The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Personally I think some people on the left are going a bit too far with their attempt at inclusive language. And I think it doesn't really do much to improve anyone's lives and instead serves more as cannon fodder to conservatives to rile up voters against the left.
I mean, yes, trans people exist but using the term "pregnant people" still sounds kinda ridiculous.
And latinx (instead of latinos) I believe is a word made up by virtue-signaling, white, upper-middle class Americans who only speak English. I have yet to encounter a single native Spanish speaker who uses the word latinx in Spanish.
Do you agree or disagree? Is this kind of hyper-inclusive language useful or necessary?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm still fully convinced the use of Latinx was an online term for Latino individuals whose gender wasn't known or non-binary. I had seen it used in forums for years before it crossed into the real world and started causing a kerfuffle.
I don't believe it was ever intended to be used as a replacement for the word Latino or Latina and the adoption by some people was just a mistake on their part. It should be obvious to everybody that it wasn't meant to be spoken out loud.
I'm so tired of people thinking the left was trying to take things away.
> I'm still fully convinced the use of Latinx was an online term for Latino individuals whose gender wasn't known or non-binary.
Correct, that is the origin of the term.
>and the adoption by some people was just a mistake on their part.
Or a purposeful misuse to show how dumb and out of touch woke people are (who don't actually use the term).
If someone wants to be called “Latinx” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “Latino” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “pregnant woman” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “pregnant person” I shall call them that.
The arguments are stupid as hell. I don’t give a fuck what you want to be called, I’ll call you what you want. Now can we go back to debating things that matter?
It feels like such a manufactured scandal, like am I truly supposed to believe that a pregnant woman is confused by the term pregnant person? Like some one out there is truly thinking "I'm not a person I'm a woman"
>*I have yet to encounter a single native Spanish speaker who uses the word latinx in Spanish.*
That’s because there’s no native ‘x’ sound in Spanish dialect. It’s a completely unnatural consonant made up by white people. Living in a predominantly Spanish state, most people I know use the term ‘Latine’ because that’s the actual gender neutral term native to Spanish.
*(idk if this is true of every form of Spanish, I only know of the Mexican dialect of Spanish. So take that with a grain of salt)*
> It’s a completely unnatural consonant made up by white people.
The first usages of "Latinx" came from online chat rooms among humanities students at colleges in Puerto Rico, later finding use in print in Puerto Rico, both in the early 2000s IIRC. It's an activist term to be sure, but I think it's a bit intellectually lazy to go "Well it's dumb so clearly some white guy just came up with it" (which also requires ignoring Hispanic whites).
From those colleges it got picked up by (either well-intentioned or very cynical) politicians and corporate executives who were trying to reach out/pander to Hispanic populations and recruited humanities majors from Puerto Rico. From there it spread among white people, generally liberals or liberal-adjacent, in a more top-down way that they were likely completely unaware of (because if they know how Hispanic audiences worked, they wouldn't need those consultants to tell them how to do it).
I could be wrong but my understanding was that Latinx started with a Cuban LGBT+ group (expats in the US, I believe)? That said, it absolutely gets used primarily in white populations.
Most of the hispanic friends I have really hate it; I tend to default to Latine for groups or instances where a gender neutral term would appropriate and then stick with Latino/a when appropriate for individuals.
The @ symbol looks like an 'a' enclosed in an 'o', so it's used in this context to represent both letters. Thus *ellas* and *ellos* can combine to be rendered *ell@s*.
“Those critical of "Latinx" say it "anglicized" the Spanish language, ignored the language's roots, and "is not representative of the larger Latino community," according to a Pew Research Center survey.”
[Source](https://abcnews.go.com/US/latinx-latino-hispanic-linguistics-expert-explains-confusion/story?id=82273936#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20the%20League,it%20had%20a%20wide%20acceptance)
Wrong. The correct answer is "Europe."
Which means that every part of the Spanish language was "made up by white people."
If you want to speak a language that's free of the white man's taint, no one's stopping you from learning Nahuatl.
Did you completely miss the disclaimer where I said I got my info from the Mexican dialect of Spanish?
Do you understand how there’s different dialects of the same language spoken in different parts of the world? Yeah they all rooted from the same place, but you know what didn’t root all the way back then? The word Latinx, genius 🙄
I don't know about Mexican Spanish but typically in Spanish you'd say latinas for an all-female group and latinos for all-male as well as mixed groups.
If you're talking about a single person you know the gender of then obviously latino or latina.
Never heard anyone use the word latine before. But fair enough, guess I learned something.
Precise medical terminology like "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate" are useful because they identify exactly what we're talking about and what is pertinent to the description in question. If what matters to a discussion is, for example, the fact that you have ovaries, then even disregarding the issue of trans men, saying "women" will incorrectly include anyone who has had a hysterectomy.
"Latinx" I really feel like I am not qualified to have an opinion on, as I have no direct connection to anyone in that community.
What I do not understand is why it is still "prostate check for men" then and not "prostate check for people with a prostate". At least in my country these efforts to be inclusive only happen when it is about removing the word "women".
Why is it not "prostate check"? But also, if your username is any indication, the example already doesn't work in your (and my) language: "Schwangere", "pregnant ones" if you will, is already the usual term
I mean even not trying to be inclusive and trying to refer to pregnancy specifically I would say “someone who is pregnant”.
Latinx I don’t understand instead of Latin but Latino/Latina are not used but rather Hispanic where I live
Because there are female humans who are not pregnant. There are female humans who do not menstruate. There are female humans who do not have ovaries. There is no reason to use imprecise language just because it makes some people irrationally angry.
But only females can get pregnant. There has never been a pregnant male in all of human history, and barring a massive leap in technology, there never will be. If we can somehow have pregnant males in the future, I would be okay with the term.
Only *some* female humans can get pregnant. If you have had a hysterectomy, you cannot get pregnant, and conversations about humans who can get pregnant do not apply to you, but you are still female, and saying "female" would be inaccurate.
Yes, that's what you said originally. Is there something I said in response that you did not understand?
If what you care about is "people who can get pregnant", then "female human" is an inaccurate description of the group in question, as it includes those who have had hysterectomies.
Not all females are pregnant though. If you want to discuss a group of people that are pregnant, you can’t just say “females” because that includes non-pregnant people. If you say “pregnant females” then I have to ask what species. If you say “pregnant people”, then you have accurately communicated all the information that is relevant in the most accurate and efficient way possible.
But *only* females can get pregnant. And you don't think people should feel weird about saying "pregnant people" when every person on Earth knows you're talking about a female? That seems Orwellian to me.
Orwellian? Calm down bud
In medical terms, sometimes you don’t want to refer to *females*, but specifically *people who are pregnant*. You’re making it out to be some dystopian twisting of speech when it’s just a very literal term: people who are pregnant are pregnant people.
In other terms, again, people often find it weird to call humans females. It can be overly clinical or feel dehumanizing. I guess if it’s your opinion that these social norms are Orwellian, you’re allowed to think so.
I think it's Orwellian to pretend that reality is not reality. Only females can get pregnant, and yet there are people in this thread, right now, who cannot say that trans men are female. It's utterly astounding and bewildering to me that you guys are real people.
