| ▲ | kg a day ago |
| His examples don't hold up. Latinx is attempting to provide an umbrella term for latino and latina, it's not renaming one of the two. "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. (You can express your own feelings about the reality that this exists, but it does exist regardless of how you feel about it). On the other hand Lake Ontario is a real lake that already had a name and now someone is trying to give it a new one. |
|
| ▲ | jackp96 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Largely agree with you, but Democrats should drop "birthing persons" ASAP (if they haven't already) IMO. I'm all for inclusivity, but there's a certain point/form of language policing where you're asking folks to perform a lot of mental labor to adjust their language to reflect an extremely rare edge case. Like why? It's like if we insisted that people avoid the phrase "look at this" in general communication lest you offend/exclude a blind person who might be listening. |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Democrats should drop "birthing persons" I've never heard 1 democrat politician say "birthing person". This was never something "democrats" said and always something that rightwing media says that Democrats say. There's nothing to drop or defend as this is completely a distraction from real issues. Basically, rightwing media LOVES picking fringe individuals pushing a position and pretending like every democrat actually believes the same. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also, there's no such thing as being able to give birth and not being female. Many argue that "woman" refers to an internal sense of gender and not the physical reality of one's body, but even in that framework the term "female" refers to the nature of the body. And if you can give birth, you are female, because that is the configuration your body is in. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | badc0ffee 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary"). |
| |
| ▲ | optionalsquid 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That was conclusively disproven by Schwarzenegger et al., 1994. | | |
| ▲ | nosioptar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Our education system has failed younger generations. Everyone my age watched the documentary about Schwarzenegger's pregnancy. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/ | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270 | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | yeah I knew that already - I have a son and it was mentioned as a fun fact along the way |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kg 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you want to provide appropriate care to people with wombs you don't want to filter based on what their drivers' license or birth certificate say, because those can not only defy your expectations, but they can also be wrong due to clerical errors or other factors. I can't even humor your assumption that there are only two sexes and one birthing sex, because intersexed people exist, as do people with unusual chromosomes. Some of them have wombs and can give birth. Language like "birthing persons", while awkward, admits the existence of those people into a larger group without requiring even more awkward phrasing akin to "women, and men with wombs, and intersexed people with wombs". | | |
| ▲ | what 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Intersex and chromosomal disorders don’t change the sexual binary. They aren’t some weird other sex. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nostrademons 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Latinx is terrible, though, because it is something no native Spanish speaker would ever say. It's an example of the exact same sort of cultural imperialism that most of the people who like to say latinx rail against. The term that Hispanic queer and non-binary communities use is latine, which is pronounceable, follows normal Spanish grammatical rules, actually arose from the communities being discussed, and pluralizes easily to "les latines". |
| |
| ▲ | plorkyeran 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's almost like it's not a Spanish word. It was coined by native English speakers to describe themselves. It also happens to be a terrible English word, but the fact that it doesn't work in a different language's grammar isn't why it's a bad English word. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | what 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. There is no person that can give birth and is not female. |
|
| ▲ | sphinxterai 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
