6 ms·
> pregnant people I'm usually not a bigot but that one is dumb
by unification_fan 2y ago
> pregnant people
I'm usually not a bigot but that one is dumb
- nocab 2y ago[dead]
- southernplaces7 2y agoAnd it's not bigoted to point out a completely absurd phrase.
- steego 2y agoLet's find out if you're a bigot or not. I'll throw up Webster's definition for reference. Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The capacity for pregnancy is not confined to individuals with a female (46,XX) chromosomal pattern. The real world is complicated, and intersex people can be born with a (46,XY) karyotype or mixed (46,XX) and (46,XY) karyotypes as a result of chimerism. People with Swyer syndrome (46,XY) develop female reproductive anatomy (a uterus and fallopian tubes) but do not produce eggs. However, pregnancy can be achieved with donor eggs and assisted reproductive technology. So here's the question: Are you devoted to your first opinion, or are you capable of acknowledging that the medical community may have had legitimate reasons, grounded in actual biology, to choose a more inclusive word?
- Vuska 2y agoSex is defined by which gametes are produced, not chromosomes.
- me-vs-cat 2y agoWhat do you expect for people born without the capability to produce gametes?
- defrost 2y agoWhat of the people that are born who don't produce gametes? ( For example, no gametes are produced in 85% of individuals with streak gonads ) The whole human sex | gender thing seems superficially clearcut but the real world edge cases are messy AF. The aspect I personally find confusing is that the exceptions are relatively rare .. human births are straighforward enough for 98% of births, and of the 2% that pose a challenge the really curvy edge cases are rare (but real). Why then do some people seeming lose their collective minds over real but rare occurrences and attempt to hammer every triangle into either a round or a square hole? I have a purely empirical observational view of the world at large, forced a priori prescriptiveness at odds with the world seems more than a little flat earthy.
- Vuska 2y agoA less succinct way of phrasing it would be something like: which gametes are produced, were produced, or should have been produced. There are messy edge cases. Not all people have 8 fingers and two thumbs, but we don't say digit count is on a spectrum because some people are born with more or less, or that some people have had digits amputated. The vast, vast majority of people are not messy edge cases. And some of them find language like "pregnant people" or "people with protates" awkward and vaguely dehumanising as opposed to the more understandable and specific terms: "women" and "men".
- asacrowflies 2y ago> A less succinct way of phrasing it would be something like: which gametes are produced, were produced, or should have been produced. So how can we determine what "should" be from a scientific basis if all study of these outliers is policed and censored like this? This seems to be missing the point that would and should are objective vs whatever YOU and yours decided... Almost universally decided by religious or cultural dogma ... And not biology or science
- Vuska 2y agoWe've been able to observe that there are two sexes since time immemorial based on secondary sex characteristics. There is a very strong correlation between these characteristics and gametes produced. This isn't what I or anyone else has decided nor is it based on religion or culture.
- account42 2y agoSome people being born with additional/missing digits or limbs doesn't mean we should stop saying that humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each. At the end this is all performative - no one was ever actually harmed by women being called women. And if anything those who insist of forcing this newspeak onto others by attacking anyone that doesn't go along also fit your definition of being "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".
- defrost 2y ago> doesn't mean we should stop saying that humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each. In the context of a loose generalisation that's pefectly fine. However in the context of delivering public services to insist that all humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each with no exceptions is just wrong.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- footy 2y agoit's only dumb if you don't think women are people
- ciiiicii 2y ago[flagged]
- novemp 2y agoEven if you don't want to acknowledge trans men existing... women are still people. Pregnant women are pregnant people.
- ciiiicii 2y ago[flagged]
- dehugger 2y ago[flagged]
- ciiiicii 2y ago[flagged]
- novemp 2y agoYes, because it would be unforgivably woke to acknowledge women as people.
- ciiiicii 2y agoNo you've missed the point, which is that "people" includes both women and men. Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system. The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.