7 ms·

Even 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 ago
    Yes, because it would be unforgivably woke to acknowledge women as people.
    • ciiiicii 2y ago
      No 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.
      • novemp 2y ago
        My brother is a man who has been pregnant. His female reproductive system does not make him a woman. You are simply incorrect.
        • ciiiicii 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • novemp 2y ago
            Wow, you know my family better than I do! Are you psychic?
            • ciiiicii 2y ago
              You described a sibling with a female reproductive system, who has been pregnant. This means that your sibling must be a woman. That you refer to her as your brother rather than your sister implies that she calls herself a man, and that because she calls herself a man you have chosen to do the same. You are of course free to immerse yourself in the fiction that she is a man, and make self-contradictory statements like "my brother is a man who has been pregnant." But it would be odd to expect others to agree with this, seeing as it is not based in reality.
              • novemp 2y ago
                > This means that your sibling must be a woman. It doesn't. As you've been told already, you're wrong about this. > But it would be odd to expect others to agree with this, seeing as it is not based in reality. Fortunately for my brother and the countless other trans people in this world, scientific consensus is on their side. You and those in power right now might disagree, but your kind has been defeated before and will be defeated again.
                • ciiiicii 2y ago
                  Getting back to the point of the thread, it's fine if you want to hold the personal belief that your sister is your brother. No-one is stopping you from that, nor should they. You could believe she's a cat and gave birth to a litter of kittens if you like. That is your freedom of belief. However, the CDC should have its focus in reality, not fiction. If a woman says she's a man, she does not somehow transform into a man. This is a nonsensical belief. It's a bit like Catholics believing that bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Fine for them to hold that fictional belief if they want to, but it would look ridiculous if the CDC published this within their hematology resources as if it's a fact. To state that men can be pregnant is incorrect, and has no scientific consensus. The male reproductive system is incapable of pregnancy. You can try to "defeat" this but it's a losing battle, as it is plainly false.
  • consteval 2y ago
    Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals. The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons. Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.
    • ciiiicii 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • consteval 2y ago
        According to you. Not according to the trans-men who have undergone c-sections. Whether that is happening or not is not debatable - there are people who identify as trans-men who have gotten c-sections. Just as the sky is blue. The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them. One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes. We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one. Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed. Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.
        • ciiiicii 2y ago
          Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words. Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact. Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.