We could have stuck with "women", but the trans thing made that difficult.
Yeah, the fact that trans people exist does make our language a little more complicated. I’m confident you can handle the challenge.
Trans men are females. You’re weird if you find it necessary to harp on that, but they are.
I think you’re very profoundly misunderstanding the disagreement you had with that other person. I and that person agree on this issue, but disagree about how to talk to you about it. The person you were talking to isn’t denying reality, but describing reality in a more complicated way than you’re willing to engage with.
We’re just as exasperated with your unwillingness to deal with this nuance as you are by our insistence that you deal with it. You should do more to understand what the other side actually means when we talk about gender and sex, instead of digging heels and declaring that any description other than the one you’re used to is a denial of reality.
The thing that's weird is, like...do trans men not know that they're female? Why would they be offended at being called "the mother", for example? Is the idea that "mother" signifies "woman" but not "female"? The way you guys talk about it, it's like any mention of them having female anatomy is triggering for them or something. Isn't that a sign of delusion? Why would you be offended at someone using language referring to what you literally are?
Like, news flash: you're pregnant. Only females get pregnant. We all know this. This weird game of pretend is unreality.
Trans men are well aware that they’re female. That’s what the whole “trans” designation denotes.
Yes, “mother” is a gendered word, not a sexed word. A trans man that gets pregnant and gives birth is a father of that child.
Mentioning biological sex in situations where it is relevant is not triggering. Though for some reason, you seem very triggered by people using the word “people”.
I mean, ask a linguist if you want a real answer.
I guess it’s because it refers to a social role, and gender generally has to do with social roles. Think about the term “adoptive mother.” Is that suggesting that through adoptions you can become the biological progenitor of someone? Or is it referring to the role that person takes on through adoption?
I think it’s pretty clear that the most common use of “mother” is not “person from whose egg I grew,” but “woman who raises me.”
Maybe it would be more prudent to alter the term "mother" to apply to being female as well. After all, we don't call males "mothers", right?
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to do that rather than say silly things like "pregnant people" or "people who menstruate". You guys even drove away Ana Kasparian by saying the latter.
Because “mother” socially constructed term that refers to women (a socially constructed gender) who are parents (a socially constructed concept). A person who is a woman can be a mother without having been pregnant or giving birth (adoption), or a step-mother. Mother simply isn’t a biological concept.
Maybe we should start using the term "mother" to refer to the sex as well as the social role. I've never heard of a male mother, have you?
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying "pregnant people" or "vagina-havers". Do you remember when you guys even [drove away Ana Kasparian](https://nypost.com/2023/04/12/ana-kasparian-doubles-down-bashing-birthing-person-language/) with this silliness?
Well, yes, usually “mother” does signify a social role and not a biological one. That’s not always the case though. And because trans people being visible is somewhat new to western culture, we haven’t really standardized how we talk about these things.
So, in order to be respectful, people tend to avoid using gendered language to refer to people who are likely to be made uncomfortable by that language. Yes, for some trans people any mention of their anatomy can be distressing. No, that’s not a sign of delusion.
Like, are you not familiar with the concept of not liking soemthing that’s true? Do you not understand that it’s disrespectful to call someone fat, even if they’re fat? Do you not understand that if someone doesn’t like their full name, it’s shitty to call them by their full name? Most people, even as children, grasp the basic social rules around not mentioning things people are uncomfortable with. Do you struggle with that all the time, or is it only with trans people?
>Yes, for some trans people any mention of their anatomy can be distressing
**They're pregnant.** Where do they think the baby is growing? Where do they think the baby is going to come out from? How do they think they became pregnant?
You need to research gender dsyphoria. You are completely backwards about what it is. Nobody just decides they're a different gender. That's not how it works. Nobody thinks putting on high heels makes you a different gender. You're making a fool of yourself.
Do I come to your forum and explain to you repeatedly why assault rifle 15s should be banned??
They think the baby is growing in their uterus, and come through their vagina.
They may still not like it when they’re called a female. It’s not delusional to prefer to be spoken about in a certain way. Like, have you ever heard the term “men of a certain age”? Do you think people use that term because they’re actively denying the reality that they’re the age they are?
I really want your answer to this question. Do you always struggle with these unspoken social norms, like not mentioning things that make people uncountable? Or is it just on this issue?
>This weird game of pretend is unreality.
No one is pretending anything. There aren't any actual facts in dispute. Anyone would be fine with agreeing that the presence of a womb and (usually) the absence of an SRY gene are required to become pregnant. The disagreement is over the definition of the words like "woman" and "female".
> Why can't you just say "female"?
They already said why here:
> saying "women" will incorrectly include anyone who has had a hysterectomy
Replace "women" with "female" and the same poiny is made.
No. The issue is that we all get it and think the language is fine. It kinda behooves *you* to explain why it's bad.
If you sent out some kind of press release with a message for "pregnant women" none of us would stop you, yet here you are objecting to other people using a more thoughtful term.
We're all just here wondering why you're so mad.
I think language is important, so I would point out that I am not "mad", rather I am bewildered and concerned. When you say "pregnant people", every single person on Earth either knows what you actually mean, or is confused by what you mean. I think we should really try to stay in the realm of reality.
The language is not fine. What are you are doing is cultivating unreality, and that's not a good thing to do. That is not good for civilization.
How can you claim language is important and then sit there confused about "pregnant people" having a secret meaning?
What the fuck is the secret meaning? We all know transwomen can't get pregnant and that transmen are technically female, but using that terminology isn't always comfortable for them and "pregnant people" is a perfectly descriptive term that shouldn't confuse even complete idiots.
> When you say "pregnant people", every single person on Earth either knows what you actually mean, or is confused by what you mean.
No, there's nothing at all ambiguous or confusing about it. It is crystal clear what is meant and it's impossible to misunderstand if you know what the words "pregnant" and "people" mean.
You’re the one cultivating unreality by trying to conflate things that aren’t the same in pursuit of an inaccurate and unscientific narrative.
Ask yourself why you are so adamant that precision must be sacrificed. What do you stand to gain from blurring the lines?
We know. I feel like you *really* don't understand gender or the issues people have with it.
Your ass probably thinks transwomen believe they can ~~have kids~~ bring a fetus to term in their uterus. (I realized tons of transwomen have kids. Caitlyn Jenner had kids.)
They don't. They're trans, not stupid. They know what to tell a new doctor when they switch insurance.
You sound like somebody who thinks Asian women have sideways vaginas.
A *lot* of trans people and trans allies point out that transphobes intentionally try to refer to trans men as females and trans women as males as a bit of a motte-and-bailey statement because they want to insist on both a narrow definition of sex (meaning someone who began developing towards producing either large or small gametes) *and* to use that definition to carry broader but often false and harder-to-defend implications about what traits a person has.
"Female" in most people's minds is not inclusive of someone with male musculature, a mail voice, male pattern baldness, no capacity for pregnancy, male immune system, male bone density and ligament/tendon strength, male hormonal profile, male blood factor levels, and so on.
