- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
According to them, birthing person is more inclusive because:How is birthing person more inclusive? Its actually a lot more exclusionary than women because not all women can give birth. A old or just infertile woman is still a woman. These people are NUTS.
1) Not all women are capable of giving birth
2) Exactly what Chandelier says here:
Because pooners getting creampied don't want to be called "mother", so they tell us to use vagina owner, cervix owner, pregnant person and other terms they both insist we use and that "no one ever calls you that". It's gaslighting.
From the TRA perspective, classifying a group of people by a shared biological function ensures that every relevant individual (women and women who believe they are men or non-binary) gets included in any conversation regarding pregnancy. Additionally, they claim that “birthing person” also includes young girls/minors who are pregnant too.
In reality, this term is used to appease pooners. Pregnancy is a uniquely female experience and many women, like Ana, do not like being reduced to a set of biological functions but want their unique experiences as women to be directly acknowledged and recognized. They don’t want to “decenter themselves” from their own issues. Also, “birthing person” most likely reminds them of “baby incubator”.
There was some discourse about the recent gender neutral Brit Awards, which I think is relevant here. Some people mentioned that usually the default assumption for gender neutral terms, such as “people/person”, are men. Consequently, women can be ignored and overlook when neutrality is used. So using “women” is essentially a way to force direct and clear acknowledgement of 50% of the population.