The Left tries to blame Republicans for many things, many of which backfire constantly. Here is one example… the Handmaid’s Tale. They try to paint the religious right as the villain in that dystopian story, however, the Left loves dystopian terms.
- “chest-feeding” instead of “breast feeding”… we get terms like “uterus havers” and “menstruators” instead of “woman”… we get the term “birthing bodies” instead of “pregnant woman” or “expectant mother”. Even the term “mother” itself is thrown out the door in this “re-orientation” of language. As a result, you have masses of women who are forced to silently accept this new corpus of terminology in which they themselves as women no longer exist. There is no upside for women in losing the words they need to talk about their bodies, their needs and their rights. (REDDIT)
- US President Biden’s $6 trillion federal-budget proposal has attracted flak after it omitted the term pregnant mothers with “birthing people,” sparking condemnation with respect to the gender inclusivity, as well as among the women. The administration’s Maternal Health Guidance in the 2022 fiscal year budget included a public health document that addressed efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.” (REPUBLIC WORLD)
- Women’s March referred to female members of parliament as ‘menstruators’ (DAILY MAIL)
- Australian National University’s latest “gender-inclusive handbook” instructs staff to use only “parent-inclusive language” when discussing labor, delivery and post-partum care, including replacing words like “breast-feeding” with “chest-feeding” and swapping “breast milk” for “chest milk” or “human milk” to avoid offending the…er, anomalously gendered. The guidelines also suggest replacing “mother” and “father” with “gestational” and “nongestational” parent. While the handbook notes that the vast majority of people idetify as “mothers” and fathers” “using these terms alone to describe parenthood excludes those who do not identify with gender-binaries.” (MRCTV)
The West has gone through many eras — the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.
In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.
Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.
No. 1: Men give birth.
Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition — indeed, denial of — sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”
No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.
We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools and by virtually all the elite media.
…In a Nov. 8 tweet, Harvard Medical School’s Postgraduate and Continuing Education proclaimed that “Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth” as it promoted a panel discussion about “Maternal Justice.”
The use of the term “birthing people” to describe women resulted in negative reactions from many commenters.
“During slavery black women were referred to as breeders. This experiment to dehumanize women & to deconstruct us into nothing more than holes & body parts for men to use, started with black women. This is regressive and not progressive. Stop perpetuating this nonsense!”….
….Anyways, this is what happens when you get so woke. NARAL must realize it can’t even claim the feminist angle to cover for their love of baby killing anymore. So much for women’s reproductive rights, it’s now “birthing persons’” reproductive rights.
Of course, for inclusive liberals, this new definition allows for trans men (biological women) to get pregnant and consider themselves “pregnant men.” Actually, it’s even less specific than that. It allows non-binary people with uteruses – still biological women – to feel included without having to suffer the indignity of being referred to as they biologically are. So, yes, genderless humans by definition can give birth, and since this is NARAL, genderless humans get abortions now, too!
Since we are all so busy trying to wrap our heads around this warp speed jump forward in human enlightenment, several conservative commentators stepped in and made it clear for the rest of us just how stupid NARAL’s tweet was.
When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple.
We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu
— NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021
There’s a new addition to the list of words you can no longer say: woman.
Because 0.6 percent of the adult population is transgender, the word must be banished outright for the sake of inclusivity. And it’s not just activist Twitter users or gender studies professors who are taking note. Suddenly, our institutions have scrapped the word “woman” altogether.
The news media is on board: CNN tweeted that “individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancer screening at 25.” The new rule is being embraced by medical practices: gynecology clinic chain Tia advertised their services on TikTok to “uterus-having folks.”
Abortion providers have taken note: Planned Parenthood offers advice to “people who are pregnant.” Our medical literature is also conforming: the September 2021 cover of the Lancet declared that “historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”
Public health officials have hopped on the bandwagon: the CDC’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination refers to “pregnant people.” And it goes all the way to the top of our government: the White House’s 2022 budget referred to mothers as “birthing people.”
The words they’re replacing “woman” with leave a lot to be desired. The list of new lingo goes on and on… menstruators, birthing persons, uterus-owners, vulva-havers, or, worst of all, non-males. What’s more dehumanizing than being reduced to a single aspect of your anatomy?
Menstruators? Uterus-havers? Language matters
…Erasing the words woman and mother is not inclusive
The very words we use to describe ourselves as a sex class are being erased. In media reports, in health campaigns, in human rights organisations, we are seeing the replacement of “woman” or “women” with terms like “menstruator“, “uterus-haver” or “people with a vagina“. Women tell us that they find this dehumanising, not inclusive. Our concern is that it blurs legal issues such as sex discrimination. This can only set women’s equality back. There is no upside for women in losing the words we need to talk about our bodies, our needs and our rights.
Don’t ever call me a “uterus owner” or a “person with eggs”
Anyone else noticed this common trend, mostly on Internet forums, of people calling women “uterus havers” or “person with a uterus”? I’m not lying when I saw someone refer to women as “person with eggs”.
I’m a woman. Call me a woman ffs. Just say woman. If there is a trans man present, then just say trans man.
anyone else uncomfortable with words like bleeders, birthing people, uterus havers?
I am wordier in my language but inclusive too. For example:
“Pregnant women and pregnant persons”
“Women and other persons who menstruate”
“Women and others with a uterus”
I am not comfortable erasing the word “women” from our language, mainly because all throughout history, the patriarchy tried to render us invisible. At the same time, I am fine adding language for inclusivity.
ETA: The phrase “women and other persons who menstruate” clearly implies “women who menstruate and other persons who menstruate”. The same goes for “women and others with a uterus”. Had I meant all women, there would have been a comma. For example , “women, and people who menstruate” implies “all women”, but women and persons who menstruate implies two nouns (women and persons) connected specifically to a verb (menstruate). A subset of women and persons. Not all women and all persons.
(500CatsTypingStuff)