At this point of time I don't see how she can be ignorant about the meaning behind the term "people who menstruate".
They've managed to produce an entire roster of brainwormed shitheads who go on to be far right grifters
They're continued existence as a media group baffles me because who are they appealing to?!
Ah crap, didn't know, thanksNah she grifted this talking point last year too
She's made 6 tweets about trans folk ever and 3 of them are whining about this (last year and this year)
She's not uneducated.
This is why 'progressive' is largely meaningless as a descriptor, because it has no theoretical or ideological basis. It's a hodgepodge of whatever political and economic reforms a nominally socially liberal person finds palatable. "As a socialist I'm committed to the liberation of the working class and the oppressed and colonized peoples" is an ideological line you can hold yourself (and be held) to. There's no specific commitment for "progressives" beyond the vibes because it's not a clearly defined project.
You got to think real hard about what you're saying if any of these people are agreeing with you.These have been celebrated by the likes of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and anti-trans campaigner and literal nazi Posey Parker.
Dingding we have a winner of today's internet.
View: https://twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/1638787481821917185?s=20
Ana failing the shut the fuck up jesus christ challenge
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
You realize that a trans man can still be pregnant and need access to abortion, right? It's fine to be specific about who some of the people are who need this access, but it doesn't make sense to purposefully exclude a group either.Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
Women aren't defined by genitalia though, hence why the language is used.Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
Language and science evolve and people need to adapt, of course there's context but come one she's literally punching down trans people just to get a win in the meaning of words Olympics and to appease dingus debate lords on the internet.Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
We already have the playbook for this I thinkShe's really doubling and tripling down huh, how disgusting...
I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
It may have something to do with the rights of women and people with uteruses being actively attacked--and thus at the forefront of the discussion. I dunno, just maybe that's why we hear about it more often.I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.
A cursory search shows it is kind of used, but most of what comes up is reactionary and not medical.
Your example includes what she's complaining about though? Institutions speaking to all people who have a uterus, and not just cisgender women who have them?Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
This comes across way more snide than I hope you meant it.Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation.
Not really. As a trans woman who's recently gone through fertility preservation I can assure you that that side of things also has inclusive language. Perhaps consider it's more the case that you're not aware of all the areas that it comes up in.And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
Trans people are 3-5 more times more likely to be the victim of a sex crime than cis women. Are you aware that many trans boys have uteruses?Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
Honestly? I understand where she's coming from. Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation. For example, if we're talking about abortion, it's okay -- and, I'd argue, the right thing to do -- to say "women" and "women's rights." And "women need access to abortion." And then, when appropriate or called for, expand that conversation to include trans men and non-binary people. Because it's ten-year-old girls that are being raped in this country and being forced to give birth. Ten-year-old girls.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when it comes to "inclusive" language like this, it's only women who are having their place in their conversation subsumed by other people.
I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.
A cursory search shows it is kind of used, but most of what comes up is reactionary and not medical.
Love me some receipts.Help save and improve the lives of those facing prostate cancer
This Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, help change the future of prostate cancercancer.ca
Atlas of the receptive anal sex experience among people with prostates - PubMed
People with prostates experience pleasure in multiple areas during RAI. Contrary to some lay literature, the prostate region is not the subjective pleasure center for all individuals. Timing and location of pain during RAI may inform areas for intervention. Providing a language for pleasure and...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Prostate Cancer Research Highlights | Prostate Cancer News
Get the latest research highlights from our prostate cancer research conducted and funded through ACS grants.www.cancer.org
The Urology Care Foundation Gears Up for Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
Experts available to discuss early detection and treatment of prostate cancer BALTIMORE, Sept. 1, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- About 248,000 men each year are told they have prostate cancer—that is one...auanet.mediaroom.com
Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Health Technology Assessment
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate that commonly affects older people with prostates and may lead to obstructive urinary symptoms. Symptoms may initially be mild but tend to worsen over time. Prostatic artery ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Preventing Prostate Cancer - Unlock Food
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Canadian men. About 1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. You can take steps to help lower your risk of developing prostrate cancer.www.unlockfood.ca
What Happens During a Prostate Exam?
Learn about what happens during a prostate exam, when one may be recommended, and what conditions it can help detect.www.verywellhealth.com
Oh, I totally have. Perhaps it's because there isn't a huge political football surrounding some aspect of men's health, but there's definitely a trend of gender identity politics being warped by patriarchy, where inclusive language only (or mostly) seems to subsume women, leaving men alone.
