Quote:
Originally Posted by BBXX
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.
|
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