cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/723127
doi for the original Science piece: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh3104
cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/723127
doi for the original Science piece: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh3104
And? It’s accurate and inclusive. What’s the issue?
It’s unnecessarily inclusive. If they want to be inclusive, they can just say “females”.
No, because the word “females”as applied to humans has some pretty gross connotations. And not everyone with a functional uterus is female. Intersex people exist.
Yes, but I’m not using it in that way. I’m just using it as a shorter, yet grammatically-correct, alternative to “biological women”. If someone is offended by me using the word “females” in a non-offensive way, that’s their problem. At this point in time, we need a term which we can use to refer to biological women. Not to sound militantly transodious (“transphobic”), but trans women are not the same as biological women. Even with HRT and full top-bottom surgery, a trans person can’t be totally transformed into their
Years ago, this wasn’t an issue. Biological women were called women and trans women were called trans women. But now that trans people and their allies are pushing for them to be described as their desired gender (i.e. “trans women are women”), we need to be able to verbally differentiate between biological women and trans women, especially in certain contexts.
Yes, they do. But they’re the exception - not the rule. They make up a tiny percentage of the population - roughly 0.02%–0.05%. I’m not saying they’re disgusting freaks or anything like that. I’m just saying that they’re extremely unusual. They’re far from the norm. It’s not like Earth is a 33.33% male, 33.33% female, and 33.33% intersex. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate intersex people either, but I don’t think we should have to switch from saying “women” to saying things like “pregnant people” just to accommodate such a small segment of the population. I know this sounds extremely hateful, but intersexuality is a birth defect. It’s not supposed to happen. Why should we refer to biological women as “people with uteruses” when the only women who don’t have functional uteruses are trans women and persons with birth defects? Besides, don’t infertile women exist? Should we say infertile women aren’t biological women because they’re unable to bear children due to birth defects, radiation, eating disorders, STDs, chemotherapy, et cetera?
The term to refer to people with vulvas is AFAB. You don’t need to go all Ferengi here. And trans women are women. Full stop.
I thought that was just for trans women.
No, they’re not. Trans women are trans women. They’re males who identify as women. No amount of HRT and plastic surgery can change that, not totally. HRT and plastic surgery can make a big difference on the outside, but a post-op trans woman still isn’t a real woman. I know this is a very unpopular sentiment here on a fediverse. But somebody’s gotta say it.