I'm gonna tell you a secret. Or rather, I'm gonna tell you my secret: language when describing groups of people first and foremost in terms of "people with X organ" and "menstruators" is gross, icky, and honestly, specifically for this, why would trans women want to tie themselves so closely with men, anyway? They know they have prostates. They know what medical needs reach them. It'd also seem kinda weird, right? Like, imagine if trans women pushed so forcefully to make people say "people with prostates" just so they'd be as included on this discussion as much as men on an issue... that primarily affects men. Like, if there's some issue with trans women getting treatment for prostate cancer, then yeah, sure, raise that issue -- and really, that'd probably be an issue on its own, rather than a general "prostate cancer" issue -- but I don't think you'd have a bunch of trans women gung-ho about centering them in a conversation about a biological issue that nearly only affects men.I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.
Oh, I totally have. Perhaps it's because there isn't a huge political football surrounding some aspect of men's health, but there's definitely a trend of gender identity politics being warped by patriarchy, where inclusive language only (or mostly) seems to subsume women, leaving men alone.
Transgender people don't need to be centered in every single conversation.
It's absolutely a medical term lol. Prostate cancer commercials used that term iirc.I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.
A cursory search shows it is kind of used, but most of what comes up is reactionary and not medical.
How often do you hear prostate discourse?I had a similar thought earlier, that I had never heard the expression "people with prostates" used for cis-men or trans-women. Whether it is or not I can't say but whichever the case it certainly doesn't get the same attention.
A cursory search shows it is kind of used, but most of what comes up is reactionary and not medical.
Huh, well thanks. I guess I've just never had my radar up about it.Help save and improve the lives of those facing prostate cancer
This Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, help change the future of prostate cancercancer.ca
Atlas of the receptive anal sex experience among people with prostates - PubMed
People with prostates experience pleasure in multiple areas during RAI. Contrary to some lay literature, the prostate region is not the subjective pleasure center for all individuals. Timing and location of pain during RAI may inform areas for intervention. Providing a language for pleasure and...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Prostate Cancer Research Highlights | Prostate Cancer News
Get the latest research highlights from our prostate cancer research conducted and funded through ACS grants.www.cancer.org
The Urology Care Foundation Gears Up for Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
Experts available to discuss early detection and treatment of prostate cancer BALTIMORE, Sept. 1, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- About 248,000 men each year are told they have prostate cancer—that is one...auanet.mediaroom.com
Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Health Technology Assessment
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate that commonly affects older people with prostates and may lead to obstructive urinary symptoms. Symptoms may initially be mild but tend to worsen over time. Prostatic artery ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Preventing Prostate Cancer - Unlock Food
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Canadian men. About 1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. You can take steps to help lower your risk of developing prostrate cancer.www.unlockfood.ca
What Happens During a Prostate Exam?
Learn about what happens during a prostate exam, when one may be recommended, and what conditions it can help detect.www.verywellhealth.com
I'm 38, so not much, ask again in seven years!
Oh, I totally have. Perhaps it's because there isn't a huge political football surrounding some aspect of men's health, but there's definitely a trend of gender identity politics being warped by patriarchy, where inclusive language only (or mostly) seems to subsume women, leaving men alone.
I'm gonna tell you a secret. Or rather, I'm gonna tell you my secret: language when describing groups of people first and foremost in terms of "people with X organ" and "menstruators" is gross, icky, and honestly, specifically for this, why would trans women want to tie themselves so closely with men, anyway? They know they have prostates. They know what medical needs reach them. It'd also seem kinda weird, right? Like, imagine if trans women pushed so forcefully to make people say "people with prostates" just so they'd be as included on this discussion as much as men on an issue... that primarily affects men. Like, if there's some issue with trans women getting treatment for prostate cancer, then yeah, sure, raise that issue -- and really, that'd probably be an issue on its own, rather than a general "prostate cancer" issue -- but I don't think you'd have a bunch of trans women gung-ho about centering them in a conversation about a biological issue that nearly only affects men.
Let's put this another way: men can get breast cancer, too (about 1 in every 100 diagnosed cases of breast cancer are men, according to the CDC). But I think you'd -- rightly -- see heavy pushback against anyone trying to reframe this issue, this issue that so overwhelmingly affects women, in terms of "people with breasts."
Nobody says "Menstruating people" or "People with Uteruses" unless they're being inclusive in advertising or a medical professional.Oh, I totally have. Perhaps it's because there isn't a huge political football surrounding some aspect of men's health, but there's definitely a trend of gender identity politics being warped by patriarchy, where inclusive language only (or mostly) seems to subsume women, leaving men alone.
