This is the perfect response. Leaving all of the inflammatory gender debate aside, we need to be able to name the group we’re talking about in this context.
Women? Biological women? Uterus owners? Women & trans men & non-binary AFAB?
I have opinions. But whatever term we choose, we need to be able to refer to this class. Making our language so incoherent that it can’t do this basic, essential thing is not going to work.
I completely agree that "we need to be able to name the group we’re talking about", but I just don't see how that can be done while "leaving all of the inflammatory gender debate aside".
Indeed the entire problem is that one faction has decided to attempt to change the centuries-old common meaning of "men" and "women" as descriptions of corporeal physical bodies.
IMO, this Orwellian attempt to change the plain meaning of common words must be fiercely resisted. It has all sorts of societal and legal consequences, almost all of them deleterious to women.
To pretend that trans women and women don't have different needs is absurd. A trans woman doesn't have any vested interest in maternal healthcare. A woman doesn't have any vested interest on whether or not she can be nude in a women's locker room.
It's less about "changing the plain meaning of common words" than recognizing that those categories are more complicated and less rigid than has often been assumed. The problem, of course, is that language is necessarily about simplification, about taking complex ideas and experiences and grouping them into common categories that we call "words." So attempting to come up with a new word for every variety of human experience is a fool's errand, because it misunderstands the point of language. The intent of inclusive language is laudable, but language can only be bent so far before it loses its function. These limitations are becoming more and more obvious as the circumlocutions needed to "include" every relevant experience become increasingly unwieldy.
This is the perfect response. Leaving all of the inflammatory gender debate aside, we need to be able to name the group we’re talking about in this context.
Women? Biological women? Uterus owners? Women & trans men & non-binary AFAB?
I have opinions. But whatever term we choose, we need to be able to refer to this class. Making our language so incoherent that it can’t do this basic, essential thing is not going to work.
I completely agree that "we need to be able to name the group we’re talking about", but I just don't see how that can be done while "leaving all of the inflammatory gender debate aside".
Indeed the entire problem is that one faction has decided to attempt to change the centuries-old common meaning of "men" and "women" as descriptions of corporeal physical bodies.
IMO, this Orwellian attempt to change the plain meaning of common words must be fiercely resisted. It has all sorts of societal and legal consequences, almost all of them deleterious to women.
To pretend that trans women and women don't have different needs is absurd. A trans woman doesn't have any vested interest in maternal healthcare. A woman doesn't have any vested interest on whether or not she can be nude in a women's locker room.
It's less about "changing the plain meaning of common words" than recognizing that those categories are more complicated and less rigid than has often been assumed. The problem, of course, is that language is necessarily about simplification, about taking complex ideas and experiences and grouping them into common categories that we call "words." So attempting to come up with a new word for every variety of human experience is a fool's errand, because it misunderstands the point of language. The intent of inclusive language is laudable, but language can only be bent so far before it loses its function. These limitations are becoming more and more obvious as the circumlocutions needed to "include" every relevant experience become increasingly unwieldy.