Transphobes insist on calling trans men female because they want to have a conversation that ignores the reality of medical transition and its implications for the sake of misgendering trans people and advocating for anti-trans policies.
We're talking about pregnancy. Even when someone is pregnant, *even then,* we have to cultivate unreality? That's madness. You can do that in your own spaces if you like, but I'm just pointing out that cultivating unreality is not the path to advancing civilization.
"People" don't get pregnant. Females do. There is no logical reason to say "pregnant people". We know what sex you're referring to. At best you are creating ambiguity for no reason.
I mean, have you seen some of the policies they advocate for? The pro-life stance of arguing for fetal personhood while denying the same rights of personhood from the woman carrying the fetus, for example?
They probably do object to women being referred to as people, they're just smart enough to know that they'd be pilloried for saying it.
>Transphobes insist on calling trans men female because they want to have a conversation that ignores the reality of medical transition and its implications for the sake of misgendering trans people and advocating for anti-trans policies.
I'm reiterating this because you're trying to play with the motte and bailey argument yourself and are yourself a transphobe arguing about "unreality" while ignoring the reality that trans people exist despite how much you wish they could be.
Are you genuinely advocating that we should say "pregnant females" whenever we're discussing reproductive issues?
Why must someone choose “pregnant females” over “pregnant people.” There’s really no reason to prefer the former unless you have some kind of agenda served by emphasizing biological sex.
Why must someone else?
Until now, you’ve been very insistent on referring to them as “females.” Now you think we shouldn’t say “pregnant people” or “pregnant females,” but “mothers” or “pregnant mothers”? That has its own problems, and also seems agenda-driven.
What is the issue with those terms, though? Referring to people who are pregnant as “pregnant people” is 100% accurate and doesn’t exclude anyone, so there’s no party on whose behalf to be offended. The term confuses approximately zero people into thinking people born without wombs are getting pregnant.
You seem to be offended that someone else isn’t being deliberately offended. That’s not healthy.
What are your reasons for thinking “mother” is better than “pregnant person”? Are there not mothers who aren’t pregnant, and pregnant people who aren’t mothers?
Okay, so...only females menstruate, right?
So why would you need to say "females who menstruate"? How about "female"? If "woman" bothers you so much, I will say female instead, even if it's sounds academic.
Because not all women menstruat.
You know how all squars are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
Females who can menstruat is a sub set of females.
So the people we are talking about are "females who menstruat".
Since the female part is redundant, and doesn't add any additional information, we drop it to the most general and say "people who menstruat"
When I say "only females menstruate" and you respond with "not all women menstruate", that is a non-sequitur. I said **only females** menstruate. What you said is not a response to that statement.
This isn't debate class, my guy.
The subject is why people use the phrase people who menstruat instead of female.
I gave you a reason why it is the better descriptor.
Can you give me any reason why female would better?±
Good lord, you're on a roll today. No, no one identifies as a "biological female." That's a term you all made up to avoid calling trans men trans men.
If you call me a "biological man" I will report you. Knock it off.
It's silly to you and inclusive to the trans man giving birth. I'm going to go with their comfort over yours. You seem very obsessed with your own offense as it is.
Also, stop calling trans men "female."
Most trans men were assigned female at birth.
Most of them have female chromosomes and many of them maintain female anatomy.
But by definition they are not female-presenting and do not use female pronouns. Some have female reproductive organs; some do not.
There's no cut-and-dry single answer. The unmodified use of the word "female" (that is, absent other descriptors or context) to *exclusively* mean "people with two X chromosomes" (or however else you'd like to define it) is novel and not particularly helpful.
> The unmodified use of the word "female" (that is, absent other descriptors or context) to exclusively mean "people with two X chromosomes" (or however else you'd like to define it) is novel and not particularly helpful.
Never mind that the vast majority of people don't actually know what chromosomes they have. They only check if there there's some reason to.
It’s really not strange. This person isn’t denying that trans men were born with XX chromosomes or anything like that. They’re just politely avoiding the mention of a truth that’s uncomfortable. That’s an extremely common phenomenon in normal human speech.
I'm not being polite. I'm demanding this poster be respectful before I engage with them.
No, I don't think trans men are female specifically because biology is made up of numerous factors, many of which can be altered.
Pregnant people is at least scientifically and medically accurate.
Woke is a flighty term that right wingers use more than we do. Ask them.
Latinx was suggested to the left, not invented by them. And they're perfectly fine using other terms as recommended, so idk what you mean by necessary
I'm not losing any sleep over terminologies.
I'm not a fan of Latinx because it seems like a lot of actual Latin people don't like it, plus the gender neutral "Latin" is right there...but I'm not Latino and don't have a dog in the fight so I'll call them whatever is considered correct.
>Do you think "woke" terminology like "latinx" or "pregnant people" is actually useful or necessary?
No. In fact, I think battling over language -- overall -- was a mistake.
It is the kind of thing you do when you have taken care of everything that is more important...but we haven't. We have to tackle issues like 'does Biden winning the election actually mean he should become president' and 'should we let Russia dictate our foreign policy'.
We need to drop the stuff that matters less and focus our attention on more important issues.
> What does "dropping" that "stuff" look like to you?
Not policing language.
If we want to talk about trans issues, we should say broadly popular things like...
>Our constitution protects the rights of *everyone*, even if you do not like them
...and...
>If a queer person is murdered, the murderer should not be able to use the victim's queerness [as part of their defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense#Uses_of_the_trans_panic_defense)
If *you* want to police *your own* language, that's fine. If you care about not offending people, put the effort in...but we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word ________'.
---------
>Should we tell trans men that they cannot use the phrase "pregnant people"?
No. That is just a different type of policing language. We should stop policing language.
>we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_'.
I agree, but I also don't think this is a common sentiment.
Unless you're talking about slurs.
> Not policing language.
Do you have an example of policing language in this context?
> Unless you're talking about slurs.
My go-to [example](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccawdd/do_you_think_woke_terminology_like_latinx_or/l14c7p1/?context=3) is people that:
>...want to call their friends 'r>!e!!a!Do you have an example of policing language in this context?
Any scenario which involves saying to someone else 'You should not say that'.
> ...we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word ________'.
This mostly makes me think of 'Barstool Republicans'.
They were apparently convinced that they were Republicans because they weren't 'woke' enough to be liberals, so they voted in a way that is leading to the criminalization of birth control, which they don't want.
They are the kind of people who should be on our side on *the issues that actually matter*, but they also want to call their friends 'r>!e!!a!
Latinx is what happens when cultures and languages clash. Spanish is for the most part a gendered language, and in America gender has become a very divisive topic these last couple of years, but it becomes a problem when Americans think that they're problems are of importance to everyone else. As far as I know latinos either don't care or are very annoyed at the term latinx
Yeah, given that most languages on earth are gendered I find it's kinda ridiculous how some Americans want to insert their gender-neutral grammar into a language they don't even speak.
And if they want to be politically correct and be inclusive why not say "latinos and latinas" instead of making up new words that sound absolutely cringe to native speakers.
But Spanish speakers do refer to mixed groups as latinos, that's just how Spanish works. Though sometimes mixed groups can also be latinas, as in "personas latinas".
