Let me try to more succinct.
A thread about Trans Issues is started. God help you if you use the wrong terminology. And who knows what right terminology is because even the most pro trans people don’t agree what the proper terminology is.
Another thread is started. It is not directly related to Trans issues. The same people who have very strong opinions about trans people, suddenly revert to gendered language.
You keep saying things like “God help you if you use the wrong terminology” and referring to the “strong opinions” of those who defend the use of gender-neutral language. Can you quote an example of what you’re talking about? Because what I’m seeing is not the pro-neutral-language folks getting all “worked up,” but rather calmly addressing the hysterical tilting at windmills by those who can’t stand the idea of ANYONE saying “pregnant people” instead of “women.” Mostly, they’re saying, “OK, you can say ‘women’ if you want. Here’s why I say something different.”
The situation in the OP is exactly what the adjective cis describes. When you are talking about a woman who was assigned female at birth secondary to female anatomy and still identifies as female, that is a ciswoman.
Now I am really confused.
My understanding a ciswoman is a traditionally defined female, born with female plumbing, who identifies as such.
A man who born with female plumbing is not a ciswoman. he is a man. or trans man.
What is the English word for a human with a naturally occurring vagina?
Person. That human is a person.
I am a person. I don’t have a naturally occurring vagina.
My point is that nobody gets pedantic, or accuses people of using the wrong terminology, in a thread about “women” and their menstrual routine.
But where ARE people getting pedantic?
Here.
you don’t think pro trans posters in this very thread aren’t disagreeing on the English word for human with a naturally occurring vagina?
Why can’t you quote them?
Um, I’m seeing the “pro trans” people trying to be helpful.
Look, if you are dating a ciswoman, feel free to just say you are dating a woman. No one will get offended or correct you or anything. You can go on and on in your dating thread and no one is going to criticize you for referring to the person you plan to have supper with as “a woman”. And yes, unless you say otherwise, they will likely assume she has a naturally occurring vagina, too.
Most women are cis, after all, and it’s not really anyone else’s business if your date has a naturally occurring vagina.
If you are dating a transmen who has a naturally occurring vagina, I suggest you don’t refer to him as a woman, though. That would be rude.
If you are his doctor, and need to know what parts he came with, you will probably call him AFAB, because that seems to be the common term at the moment. No, it’s not a real word, it’s just an acronym. But it does the job when that job needs to be done.
I keep asking this question and none of the Immutability of Language devotees ever answer. What DIFFERENCE does it make, especially in the context of an anonymous message board, whether or not any of us do or do not have a vagina? How does it affect you in any way? Even if you’re speaking of persons you know IRL–are you wanting to have children with them? Because that’s the only scenario I can think of which would require you knowing they have a “naturally occurring vagina” or not, and even so that’s a pretty personal question one would assume you’d only talk about if you had a reasonable assumption that coparenting might be an option.
There is no reason for your animus against the adoption of gender neutral language in society aside from the most minor of inconveniences, whereas people encountering exclusionary language many times a day does actually impact them and make their lives less peaceful. Hearing derogatory and insulting and hostile and violent language used specifically about people like yourself is scary and makes the world a less safe and less welcoming place. All I’m seeing is a bunch of people absolutely intent on preserving their privilege to an absolutely disturbing degree. If it really means that much to you, if the idea of enduring minor adjustments in your language is so abhorrent to you then I dunno, maybe could use some therapy?
Do you think the people who complain that ‘literally’ no longer means literally and we don’t have a word for that concept any more also need therapy?
Thank you. That’s what I was getting at but was apparently too cryptic.
I don’t give a damn what reproductive bits anyone was born with, I don’t really care who you prefer to date/sleep/not sleep with. You tell me you are a man and I’m fine with that. You tell me you’re a woman and that’s fine too. You tell me you’re fluid, or questioning, or you tell me nothing at all - great! It’s not any of my damned business anyway, other than I’d like you to be happy and secure in Who You Are. What really matters to me is how you treat the world around you. Are you generally kind, thoughtful, and non-bigoted, non-racist, and willing to learn? Good enough for me.
And I specifically gave you an answer about language usage in a trans friendly world. Consider not gendering things pointlessly.
Part of that answer is that maybe you don’t need the word you’re demanding, and maybe AFAB is as close as it will ever get, and maybe you’ll just have to live with that.
Yes. A person may be born with or without a vagina. Is that unclear?
I think what the OP is getting at is similar to the whole “menstruator” or “people who menstruate” controversy.
The OP might make a claim that many or most people on this message board might say something like ‘most women under 50 should get their blood iron levels checked regurlarly’ when they should be saying, according to their own self-professed pro-trans stances, ‘menstruators/people who menstruate should get their blood iron levels checked regurlarly’. Not doing so would betray their inclusivity towards people who menstruate that are not women or girls, like some trans men.
I think that most people would, at minimum, roll their eyes and ignore you, or, at the extreme, have a more hostile response if you tried to correct them from using ‘women’ and instead ‘menstruator/people who menstruate’ in contexts like that, even on this board. I might be wrong though.
If it is so abhorrent to you then, yes, I think perhaps you are investing too much emotion into language. (And I personally think complaints about the word “literally” are misguided but, hey, if you like getting pissed off about word usage, who am I to tell you otherwise? Do you similarly complain about the words “actually” or “really” used in the same manner? And, no, “literally” does not mean “figuratively.” It means literally. It is used in a figurative manner. It’s trite by now, yes, but it kind of deflates the whole idea of it being used as an intensifier if you insist it means “figuratively” in those senses. But we’ve have thread upon thread about this.)
But what we are seeing here is not anyone insisting on using “menstruators”, or “those who menstruate”, but rather, posters getting all pissy that ANYONE is saying “people who menstruate” rather than “women who menstruate”.
We are literally seeing language policing from the…i dunno, trans-uncomfortable? Maybe it’s just people who can’t cope with any changes in language? But it’s not the trans-inclusive people on this board who are trying to police language here.
Maybe they should be? Similarly to how I don’t think one can truly call oneself non/anti-racist if you don’t condemn/police people’s use of racial slurs, I don’t think one can truly call oneself pro-trans if you don’t do so in the case of unnecessarily non-inclusive gendered language.
That is a point I think the OP suggests.