an axe to grind... Could you explain what you mean by this?
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    > gender affirming language Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)? If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans; since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I'm not totally sure what you're asking me. Pregnant person covers everyone who is a person and pregnant. That can be a cis woman, a trans man or a lesbian woman with a non-pregnant co-mother as a partner.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        Doesn't "mother" work just fine to cover these cases as well? It just sounds like an unnecessary awkward neologism.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Too late to edit, but it's also not useful when we're specifically talking about pregnant people. If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs, for example, then it's inaccurate as they could have a same sex partner who will also be a mother but who is not going through the process of carrying a child.
        The_Colonel 3y ago
        > No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father. Why? > If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs... Yes, but a) you rarely need such differentiation. b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > Why? Because they're fathers, not mothers. > a) you rarely need such differentiation How common does it need to be before precise language becomes preferable? Around one in a 100 couples with children are same sex couples, at least in the US. Acceptance rates of homosexuay vary of course and laws have been lagging behind, so we can expect this number to raise as acceptance grows. Inclusive language is part of that acceptance. You also have many families with adoptive mothers who didn't give birth to their children. > b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context And I'm pretty sure even children can understand the term pregnant person. I'm surprised that so many people here are confused by it
  - lllkml 3y ago
    And here's how it was socially constructed - Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male). Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex. Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them. Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity". Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison. Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I'm not sure these stages apply to any known theory in contemporary gender studies.
      - lllkml 3y ago
        It's roughly how this ideological viewpoint has developed, and how it's affected language and policy, in the past few decades.
    - Athari 3y ago
      This sounds like a valid interpretation which doesn't outright ignore valid points made the progressives, however, by calling gender stereotypes sexist, you sound more like a gender abolitionist believing that the distinction between male and female in behavior is completely arbitrary. This IS theoretically a valid solution to the problem, however it requires a massive change in the society as it doesn't reflect how real humans behave here and now anywhere on the planet. The way I see it, the current solution proposed by the progressives, with treating gender stereotypes as something substantial, is a tiny bit more practical in terms of healthy coexistence (leaving contested topics like sports aside). As to whether it'll be a temporary bandaid solution and the humanity will choose gender abolitionism, I guess we'll see in 500 years.
  - fractallyte 3y ago
    You're on the attack over some commenters who affirm the reality of "female" vs "male". Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I didn't think I was "on the attack." Could you point out where you were reading an attack in my comments? I asked why "pregnant person" was a confusing term and defended it on the basis of inclusivity. Social constructs are indeed not based on immutable truths, they reflect our beliefs and feelings. It seems reasonable to me to consider the beliefs and feelings of others when perpetuating social norms. Mother is an ambiguous term when we're talking about child bearers. Not everyone who bears a child is a mother and not every mother bears children.
Chris2048 3y ago
> it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth Do you consider trans-men to be male or female?: female /ˈfiːmeɪl/ adjective Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  It depends on the person. In the general case I consider them men with female reproductive organs. I've already said I'm not interested in the dictionary. That's what the word female means in the simple definition, yes, but reality is more complicated. Some women are born without ovaries, or they later have them removed. What sex would you assign to them?
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    > I consider them men with female reproductive organs. I'm not asking about other labels (man, woman, mother etc). I'm asking if a trans-man can correctly be described as "female". Saying they have "female reproductive organs" i.e. those of a female, implies they are not female, yet the definition of a female is basically "has (female) reproductive organs", so it feels like redundant semantics / wordplay. It's like being asked "is this a red bucket" and saying "No, its a bucket thats colour is red". If you aren't being deliberately obtuse then there some conflicting root of understanding you aren't just stating outright. > I'm not interested in the dictionary.. reality is more complicated word are convention of meaning. other than researching common usage, that's all they are. There is no a priori "true meaning" of a word beyond their definition, whether found in a dictionary, or elsewhere. Does rejecting the "dictionary" mean you disagree with the definition I supplied; that you have your own alternative definition; or you don't care much about what word means (but do, nonetheless, care how it's used)? > Some women are born without ovaries Some women have ovaries removed, others don't yet never become pregnant. Conventionally they are still referred to as female. The word "can" in the definition implies "capability", which allows a certain level of ambiguity in definition. They belong to a biologically class capable of, and distinguished by, reproduction. Perhaps there is a grey-area in how this definition is applied, but that aside: how does that affect a conversation of whether "pregnant people" are female? We bypass the issue of "who doesn't meet the condition(s)" entirely by presenting a group that absolutely meet the condition(s), without ambiguity. > What sex would you assign to them? This begs the question that all individuals have a unambiguous sex.
f6v 3y ago
I don’t think it’s political at all. It’s just that in my field trans people would very likely be outside of the scope of most studies. Genomics is still expensive and including someone on HRT is going to create outliers regardless whether you assign them to male or female group. It’s not terrific to exclude them, but that’s the realities of life. So, when I’m at a conference and someone gives a talk on how live birth leads to microbiota transfer from mother to child, it’s clear who we talk about when we say “mother”. I’m not sure there’s a case for fighting for someone’s mental health here.

fractallyte 3y ago

In mammals, only the biological female has a womb. That's not "political", it's reality. It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