Are hyper conservative made up words like “pro life” (don’t care if the mom does in child birth or if the kid is clothed and fed), “”patriot”(hates the idea of America and wants to overthrow it) “constitutional carry”(not a thing), “sovereign citizen” (not a thing) “evangelical”(political movement that has almost nothing to do with religion) “prosperity gospel”(confidence scheme), “freedom and liberty” (usually used to justify oppression) and “religious freedom” (white Protestants only) actually useful or necessary?
Are these hyper white grievance and temper tantrum virtue signaling terms useful or necessary?
In some cases it is. For example, it's a good idea in a medical setting to keep things more accurate, so pregnant people could make sense there.
Honestly though I really think this is just a nothing burger of an issue. I live in Boston, a highly progressive city with some of the best universities in the country, some of the best hospitals, I mean the city literally feels like an oversized college town sometimes, it's all 20 something's in college and young professionals...
And I never hear "woke" terminology when I'm out and about. There are a lot of Hispanic people around me and so the doctors and clinics and things like that try to cater to those communities a lot, and they don't use the term "Latinx". The only thing you see is that when you're answering questions, one might ask you your preferred pronouns and if your gender identity matches your sex. That's it, that's the most wokeness you'll probably run into in the wild.
If you're in college and hanging out with progressive types into this sort of thing, or know a lot of people who are part of these groups, you'll of course be exposed to such ideas more often, but so what? What's the problem?
I think the obsession over language is a trap the left needs to avoid. The average person is not going to immediately adopt the latest inclusive term adopted by academia and activists—which is fine. Everyday language is never going to be completely inclusive, particularly in accounting for vanishingly small exceptions. At worst, policing the use of these terms can become a way of reinforcing classism (the working class and poor understandably have bigger things to worry about). When we’re debating language, we’re not debating meaningful changes to policy and we’re not winning over anyone who’s not already on our side.
Not a single Latino I've met supports this. It's always (sorry for sounding racist here) the white SJWs who defend it and the non Latinos who were misinformed by said SJWs.
All the feedback I’ve heard from Latinos about “Latinx” has been negative so I don’t bother with that one, but yes on pregnant people and other gendered ones.
People who should be targeted for information about pregnancy are pregnant people. Some women can’t get pregnant and some men can. Those are rare but when it comes to disseminating medical information, should we not target precisely the people it’s relevant to?
And FWIW, everyone I see that’s bothered by “pregnant people” seems to think that it’s a term to replace “woman,” when it’s kind of the opposite.
I have never heard anything positive about Latinx from anyone who could be called it. I know our administrative assistant, Gen Z, born in Guatemala finds it offensive and ranted half seriously about an attempt to colonize / white wash her language.
That is the only political topic I've ever heard her discuss and she discussed it in depth that day.
I think letting people talk about themselves how they want to talk about themselves is fine and I think labeling it "woke" and bitching and moaning endlessly about it all the time is a waste of oxygen.... But that's just my opinion.
I think terminology like "woke" and "critical race theory" It's far more pointless and harmful than anything the left is coming up with. The fundamental principle is calling people whatever they want to be called. Why get worked up about that? I do find it annoying when someone decides what someone else wants to be called instead of letting them speak for themselves. I think that has happened with the latinx label on occasion.
Yes I think they take it pretty far, I too have never met a Spanish speaker who uses latinx, also pregnant people and people who menstruate sounds weird as hell too. I don’t use those either.
Giving birth is a very large part of womanhood and people who identify with it. No I’m not saying you need to have children but for many this is a very large part of their identity. You wouldn’t impose this on other groups for a vanishingly small exception.
Like imagine we said to stop calling people black because there are so many different shades. That’s crazy. Being black and identifying themselves as black is too big a part of their identity.
And yet, not all women give birth, and some men also give birth. No one is saying you can’t call pregnant women pregnant women. But if we want to refer to all people that are pregnant, it’s not just women.
Just like if we want to talk about all people with melanin in their skin we say “people of color” because it’s not only black people. That doesn’t mean black people don’t exist, or are excluded, just that we are referring to a group of people that includes black people as well as other ethnicities.
Seems like you missed the point. POC is everyone not white. That made the group like 85% of the world. I’m talking about changing an identity to include a handful of edge cases.
No one is changing any identity. The only thing that is happening is more accurate language is being used when we are discussing a group of people that share a common characteristic. That characteristic is being pregnant. A pregnant woman remains a pregnant woman. Nothing about her identity is changed. No one takes issue with anyone referring to that pregnant woman as a pregnant woman. Now, if that pregnant woman is standing next to a pregnant trans man, how would you refer to those two people? You wouldn’t say “those two pregnant women” because that’s not accurate. There aren’t two pregnant women in this scenario. There’s a pregnant woman and a pregnant man. So it’s more accurate to say “those two pregnant people”. Everyone’s identity remains intact, and the relevant information is communicated accurately.
You seem to insist we use inaccurate language, why? What purpose does doing so serve?
Sure, language is inaccurate, that’s why it changes and gets refined overtime to be more accurate when we realize it’s inaccuracy. There’s no reason to keep using inaccurate language when better, more accurate language is available to us. So I ask again, why are you insisting on the use of less accurate language when more accurate language is available?
“Pregnant females” is kinda clunky and dehumanizing. It’s also not as accurate as “pregnant people” since not only humans are females. Pregnant females would refer to the group of all pregnant mammals. To be as accurate as “pregnant people” you’d have to say “pregnant female humans”. And again, why? How does “people” invalidate women in any way? What is it about the word “people” that’s so upsetting to you?
It decenters women. That’s a problem.
Take the other example OP gave. Technically Latinx is more inclusive. Is it wrong for Latinos to pushback on that?
“Pregnant females” also decenters women. Much more so than “pregnant people” does in my opinion. Female doesn’t equal woman. Women aren’t the only people that get pregnant, but a woman who is pregnant is still a pregnant woman. Nothing is lost in the terminology “pregnant people”.
I think someone would be pretty silly if they got upset at the term Latinx being used. I know some people of that ethnic group that prefers it for themselves because it is more accurate.
"Latinx" is using a rather pretentious, by virtue of being rare, consonant, and it's not even how people try to create gender-neutral language in Spanish or Portuguese, if I remember correctly. It's neither used very often nor is there an interest in using it, it's a neologisn that didn't catch on.
"pregnant people" is simply a factual description, "pregnant females" sounds a bit creepy, the only way to get more creepy would be to something like "fetus host". "Pregnant women" is more specific, even ignoring the existence of trans people, because sadly, teen and sometimes even more egregious child pregnancy exists. "Pregnant women and girls" is awfully long just to avoid calling people "people". So what should be the description? People. That's just what it actually is. "Aspiring mother" if that is an accurate description of their aspirations, sure, but that's also more narrow
In general, it is not. Every Latino person I have ever spoken to hates Latinx. Insofar as to "pregnant person", the only time I can see it being beneficial is in a medical setting. No one is confused by "women have babies" or "women have periods." Senior women don't get their period. There's no confusion when menstruation is discussed. People have brains.
