Originally Posted by BBXX (Post 11661699)

While I see trans men as men and trans women as women in societal terms and will defend their rights to use the spaces for the gender they identify as, I think we should take into consideration that it's somewhat disingenuous to say things like "men can get pregnant" when it's the female part of a trans man (the biological aspect) that is allowing them to do that.

I personally don't see why "pregnant women" needs to be changed to "pregnant people". Yes, trans men can get pregnant, but it's so rare that I don't think we need to undo what many millions of biological women have to go through by making it gender neutral.

I personally think that biological women go through a lot of biological strain that men don't have to deal with and by saying things like "men can get pregnant" and "men can have periods" and even "pregnant people" with the insinuation that could be a man, it's undermining that completely.

Away from that, I don't understand WHY a trans man would want to be do something that that is so intrinsic to the biological cycle of biological women and I would imagine most trans men would absolutely despise the idea, which makes this certain gender neutral language a bit pointless.

I also think it's counter productive - as mentioned, most trans men would HATE to get pregnant or menstruate or go through menopause, it would be extremely triggering for them, and so by insinuating they are able to, is highlighting their biological sex which they are trying desperately to disassociate from.

There is a place for gender neutral language for the sake of inclusivity, but I don't believe this is it and I think it does nobody any good.

Having said all that, I don't see the need to take glee from changing it as some kind of gotcha. It feels cheap.

That's just my personal belief on this.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11661713)

I'd also be interested to know if any real number of trans men are even bothered by the term "pregnant women" anyway or is this whole thing (more likely imo) being pushed by activists who aren't even trans

Originally Posted by BBXX (Post 11661729)

I don't want to speak on behalf of trans people, but I honestly think it's a case of appreciating normalising gender neutral language rather than being bothered by the term "pregnant women".

As a gay man, I do understand how normalising gender neutral language can be super helpful - for instance if I am in a conversation with a client and I don't particularly feel safe outing myself, I will always refer to my husband as "my partner" instead of husband. I think this often potentially outs me anyway because married people tend not to say partner unless they are gay, but it is more common than it was, which for me can help in me keeping closeted if I feel it is appropriate.

So I understand that normalising GN language to draw less attention to the use of it, but personally in this instance, I just don't think it's appropriate or useful for the benefit for biological women or actually trans men.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11661761)

I would imagine the percentage of transmen who would want to get pregnant is vanishingly small

Originally Posted by BBXX (Post 11661729)

I don't want to speak on behalf of trans people, but I honestly think it's a case of appreciating normalising gender neutral language rather than being bothered by the term "pregnant women".

As a gay man, I do understand how normalising gender neutral language can be super helpful - for instance if I am in a conversation with a client and I don't particularly feel safe outing myself, I will always refer to my husband as "my partner" instead of husband. I think this often potentially outs me anyway because married people tend not to say partner unless they are gay, but it is more common than it was, which for me can help in me keeping closeted if I feel it is appropriate.

So I understand that normalising GN language to draw less attention to the use of it, but personally in this instance, I just don't think it's appropriate or useful for the benefit for biological women or actually trans men.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 11661768)

….its sad that in some schools…(…my primary school…)…that ‘partner’ wouldn’t be used if being introduced to the children…it would be ‘friend’…whereas any heterosexual member of staff can refer to their partner as husband/wife…

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11661769)

Still? That seems outrageous to me in a country where gay marriage is legal

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11661769)

Still? That seems outrageous to me in a country where gay marriage is legal

Originally Posted by BBXX (Post 11661780)

It's because some people equate same-sex relationships with sex, not love, in the way they think of straight relationships, and therefore think it's an inappropriate topic for children to know about.

Gross, but unfortunately true.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11661781)

It's not the children thinking like that though that's for sure, certainly not at primary school age

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 11661773)

…yes, still in many primary schools even though some children will have same sex parents themselves…

Originally Posted by BBXX (Post 11661783)

No, absolutely, but adults have a habit of looking at the world through adult eyes and forget children don't see the world like that and just accept things at face value.

My niece and nephew have never ever questioned why I have a husband. To them it just is, as that's how it's always been. It doesn't need an explanation, whereas I've seen many a time adults say kids shouldn't learn about same-sex relationships until they're older to "understand". They are often projecting their own lack of understanding onto children.

Originally Posted by Liam- (Post 11661924)

You should know by now Slim that only certain types of misogyny are worthy of critique

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 11661946)

I didn't delete it but from looking it was totally off topic so that's probably why it was deleted..

(It's a vile story tho)