In Praise of Older People Bodies With Vaginas

What does Amy Schumer count as, since she just had surgery to remove her uterus and appendix because of endometriosis? Before you say something like “How stupid are you? Don’t you know the difference between female organ X and female organ Y? They’re entirely different,” please understand that I really don’t know the difference. Please explain it to me. None of the news stories about her say anything like she can’t be referred to as she/her anymore. They do make clear that she can’t have children that she could carry herself, although she may have preserved some eggs or fetuses that could be carried by a surrogate.

I’m not sure I understand the question. Any Schumer is a woman. What else would she be? Sorry if I’m missing the point, but I don’t see what bearing her surgeries have.

In the thread about transgender athletes, I proposed that male and female should be used strictly to refer to biological sex. For those few people whose biological sex is ambiguous, we can use inter-sex. Woman, man, boy, girl, non-binary, and gender fluid should be used for gender identity. Use cis or trans if needed in particular circumstances. It seems like a simple enough solution to me, and I don’t see how it’s offensive to anyone.

Are you honestly and truly saying you do not know the difference between a uterus, an appendix and a vagina? And think that a hysterectomy means you are no longer a woman? Or are you trying to do some type of “gotcha” post?

I know what an appendix is, but I’m unsure about those other two.

Actually, in a PM on this board, among other places.

Heck, government health authorities say this:

Unsure about those other two? what is about an uterus and a vagina that you’re unsure about?
Face your fears man!

This feels as though you could just Wiki “female reproductive system” and learn what you need to know.

WW graduated high school in 1970, he’s pushing 70 years old and claims not to know about female anatomy?

No, the document doesn’t say that. It advises you to avoid the term biologically male/female and it explains why. Personally, I think biologically male/female is fine but I’ll defer to anyone who doesn’t like it.

Anatomically female is more precise and more accurate about exactly what you’re referring to.

99% of the time when people talk about concepts of male/femaleness, they’re referring to gender. If you think about it, it’s very rare in your everyday life that the concept of someone’s sex is ever relevant. In the few instances where that is the case, it’s useful to be specific about the exact population you’re talking about to clearly delineate to the reader that in applies to a specific sub population.

If you’re talking about taxing period products, the population it affects is people who menstruate. If you’re talking about Texas’ abortion ban, it applies to people who can get pregnant. If you’re talking about subsidizing cervical cancer screenings, it applies to people who are anatomically female. At no point should you be talking about bodies with vaginas unless you run a morgue that sells vaginas for dissection.

For all the other times in your life when you’re not talking about these niche topics, you should use the terms men and women or male and female to refer to someone’s gender.

I’m just quoting you so it’s still here if you decide to delete this really amazing admission. :slight_smile:

In practice, the uterus is what you’re tapping when she suddenly winces. Oh, this doesn’t happen to you? Sorry… :wink:

(Sorry man, but the jokes just write themselves here…)

Hey, if someone wants to get paid less and live longer, who am I to judge?

This seems like a non-issue to me. Something like 0.5% of the population identities as “transgendered”. Therefore the traditional terms of “man” and “woman” would seem to be uncontroversial when applying to the remaining 99.50% of the population. For the 1.5 million people who identify as transgendered, just let us know what you would prefer to be called. I would suggest coming up with something besides “Older People Bodies With Vaginas” as that’s a bit of a mouthfull (no pun intended).

Have you met some people who hang out on the internet? :wink:

It’s not silly at all. You are the one pretending we’re talking about women. We were talking about people with vaginas. And, in the US at east, about 0.6% of them are not women. Similarly, around 0.6% of men do not have penises. That’s over 2 million Americans for who you are saying don’t matter.

The thing is, if you hold this statement to be true—that the minority’s opinion doesn’t matter because of the majority—then you’ve just excused every form of bigotry in existence. Back in the day, the majority of people didn’t think the n-word was offensive. It was just what they called black people. But then black people stood up and said “stop it.” Back in the day, people thought it was okay to call shitty things “gay” until gay people stood up and said “stop it.”

This is what frustrates me about all of this. We’re having the same discussion, again. It’s the same discounting of the minorities because they are minorities.

I still very much suspect that this is one of those TERF articles that is trying to pit feminists and other cisgender women against trans activists. Hence why they don’t say who the person is.

Why in the world is it a non-issue because it only affects 2 million Americans? Why are you trying to argue that, since trans people are a minority, they don’t matter? See the above post for my reply to that nonsense. We don’t accept this sort of reasoning about other minorities.

Why are you trying to argue that since cis-women are a huge majority, not 100% but close to it, that they don’t matter? Women can’t call themselves women anymore because a tiny tiny tiny fraction object? There is absolutely misogyny in this. As has always been the case, the views of women don’t seem to matter.

And, as I’ve pointed out before, this claim is not true. The term “female” has never since its original use referred to solely biology. When, referring to humans, it has always referred to gender and biology, as if they were one and the same. There is no tradition at all that it ever just referred to biology.

Yes, they would have gotten in trouble for using “female.” For thing, many people find that term dehumanizing. But, more importantly, trans men are not female. They may still have some biology that was traditionally considered female, but they are not female anymore.

I’ve also pointed out before that even sex is not binary. The terms “sexually male” and “sexually female” are based on an amalgam of 32 or more traits. There are, for example, people who were born with vaginas, look more feminine than most XX women, but are in fact XY. It’s called “androgen insensitivity syndrome,” and is leading cause of being intersex, which is about 1% of the population.

Here is a Scishow video on this. They’re generally pretty short:

And, again, I already said that I get why “bodies with vaginas” could be dehumanizing. But, again, the standard term is “people with vaginas.” And the word “people” and people-first language are objectively not dehumanizing.

Why are you claiming something I never said? At what point did I ever argue that women can’t call themselves women? This argument whole thread is about not using term “woman” in medical contexts where you actually are talking about the people who have uteruses.

It’s telling that, to argue I was wrong, you had to completely change the subject of this thread. You had to pretend that cisgender women are somehow being told they can’t call themselves women, when no one has ever said anything like that.

This is about medical information and not excluding trans people when talking about body parts that they have. And it’s the scientists who are doing it, because they care about accuracy.

This is absurd. At no point did anyone in this thread say that women (whether cisgender or not) cannot use the word “women.” We are talking about medicine. We are talking about doctors when making general guides for people who have vaginas.

This is the shit that got previous trans threads closed down. People keep trying to argue that caring about trans people is somehow misogynist. It’s not.

What is misogynist would be referring to all people with penises as “men.” Because that would be denying that trans women with penises are in fact women. It’s telling that so many people don’t see trans women as a subset of women. When you attack trans women as “formerly male insecure wannabes,” you attack women as a whole.

Instead of “people with vaginas”, why not say “women and transgender men”?