AlecSchueler 3y ago
In humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children. > It sounds like you have an axe to grind... Could you explain what you mean by this?
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > gender affirming language Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)? If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans; since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I'm not totally sure what you're asking me. Pregnant person covers everyone who is a person and pregnant. That can be a cis woman, a trans man or a lesbian woman with a non-pregnant co-mother as a partner.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      Doesn't "mother" work just fine to cover these cases as well? It just sounds like an unnecessary awkward neologism.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Too late to edit, but it's also not useful when we're specifically talking about pregnant people. If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs, for example, then it's inaccurate as they could have a same sex partner who will also be a mother but who is not going through the process of carrying a child.
        The_Colonel 3y ago
        > No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father. Why? > If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs... Yes, but a) you rarely need such differentiation. b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > Why? Because they're fathers, not mothers. > a) you rarely need such differentiation How common does it need to be before precise language becomes preferable? Around one in a 100 couples with children are same sex couples, at least in the US. Acceptance rates of homosexuay vary of course and laws have been lagging behind, so we can expect this number to raise as acceptance grows. Inclusive language is part of that acceptance. You also have many families with adoptive mothers who didn't give birth to their children. > b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context And I'm pretty sure even children can understand the term pregnant person. I'm surprised that so many people here are confused by it
- lllkml 3y ago
  And here's how it was socially constructed - Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male). Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex. Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them. Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity". Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison. Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I'm not sure these stages apply to any known theory in contemporary gender studies.
    - lllkml 3y ago
      It's roughly how this ideological viewpoint has developed, and how it's affected language and policy, in the past few decades.
  - Athari 3y ago
    This sounds like a valid interpretation which doesn't outright ignore valid points made the progressives, however, by calling gender stereotypes sexist, you sound more like a gender abolitionist believing that the distinction between male and female in behavior is completely arbitrary. This IS theoretically a valid solution to the problem, however it requires a massive change in the society as it doesn't reflect how real humans behave here and now anywhere on the planet. The way I see it, the current solution proposed by the progressives, with treating gender stereotypes as something substantial, is a tiny bit more practical in terms of healthy coexistence (leaving contested topics like sports aside). As to whether it'll be a temporary bandaid solution and the humanity will choose gender abolitionism, I guess we'll see in 500 years.
- fractallyte 3y ago
  You're on the attack over some commenters who affirm the reality of "female" vs "male". Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I didn't think I was "on the attack." Could you point out where you were reading an attack in my comments? I asked why "pregnant person" was a confusing term and defended it on the basis of inclusivity. Social constructs are indeed not based on immutable truths, they reflect our beliefs and feelings. It seems reasonable to me to consider the beliefs and feelings of others when perpetuating social norms. Mother is an ambiguous term when we're talking about child bearers. Not everyone who bears a child is a mother and not every mother bears children.

Chris2048 3y ago

> it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth Do you consider trans-men to be male or female?: female /ˈfiːmeɪl/ adjective Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
It depends on the person. In the general case I consider them men with female reproductive organs. I've already said I'm not interested in the dictionary. That's what the word female means in the simple definition, yes, but reality is more complicated. Some women are born without ovaries, or they later have them removed. What sex would you assign to them?
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > I consider them men with female reproductive organs. I'm not asking about other labels (man, woman, mother etc). I'm asking if a trans-man can correctly be described as "female". Saying they have "female reproductive organs" i.e. those of a female, implies they are not female, yet the definition of a female is basically "has (female) reproductive organs", so it feels like redundant semantics / wordplay. It's like being asked "is this a red bucket" and saying "No, its a bucket thats colour is red". If you aren't being deliberately obtuse then there some conflicting root of understanding you aren't just stating outright. > I'm not interested in the dictionary.. reality is more complicated word are convention of meaning. other than researching common usage, that's all they are. There is no a priori "true meaning" of a word beyond their definition, whether found in a dictionary, or elsewhere. Does rejecting the "dictionary" mean you disagree with the definition I supplied; that you have your own alternative definition; or you don't care much about what word means (but do, nonetheless, care how it's used)? > Some women are born without ovaries Some women have ovaries removed, others don't yet never become pregnant. Conventionally they are still referred to as female. The word "can" in the definition implies "capability", which allows a certain level of ambiguity in definition. They belong to a biologically class capable of, and distinguished by, reproduction. Perhaps there is a grey-area in how this definition is applied, but that aside: how does that affect a conversation of whether "pregnant people" are female? We bypass the issue of "who doesn't meet the condition(s)" entirely by presenting a group that absolutely meet the condition(s), without ambiguity. > What sex would you assign to them? This begs the question that all individuals have a unambiguous sex.

f6v 3y ago

I don’t think it’s political at all. It’s just that in my field trans people would very likely be outside of the scope of most studies. Genomics is still expensive and including someone on HRT is going to create outliers regardless whether you assign them to male or female group. It’s not terrific to exclude them, but that’s the realities of life. So, when I’m at a conference and someone gives a talk on how live birth leads to microbiota transfer from mother to child, it’s clear who we talk about when we say “mother”. I’m not sure there’s a case for fighting for someone’s mental health here.