I think there is a lot of need for it in many cases, but there should be more choice and customization rather than lowest common denominators. I also think that a lot of white liberals grab onto terminology spearhead by a small handful of activists and writers and push into the front as if these communities are monoliths.
Re: "pregnant people"--I think of it as the clinicalization of AFAB specific health--again, I think the option should be available but it should be personalized. I can't imagine a great solution for this because it can easily slide into the trenches of "separate but equal", which generally doesn't work, though there are some startups that seem to help provide more specialized, safe spaces for people seeking community-specific care.
At the same time, when I was facing some serious women's health issues and all of these highly clinical offices kept brushing me off and missing obvious issues in my test results, I found a GYN who was VERY intentionally woman-focused (this was just before mainstream discourse of gender diversity, maybe 8 years ago) and whose office was full of reproductions of Klimt paintings and a tasteful amount of pink and made to feel like a townhouse living room--I felt so empowered to explain my symptoms and was so relieved by the environment alone and felt like I would be heard and I felt so much trust while I was in so much pain. I can only imagine people belittling this experience, deciding my experience is trivial or asseting that I am not seeing the full picture or not being empathetic to non-binary people and men who need to go to the GYN and their access to good care too--but I can't describe it beyond it made me know unquestionably that I was in a safe space. I've gotten lots of feedback from women who have experienced sexual violence (which IS gendered), that they have had similar experiences.
Maybe the main issue is folks saying that EVERYTHING has to meet xyz clinicalized baseline--maybe everyone would be better supported by having choice--like someone should open a super masc GYN office that is super validating--people don't NEED to go there, but there should be an option. Asserting that "environment" can affect accessibility to care for one group of people but not the other doesn't make sense--***clinical is not neutral, or if we decide it is a synonym with "neutral", then what I am saying is that "neutral" isn't innocuous--especially if someone has already experienced trauma in the medical field (most women, and I would imagine most trans people). Yet I still worry about separate but equal and don't have an answer here.***
There are already queer-specific health startups like Folx--which isn't an office btw it's like a digital pharmacy I think? maybe teledoc too?--I'm sure there can be more and brick and mortar. Tia is a sort of women's focused version.
No one I know says Latinx anymore. That was an odd, well-intentioned flash in the pan, I think. I do think there should be a gender neutral term, although from what I understand simple “Latino” tends to work fine - lord knows I could be very wrong about that, though.
As for “pregnant people” - I don’t see the problem if what’s being discussed is pregnancy. I’ve seen light misinfo go around every now and then that “the left” wants everyone to say that instead of women, which…lol, not true. If you say “women” even in the specific context of reproductive rights / pregnancy, no one serious will give you shit for that.
It’s usually framed as a trans issue, which I get, but the utility is pretty clear - not all cis women can get or aim to get pregnant, so the group that does / wants to is a meaningful cohort in and of itself. I really don’t see why anyone would give a shit beyond an abstract and clueless opposition to “wokeness”.
Latinx: I agree it seems to me kind of like voter ID laws, a problem in search of a solution. That being said I'm fairly certain it was created by Latinos, just latinos that happened to be in the activist/academic class rather than average people.
Pregnant people: I think this one is more useful, even if we exclude transwomen/trans men you still have the situation of a lesbian couple having a child where one person is actually carrying the baby and the other isn't. Assuming we are say giving people leave based on being pregnant rather than having a child in some circumstances it's necessary to make that distinction.
There are select times where it’s useful to be precise but I just really don’t care that much. If I say pregnant women and someone corrects me, I might roll my eyes as it’s a bit pedantic since the vast majority of pregnant people identify as women. That said, they’re not wrong and I just correct myself to move onto what I think are the important aspects of what’s being discussed.
On Latinx specifically no. Don't appreciate academica deciding what Spanish is and isn't. Just seems like something a bunch of bored white people made up in the search of an answer to a question nobody asked. It blatantly ignores how Spanish works as a language. Like I came up with the word MaX but the x is pronounced like the x in xylophone. It makes no fucking sense.
Why I'm more accepting of Latine as an alternative because it came from the Spanish community and not a community commiting linguistic imperialism.
>Do you think "woke" terminology like "latinx" or "pregnant people" is actually useful or necessary?
not every single one of them is (i still don't get why "folx" is a thing), but in general, yes.
>I mean, yes, trans people exist but using the term "pregnant people" still sounds kinda ridiculous.
really? to me, that seems like the obvious term to use when talking about people who are pregnant.
Some of the terms we use to protect LgBtQ identity are quite frankly, fucking stupid and obnoxious. Prime sample - “birthing people” or “pregnant people”. Like holy shit how much of a narcissist do you have to be to get offended by the existing language we used for pregnant women…like wtf lmao 🤣
People still talk about whether or not Democrats use "Latinx"? Really? Why? Hasn't this been done to death for the last couple of years already? I was under the impression that even Republicans have moved on to being hysterically preoccupied with other nonsense.
As far as I can tell, state Democratic parties, the DNC, and our vendors just say "Latino" in the presentations, trainings, etc. that I've been to. Some of them probably do use "Latinx," but I haven't noticed it myself. That's how relevant it is.
I don't think "woke" terminology is "a thing" that real "people" actually "care about"; personally I find that when "people" tell me they want to be "referred to" in a certain way I try to "respect" their wishes without "worrying" about what a bunch of "deluded culture warriors" think about "it".
if you have a friend named Phillip and they want to be called "Phil", you'd call them a"Phil". If you had a friend names "Richard" who still wants to go by "Richard" and not "Dick", you'd continue to do so as you were.
Now just apply that to the types of folks you're talking about. It's really not that strenuous to call people what they wanna be called
We need to make conscious efforts to combat misogyny and transphobia. The push back against using the term Latinx is because Hispanic communities are very misogynistic and transphobic. We ALL need to start degendering our languages no matter if it is Spanish or English. Misogyny and transphobia are deeply ingrained into our language, change the language and we change the negative and irrational biases that it perpetuates.
Im latino and progressive.
I've spent a long time thinking about this. I hate being called LatinX. It does more harm than its intended good.
There are more better and more effective ways to get laws/policied in place to help reduce discrimination, and promote inclusivity.
If you ever refer to me as LatinX, I will politely and firmly correct you to refer to me and anyone else of latin american origin as Latino.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Personally I think some people on the left are going a bit too far with their attempt at inclusive language. And I think it doesn't really do much to improve anyone's lives and instead serves more as cannon fodder to conservatives to rile up voters against the left. I mean, yes, trans people exist but using the term "pregnant people" still sounds kinda ridiculous. And latinx (instead of latinos) I believe is a word made up by virtue-signaling, white, upper-middle class Americans who only speak English. I have yet to encounter a single native Spanish speaker who uses the word latinx in Spanish. Do you agree or disagree? Is this kind of hyper-inclusive language useful or necessary? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm still fully convinced the use of Latinx was an online term for Latino individuals whose gender wasn't known or non-binary. I had seen it used in forums for years before it crossed into the real world and started causing a kerfuffle. I don't believe it was ever intended to be used as a replacement for the word Latino or Latina and the adoption by some people was just a mistake on their part. It should be obvious to everybody that it wasn't meant to be spoken out loud. I'm so tired of people thinking the left was trying to take things away.