I'm gonna tell you a secret. Or rather, I'm gonna tell you my secret: language when describing groups of people first and foremost in terms of "people with X organ" and "menstruators" is gross, icky, and honestly, specifically for this, why would trans women want to tie themselves so closely with men, anyway? They know they have prostates. They know what medical needs reach them. It'd also seem kinda weird, right? Like, imagine if trans women pushed so forcefully to make people say "people with prostates" just so they'd be as included on this discussion as much as men on an issue... that primarily affects men. Like, if there's some issue with trans women getting treatment for prostate cancer, then yeah, sure, raise that issue -- and really, that'd probably be an issue on its own, rather than a general "prostate cancer" issue -- but I don't think you'd have a bunch of trans women gung-ho about centering them in a conversation about a biological issue that nearly only affects men.
Let's put this another way: men can get breast cancer, too (about 1 in every 100 diagnosed cases of breast cancer are men, according to the CDC). But I think you'd -- rightly -- see heavy pushback against anyone trying to reframe this issue, this issue that so overwhelmingly affects women, in terms of "people with breasts."
It should be noted that nearly all those examples, while using that specific terminology, come from organizations that still center men. Just click on through.Huh, well thanks. I guess I've just never had my radar up about it.
Because culture wars aren't fought there nearly as much... largely because the anti trans movement is entirely about framing women and children as victims of trans women, that's why trans women are presented as Predators and Trans Men as Victims.Huh, well thanks. I guess I've just never had my radar up about it.
I guess what confuses me here is that I was under the impression this was used in medical contexts mostly.I'm gonna tell you a secret. Or rather, I'm gonna tell you my secret: language when describing groups of people first and foremost in terms of "people with X organ" and "menstruators" is gross, icky, and honestly, specifically for this, why would trans women want to tie themselves so closely with men, anyway? They know they have prostates. They know what medical needs reach them. It'd also seem kinda weird, right? Like, imagine if trans women pushed so forcefully to make people say "people with prostates" just so they'd be as included on this discussion as much as men on an issue... that primarily affects men. Like, if there's some issue with trans women getting treatment for prostate cancer, then yeah, sure, raise that issue -- and really, that'd probably be an issue on its own, rather than a general "prostate cancer" issue -- but I don't think you'd have a bunch of trans women gung-ho about centering them in a conversation about a biological issue that nearly only affects men.
Literally only the Canadian Cancer Society one centers men, but also still refers to them as people with prostates.It should be noted that nearly all those examples, while using that specific terminology, come from organizations that still center men. Just click on through.
I'm not sure how closely you followed the abortion debate in the US, but there was some very heavy pushback about how news organizations and reporters talked about this issue. A lot of people wanted journalists to stop saying "pregnant women" in place of "people with uteruses," and it drove me -- and many others -- up a wall. It's okay to just say "pregnant women" when talking about abortion.I can see how this term, originally meant for inclusion could be brought up in ways to exclude a specific subsection of women, but I think to make this claim you have to be a bit more specific with examples of this happening on a notable scale.
The "People with Uteruses" pushback was a rightwing grift, the inclusive language that most people use is "Pregnant people"I'm not sure how closely you followed the abortion debate in the US, but there was some very heavy pushback about how news organizations and reporters talked about this issue. A lot of people wanted journalists to stop saying "pregnant women" in place of "people with uteruses," and it drove me up a wall. It's okay to just say "pregnant women" when talking about abortion.
Oh, I totally have. Perhaps it's because there isn't a huge political football surrounding some aspect of men's health, but there's definitely a trend of gender identity politics being warped by patriarchy, where inclusive language only (or mostly) seems to subsume women, leaving men alone.
I'm gonna tell you a secret. Or rather, I'm gonna tell you my secret: language when describing groups of people first and foremost in terms of "people with X organ" and "menstruators" is gross, icky, and honestly, specifically for this, why would trans women want to tie themselves so closely with men, anyway? They know they have prostates. They know what medical needs reach them. It'd also seem kinda weird, right? Like, imagine if trans women pushed so forcefully to make people say "people with prostates" just so they'd be as included on this discussion as much as men on an issue... that primarily affects men. Like, if there's some issue with trans women getting treatment for prostate cancer, then yeah, sure, raise that issue -- and really, that'd probably be an issue on its own, rather than a general "prostate cancer" issue -- but I don't think you'd have a bunch of trans women gung-ho about centering them in a conversation about a biological issue that nearly only affects men.
Let's put this another way: men can get breast cancer, too (about 1 in every 100 diagnosed cases of breast cancer are men, according to the CDC). But I think you'd -- rightly -- see heavy pushback against anyone trying to reframe this issue, this issue that so overwhelmingly affects women, in terms of "people with breasts."
Same difference.The "People with Uteruses" pushback was a rightwing grift, the inclusive language that most people use is "Pregnant people"
It's okay to just say "pregnant women" when talking about abortion.