Read on Twitter
1.Why is the word ‘woman’ being erased when the language used to define and describe men, is left intact?
2. Who still believes the replacement of ‘women’ with a dehumanizing reference to a body part or function eg ‘vulva owners’ or ‘menstruators’, in health guidelines, or charities which *used* to represent our sex, has anything to do with inclusion?
‘menstruator’ is only of inclusive ‘benefit’ to TM who *might* feel excluded by the word woman. However, TW, who are far more vocal about how exclusion makes them feel hurt or unsafe, are not demanding that male health guidance or charities erase the word ‘man.’ Why not?
http://4.Men are not referred to as scrotum owners by the organizations that call women vulva owners. Why not? Why are TW not complaining that guidance on testicular or prostate cancer that refers to ‘men’ is transphobic and exclusionary?
If women and TM discussed how menstruation or childbirth should be referred to - either most TM would be happy to leave language alone and we’d all use common sense, or guidance could stipulate that the information applies equally to pregnant or menstruating TM etc.
There’s no possibility that males will ever have to face the degradation of being referred to by their genitalia or sexual functions. Stonewall have no interest in demeaning men, nor in asking men to ‘be kind’ or inclusive of TW even in sport.
Could it be that the erasure of women in language has very little to do with the rights of TM (who are after all biologically female and therefore who cares?) and everything to do with misogyny?
Changing the word woman to mean ‘anyone who says they’re a woman’ means that protecting female only spaces - prisons, sports, refuges - and sex-based rights becomes impossible. Describing female experience and oppression is impossible. And that surely is what is behind all this.