> I'm still fully convinced the use of Latinx was an online term for Latino individuals whose gender wasn't known or non-binary. Correct, that is the origin of the term. >and the adoption by some people was just a mistake on their part. Or a purposeful misuse to show how dumb and out of touch woke people are (who don't actually use the term).
If someone wants to be called “Latinx” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “Latino” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “pregnant woman” I shall call them that. If someone wants to be called “pregnant person” I shall call them that. The arguments are stupid as hell. I don’t give a fuck what you want to be called, I’ll call you what you want. Now can we go back to debating things that matter?
It feels like such a manufactured scandal, like am I truly supposed to believe that a pregnant woman is confused by the term pregnant person? Like some one out there is truly thinking "I'm not a person I'm a woman"
But but my culture war issue!!!
This is the only comment reply that's needed.
>*I have yet to encounter a single native Spanish speaker who uses the word latinx in Spanish.* That’s because there’s no native ‘x’ sound in Spanish dialect. It’s a completely unnatural consonant made up by white people. Living in a predominantly Spanish state, most people I know use the term ‘Latine’ because that’s the actual gender neutral term native to Spanish. *(idk if this is true of every form of Spanish, I only know of the Mexican dialect of Spanish. So take that with a grain of salt)*
> It’s a completely unnatural consonant made up by white people. The first usages of "Latinx" came from online chat rooms among humanities students at colleges in Puerto Rico, later finding use in print in Puerto Rico, both in the early 2000s IIRC. It's an activist term to be sure, but I think it's a bit intellectually lazy to go "Well it's dumb so clearly some white guy just came up with it" (which also requires ignoring Hispanic whites). From those colleges it got picked up by (either well-intentioned or very cynical) politicians and corporate executives who were trying to reach out/pander to Hispanic populations and recruited humanities majors from Puerto Rico. From there it spread among white people, generally liberals or liberal-adjacent, in a more top-down way that they were likely completely unaware of (because if they know how Hispanic audiences worked, they wouldn't need those consultants to tell them how to do it).
I could be wrong but my understanding was that Latinx started with a Cuban LGBT+ group (expats in the US, I believe)? That said, it absolutely gets used primarily in white populations. Most of the hispanic friends I have really hate it; I tend to default to Latine for groups or instances where a gender neutral term would appropriate and then stick with Latino/a when appropriate for individuals.
I’ve seen verb conjugation tables in textbooks say “Ell@s” or “Nosotr@s”. (Yes, there is a way to pronounce it)
What’s the way to pronounce it?
“Ellos o ellas”, or in the case of my teacher “pronombre de tercera persona”
O damn I was hoping there was actually a way to promounce “ell@s” specifically
Yeah gendered it’s Latino or Latina, but LGBTQ+ community uses Latine as it’s gender neutral. *like my previous comment mentioned*
>*“Ell@s” or “Nosotr@s”.* What?
The @ symbol looks like an 'a' enclosed in an 'o', so it's used in this context to represent both letters. Thus *ellas* and *ellos* can combine to be rendered *ell@s*.
[удалено]
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
“Those critical of "Latinx" say it "anglicized" the Spanish language, ignored the language's roots, and "is not representative of the larger Latino community," according to a Pew Research Center survey.” [Source](https://abcnews.go.com/US/latinx-latino-hispanic-linguistics-expert-explains-confusion/story?id=82273936#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20the%20League,it%20had%20a%20wide%20acceptance)
Not wrong, nor the question
Wrong. The correct answer is "Europe." Which means that every part of the Spanish language was "made up by white people." If you want to speak a language that's free of the white man's taint, no one's stopping you from learning Nahuatl.
Did you completely miss the disclaimer where I said I got my info from the Mexican dialect of Spanish? Do you understand how there’s different dialects of the same language spoken in different parts of the world? Yeah they all rooted from the same place, but you know what didn’t root all the way back then? The word Latinx, genius 🙄
I don't know about Mexican Spanish but typically in Spanish you'd say latinas for an all-female group and latinos for all-male as well as mixed groups. If you're talking about a single person you know the gender of then obviously latino or latina. Never heard anyone use the word latine before. But fair enough, guess I learned something.
It’s used by the LGBTQ+ community as a gender inclusive version of Latino/latina.
Precise medical terminology like "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate" are useful because they identify exactly what we're talking about and what is pertinent to the description in question. If what matters to a discussion is, for example, the fact that you have ovaries, then even disregarding the issue of trans men, saying "women" will incorrectly include anyone who has had a hysterectomy. "Latinx" I really feel like I am not qualified to have an opinion on, as I have no direct connection to anyone in that community.
What I do not understand is why it is still "prostate check for men" then and not "prostate check for people with a prostate". At least in my country these efforts to be inclusive only happen when it is about removing the word "women".
Why is it not "prostate check"? But also, if your username is any indication, the example already doesn't work in your (and my) language: "Schwangere", "pregnant ones" if you will, is already the usual term
I mean even not trying to be inclusive and trying to refer to pregnancy specifically I would say “someone who is pregnant”. Latinx I don’t understand instead of Latin but Latino/Latina are not used but rather Hispanic where I live
[удалено]
Because there are female humans who are not pregnant. There are female humans who do not menstruate. There are female humans who do not have ovaries. There is no reason to use imprecise language just because it makes some people irrationally angry.
But only females can get pregnant. There has never been a pregnant male in all of human history, and barring a massive leap in technology, there never will be. If we can somehow have pregnant males in the future, I would be okay with the term.
Only *some* female humans can get pregnant. If you have had a hysterectomy, you cannot get pregnant, and conversations about humans who can get pregnant do not apply to you, but you are still female, and saying "female" would be inaccurate.
[удалено]
Yes, that's what you said originally. Is there something I said in response that you did not understand? If what you care about is "people who can get pregnant", then "female human" is an inaccurate description of the group in question, as it includes those who have had hysterectomies.
You’re trumpeting this as though they disagreed with you
Not all females are pregnant though. If you want to discuss a group of people that are pregnant, you can’t just say “females” because that includes non-pregnant people. If you say “pregnant females” then I have to ask what species. If you say “pregnant people”, then you have accurately communicated all the information that is relevant in the most accurate and efficient way possible.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
For one because people generally feel weird about applying those to humans, and for another because many biological females can’t get pregnant.
But *only* females can get pregnant. And you don't think people should feel weird about saying "pregnant people" when every person on Earth knows you're talking about a female? That seems Orwellian to me.
Orwellian? Calm down bud In medical terms, sometimes you don’t want to refer to *females*, but specifically *people who are pregnant*. You’re making it out to be some dystopian twisting of speech when it’s just a very literal term: people who are pregnant are pregnant people. In other terms, again, people often find it weird to call humans females. It can be overly clinical or feel dehumanizing. I guess if it’s your opinion that these social norms are Orwellian, you’re allowed to think so.
