Cursed Political Content
- Thread starter TexRex
- 6,655 comments
- 325,323 views
- 23,902
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Having suicidal individuals doesn't necessarily equate to those individuals ever actually going through with the act of suicide. But if their actions do result in the death of the woman, then that act does actually produce unhappiness in society. The future happiness of those three suicidal individuals doesn't hang on whether they rape that particular woman or not. It may well be that they find happiness in some other form.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,056
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Kinda ironic for him to claim to be scared for "the future of education", considering he's one of the guys who sent a bunch of fake articles to academic journals in an bad-faith attempt to discredit them.
Sorry about all the Nick tweets. If enough people complain, I'll spin them off into an "Idiocy Of Adams" thread.
Sorry about all the Nick tweets. If enough people complain, I'll spin them off into an "Idiocy Of Adams" thread.
Last edited:
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
- 23,902
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I would guess that if the child is under a certain age, the sex of the victim is probably not reported. Also. It doesn't appear to be just a catholic church issue.
- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
In which peabrained progressive pundit carries water for connie vermin with distinctly conservative bitchfit over medically descriptive language favored by individuals who identify as something other than a woman while possessing biological features and functions characteristic of women.
Why? Apparently because lawmakers failed to protect reproductive freedom. It's idiotic.
If you identify as a woman while the language technically describes you, the language isn't for you. It's really that simple. The language is for others and the bitchfit is without rational foundation. Also those who favor this language for themselves are no less deprived of reproductive freedom by connie vermin.
Why? Apparently because lawmakers failed to protect reproductive freedom. It's idiotic.
If you identify as a woman while the language technically describes you, the language isn't for you. It's really that simple. The language is for others and the bitchfit is without rational foundation. Also those who favor this language for themselves are no less deprived of reproductive freedom by connie vermin.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
In which peabrained progressive pundit carries water for connie vermin with distinctly conservative bitchfit over medically descriptive language favored by individuals who identify as something other than a woman while possessing biological features and functions characteristic of women.
Why? Apparently because lawmakers failed to protect reproductive freedom. It's idiotic.
If you identify as a woman while the language technically describes you, the language isn't for you. It's really that simple. The language is for others and the bitchfit is without rational foundation. Also those who favor this language for themselves are no less deprived of reproductive freedom by connie vermin.
This one I get. It's not cool to call anyone a "birthing person", especially when women are now forced to give birth.
- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Serious? I'm asking sincerely because it seems it can be either serious or sarcastic. I'll respond as though you're being serious even as I recognize it may be sarcasm.
Against that individual's wishes? I'm absolutely with you.
If that individual prefers it in contexts where that function is relevant, as an alternative to the conventional "woman" which they disapprove? Why? Seems pretty harmless.
I see this as distinct from "breeder" or "bleeder" (the latter referring to menstruation) used as pejoratives.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
First, I think it's quite pejorative to refer to women as birthers anyway, especially given their historical treatment. But especially in light of recent events where they are being denied the option to refuse. I find it offensive on behalf of women I know, and I'm a step removed from the problem. I'd expect that they, who are closer to it, would be more insulted rather than less. So if I'm talking to someone who prefers to refer to biologically born women as "birthers" or "birthing persons", I think it's fair to let them know that I find that rather abhorrent, and that I think many others would as well.
Second, it's a rather naïve distinction which is likely to leave out a lot of women, especially all women who are post-menopaused, but also precisely a group of women who would likely feel particularly insulted at the notion given their inability or refusal (for any of a number of reasons) to actually give birth to a child.
On the whole, I think it's awful, and degrading.
Last edited:
- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's not for women. It's for individuals for whom "woman" doesn't personally apply but by whom certain features or functions are possessed, used at the discretion of the individual being addressed, and it may be useful in certain contexts other than everyday social interactions like--but certainly not limited to--discussing occupational leave during pregnancy.
Separate from gender nonconformity, use of such terms also acknowledges that not all women (which is to say those who are cisgender) possess reproductive features or functions, for whatever reason, and it does so without denigrating them. [Note that the "what is a woman" bitchfit had connies failing to recognize these individuals in attempting to explain what a woman is. It was aggressively stupid.]
I don't get the sense that you take exception to one who may be recognized as having external characteristics of a woman preferring a personal reference other than "woman"...and I never have...so what's the problem with recognizing that personal preference consistently?
I'm a man. I have testicles. The testicles I have are the ones with which I was born. Admittedly my testicles no longer supply sperm to my urethra subsequent to vasectomy, but that's beside the point. Technically I am a "person with testicles" and I understand how one might be offended by reduction to that singular (you know what I mean) feature. I also recognize that others who have testicles may prefer personal reference other than "man" and so, when discussing something like testicular cancer, men and "persons with testicles" may be addressed.
It's not a substitute term but a supplemental one. I have never seen it used as a standalone term outside of discussion specifically about gender nonconformity and I would suggest that such use outside of that context, referring to women broadly, is indelicate (if unintentional) at best and denigrating at worst.
Is the supplemental term reasonably offensive to women (or men in applicable contexts)? If so, why? If anyone can make it make sense, I have the utmost confidence that you can. I say this sincerely and with considerable respect.
I also don't feel the need to walk on eggshells and I don't expect anyone else to, but making an effort to refer to an individual as one prefers is the most basic of considerations and willfully disregarding that preference is asinine.
I'm tired so don't hesitate to point out if something doesn't make sense as I've written it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
Perhaps I do not understand. Let's take "birthing person" for example. Are we to refer to trans men as "birthing persons"? Or are we referring to cis women as "birthing persons" to differentiate them from trans women?
Ana's complaint is about being referred to as a "birthing person". Ana has a wikipedia page that doesn't mention being trans, so I'm left to assume that she is a "cis woman" who doesn't want to be referred to as a "birthing person". I gave a number of reasons why that makes sense, and you seemed to agree. What you wrote above suggests that Ana's complaint, while being appropriate, is aimed at nothing - because the term is meant to be used for trans men (or I suppose androgenous or non-binary people).
I don't think that a pregnant trans man is necessarily being offensive if they wish to be referred to as "birthing person" instead of "man", or "woman" for that matter. It is technically accurate and contextually relevant. It does highlight the deep hypocrisy surrounding the insistence on gender identity, because giving birth is decidedly not "being male", whatever "male" is supposed to mean. I'm definitely curious why being referred to as "man" isn't good enough for discussing pregnancy leave, as I think the answer to that is necessarily quite revealing.
If the term is being applied to "cis women" against their preference so that it can be applied uniformly somehow, or if we pretend that this is necessarily acceptable to all people technically capable of giving birth, or we try to use it to distinguish between "cis women" and trans women, then I think these terms are awful. I don't carry the automatic assumption that this hasn't happened, or even that it hasn't happened to Ana.
In short, I think I'm in violent agreement with you. If it's the person's preference, and it is contextually relevant, I'm fine. If it's the person's preference and it's not contextually relevant, I'm suspecting ulterior motives. If it's not the person's preference, I find it degrading. I don't assume that last one is non-existent.
Last edited:
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
Say Ana walks into an NHS antenatal class with a midwife that addresses the group as "birthing people".
She takes exception as she has stated:
"Please don't ever refer to me as a birthing person".
Would she be in the wrong to take exception to this inclusive wording for the whole group?
EDITED: Changed antenatal clinic to antenatal class
She takes exception as she has stated:
"Please don't ever refer to me as a birthing person".
Would she be in the wrong to take exception to this inclusive wording for the whole group?
EDITED: Changed antenatal clinic to antenatal class
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