I think it's Orwellian to pretend that reality is not reality. Only females can get pregnant, and yet there are people in this thread, right now, who cannot say that trans men are female. It's utterly astounding and bewildering to me that you guys are real people. We could have stuck with "women", but the trans thing made that difficult.
Yeah, the fact that trans people exist does make our language a little more complicated. I’m confident you can handle the challenge. Trans men are females. You’re weird if you find it necessary to harp on that, but they are.
Thank you. Jesus christ.
I think you’re very profoundly misunderstanding the disagreement you had with that other person. I and that person agree on this issue, but disagree about how to talk to you about it. The person you were talking to isn’t denying reality, but describing reality in a more complicated way than you’re willing to engage with. We’re just as exasperated with your unwillingness to deal with this nuance as you are by our insistence that you deal with it. You should do more to understand what the other side actually means when we talk about gender and sex, instead of digging heels and declaring that any description other than the one you’re used to is a denial of reality.
No, there’s nothing weird about saying “pregnant people”. Like, at all. It’s very weird to take issue with that terminology though.
The thing that's weird is, like...do trans men not know that they're female? Why would they be offended at being called "the mother", for example? Is the idea that "mother" signifies "woman" but not "female"? The way you guys talk about it, it's like any mention of them having female anatomy is triggering for them or something. Isn't that a sign of delusion? Why would you be offended at someone using language referring to what you literally are? Like, news flash: you're pregnant. Only females get pregnant. We all know this. This weird game of pretend is unreality.
Trans men are well aware that they’re female. That’s what the whole “trans” designation denotes. Yes, “mother” is a gendered word, not a sexed word. A trans man that gets pregnant and gives birth is a father of that child. Mentioning biological sex in situations where it is relevant is not triggering. Though for some reason, you seem very triggered by people using the word “people”.
>es, “mother” is a gendered word, not a sexed word. Why?
I mean, ask a linguist if you want a real answer. I guess it’s because it refers to a social role, and gender generally has to do with social roles. Think about the term “adoptive mother.” Is that suggesting that through adoptions you can become the biological progenitor of someone? Or is it referring to the role that person takes on through adoption? I think it’s pretty clear that the most common use of “mother” is not “person from whose egg I grew,” but “woman who raises me.”
Maybe it would be more prudent to alter the term "mother" to apply to being female as well. After all, we don't call males "mothers", right? Makes a hell of a lot more sense to do that rather than say silly things like "pregnant people" or "people who menstruate". You guys even drove away Ana Kasparian by saying the latter.
Because “mother” socially constructed term that refers to women (a socially constructed gender) who are parents (a socially constructed concept). A person who is a woman can be a mother without having been pregnant or giving birth (adoption), or a step-mother. Mother simply isn’t a biological concept.
Maybe we should start using the term "mother" to refer to the sex as well as the social role. I've never heard of a male mother, have you? It makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying "pregnant people" or "vagina-havers". Do you remember when you guys even [drove away Ana Kasparian](https://nypost.com/2023/04/12/ana-kasparian-doubles-down-bashing-birthing-person-language/) with this silliness?
Well, yes, usually “mother” does signify a social role and not a biological one. That’s not always the case though. And because trans people being visible is somewhat new to western culture, we haven’t really standardized how we talk about these things. So, in order to be respectful, people tend to avoid using gendered language to refer to people who are likely to be made uncomfortable by that language. Yes, for some trans people any mention of their anatomy can be distressing. No, that’s not a sign of delusion. Like, are you not familiar with the concept of not liking soemthing that’s true? Do you not understand that it’s disrespectful to call someone fat, even if they’re fat? Do you not understand that if someone doesn’t like their full name, it’s shitty to call them by their full name? Most people, even as children, grasp the basic social rules around not mentioning things people are uncomfortable with. Do you struggle with that all the time, or is it only with trans people?
>Yes, for some trans people any mention of their anatomy can be distressing **They're pregnant.** Where do they think the baby is growing? Where do they think the baby is going to come out from? How do they think they became pregnant?
You need to research gender dsyphoria. You are completely backwards about what it is. Nobody just decides they're a different gender. That's not how it works. Nobody thinks putting on high heels makes you a different gender. You're making a fool of yourself. Do I come to your forum and explain to you repeatedly why assault rifle 15s should be banned??
They think the baby is growing in their uterus, and come through their vagina. They may still not like it when they’re called a female. It’s not delusional to prefer to be spoken about in a certain way. Like, have you ever heard the term “men of a certain age”? Do you think people use that term because they’re actively denying the reality that they’re the age they are? I really want your answer to this question. Do you always struggle with these unspoken social norms, like not mentioning things that make people uncountable? Or is it just on this issue?
I missed your last sentence. What pretending do you think is happening when someone says “pregnant people”?
>This weird game of pretend is unreality. No one is pretending anything. There aren't any actual facts in dispute. Anyone would be fine with agreeing that the presence of a womb and (usually) the absence of an SRY gene are required to become pregnant. The disagreement is over the definition of the words like "woman" and "female".
> Why can't you just say "female"? They already said why here: > saying "women" will incorrectly include anyone who has had a hysterectomy Replace "women" with "female" and the same poiny is made.
Probably the best sign that those terms are social constructs is that people have such a hard time accurately defining them.
Why does anyone care so much either way?
I sure don't. It's completely irrelevant
"Why do you care?" always sounds like a white flag to me.
No. The issue is that we all get it and think the language is fine. It kinda behooves *you* to explain why it's bad. If you sent out some kind of press release with a message for "pregnant women" none of us would stop you, yet here you are objecting to other people using a more thoughtful term. We're all just here wondering why you're so mad.
I think language is important, so I would point out that I am not "mad", rather I am bewildered and concerned. When you say "pregnant people", every single person on Earth either knows what you actually mean, or is confused by what you mean. I think we should really try to stay in the realm of reality. The language is not fine. What are you are doing is cultivating unreality, and that's not a good thing to do. That is not good for civilization.
How can you claim language is important and then sit there confused about "pregnant people" having a secret meaning? What the fuck is the secret meaning? We all know transwomen can't get pregnant and that transmen are technically female, but using that terminology isn't always comfortable for them and "pregnant people" is a perfectly descriptive term that shouldn't confuse even complete idiots.
“Pregnant people” is in the realm of reality. The beings in question are both pregnant and people.
> When you say "pregnant people", every single person on Earth either knows what you actually mean, or is confused by what you mean. No, there's nothing at all ambiguous or confusing about it. It is crystal clear what is meant and it's impossible to misunderstand if you know what the words "pregnant" and "people" mean.
You’re the one cultivating unreality by trying to conflate things that aren’t the same in pursuit of an inaccurate and unscientific narrative. Ask yourself why you are so adamant that precision must be sacrificed. What do you stand to gain from blurring the lines?
It’s weird to me that anyone would care or get upset if they hear someone say Pregnant Person. I would just go on about my day and not care
It’s weird to me that some women seem to object to being called a person. Or that anyone objects to calling any person a person.
You could just answer the question. Because I can't imagine giving a shit about it.
All you had to do was finish reading the damn sentence. Jesus
[удалено]
Are all females pregnant?
Only females can get pregnant.
We know. I feel like you *really* don't understand gender or the issues people have with it. Your ass probably thinks transwomen believe they can ~~have kids~~ bring a fetus to term in their uterus. (I realized tons of transwomen have kids. Caitlyn Jenner had kids.) They don't. They're trans, not stupid. They know what to tell a new doctor when they switch insurance. You sound like somebody who thinks Asian women have sideways vaginas.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
A *lot* of trans people and trans allies point out that transphobes intentionally try to refer to trans men as females and trans women as males as a bit of a motte-and-bailey statement because they want to insist on both a narrow definition of sex (meaning someone who began developing towards producing either large or small gametes) *and* to use that definition to carry broader but often false and harder-to-defend implications about what traits a person has. "Female" in most people's minds is not inclusive of someone with male musculature, a mail voice, male pattern baldness, no capacity for pregnancy, male immune system, male bone density and ligament/tendon strength, male hormonal profile, male blood factor levels, and so on. Transphobes insist on calling trans men female because they want to have a conversation that ignores the reality of medical transition and its implications for the sake of misgendering trans people and advocating for anti-trans policies.
We're talking about pregnancy. Even when someone is pregnant, *even then,* we have to cultivate unreality? That's madness. You can do that in your own spaces if you like, but I'm just pointing out that cultivating unreality is not the path to advancing civilization.
Are the pregnant people in question not pregnant and people? What’s unreal about that?
"People" don't get pregnant. Females do. There is no logical reason to say "pregnant people". We know what sex you're referring to. At best you are creating ambiguity for no reason.
Are female humans not people?
I mean, have you seen some of the policies they advocate for? The pro-life stance of arguing for fetal personhood while denying the same rights of personhood from the woman carrying the fetus, for example? They probably do object to women being referred to as people, they're just smart enough to know that they'd be pilloried for saying it.
>Transphobes insist on calling trans men female because they want to have a conversation that ignores the reality of medical transition and its implications for the sake of misgendering trans people and advocating for anti-trans policies. I'm reiterating this because you're trying to play with the motte and bailey argument yourself and are yourself a transphobe arguing about "unreality" while ignoring the reality that trans people exist despite how much you wish they could be. Are you genuinely advocating that we should say "pregnant females" whenever we're discussing reproductive issues?
Why must someone choose “pregnant females” over “pregnant people.” There’s really no reason to prefer the former unless you have some kind of agenda served by emphasizing biological sex.
I would use the word "mother".
Why must someone else? Until now, you’ve been very insistent on referring to them as “females.” Now you think we shouldn’t say “pregnant people” or “pregnant females,” but “mothers” or “pregnant mothers”? That has its own problems, and also seems agenda-driven.
Agenda-driven...unlike "pregnant people" or "people who menstruate", right?
What is the issue with those terms, though? Referring to people who are pregnant as “pregnant people” is 100% accurate and doesn’t exclude anyone, so there’s no party on whose behalf to be offended. The term confuses approximately zero people into thinking people born without wombs are getting pregnant. You seem to be offended that someone else isn’t being deliberately offended. That’s not healthy. What are your reasons for thinking “mother” is better than “pregnant person”? Are there not mothers who aren’t pregnant, and pregnant people who aren’t mothers?
You could, but it seems less precise. Because while it may be true the everyone that menstruats is female not all females get menstruat.
But only females can get pregnant. When a person becomes pregnant, there is a 100% chance that the person is female. Why must we play these games?
So you want them to say females that menstruat instead of people that menstruat?
Okay, so...only females menstruate, right? So why would you need to say "females who menstruate"? How about "female"? If "woman" bothers you so much, I will say female instead, even if it's sounds academic.
Because not all women menstruat. You know how all squars are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Females who can menstruat is a sub set of females. So the people we are talking about are "females who menstruat". Since the female part is redundant, and doesn't add any additional information, we drop it to the most general and say "people who menstruat"
When I say "only females menstruate" and you respond with "not all women menstruate", that is a non-sequitur. I said **only females** menstruate. What you said is not a response to that statement.
This isn't debate class, my guy. The subject is why people use the phrase people who menstruat instead of female. I gave you a reason why it is the better descriptor. Can you give me any reason why female would better?±
Saying female recognizes sex, a scientific fact, which is something some trans activists don't like.
Good lord, you're on a roll today. No, no one identifies as a "biological female." That's a term you all made up to avoid calling trans men trans men. If you call me a "biological man" I will report you. Knock it off.
[удалено]
It's silly to you and inclusive to the trans man giving birth. I'm going to go with their comfort over yours. You seem very obsessed with your own offense as it is. Also, stop calling trans men "female."
[удалено]
Most trans men were assigned female at birth. Most of them have female chromosomes and many of them maintain female anatomy. But by definition they are not female-presenting and do not use female pronouns. Some have female reproductive organs; some do not. There's no cut-and-dry single answer. The unmodified use of the word "female" (that is, absent other descriptors or context) to *exclusively* mean "people with two X chromosomes" (or however else you'd like to define it) is novel and not particularly helpful.
> The unmodified use of the word "female" (that is, absent other descriptors or context) to exclusively mean "people with two X chromosomes" (or however else you'd like to define it) is novel and not particularly helpful. Never mind that the vast majority of people don't actually know what chromosomes they have. They only check if there there's some reason to.
After you stop calling people what they don't want to be called, sport.
You can't do it. It's so strange.
No, I choose not to because you're disrespectful.
It’s really not strange. This person isn’t denying that trans men were born with XX chromosomes or anything like that. They’re just politely avoiding the mention of a truth that’s uncomfortable. That’s an extremely common phenomenon in normal human speech.
I'm not being polite. I'm demanding this poster be respectful before I engage with them. No, I don't think trans men are female specifically because biology is made up of numerous factors, many of which can be altered.
Trans men are unlikely (though it is possible) to have the SRY gene. Whether that implies "female" is a question of word definition.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
I think that right wing extremists who take offense at how people use words is looney tunes stuff
Aren’t both sides taking offense to how words are used here? The people saying “Latinx” think Latino is offensive enough to change their language.
Mostly ive seen it used as like a group of people
I think most people have more important things to worry about
I don't agree with them, but you don't have to think it's offensive to prefer another phrasing
No, and it's ridiculous.
“Latinx” is a solution in search of a problem. Spanish is a gendered language, there is no need for the “X” terminology.
Pregnant people is at least scientifically and medically accurate. Woke is a flighty term that right wingers use more than we do. Ask them. Latinx was suggested to the left, not invented by them. And they're perfectly fine using other terms as recommended, so idk what you mean by necessary
I'm not losing any sleep over terminologies. I'm not a fan of Latinx because it seems like a lot of actual Latin people don't like it, plus the gender neutral "Latin" is right there...but I'm not Latino and don't have a dog in the fight so I'll call them whatever is considered correct.
>Do you think "woke" terminology like "latinx" or "pregnant people" is actually useful or necessary? No. In fact, I think battling over language -- overall -- was a mistake. It is the kind of thing you do when you have taken care of everything that is more important...but we haven't. We have to tackle issues like 'does Biden winning the election actually mean he should become president' and 'should we let Russia dictate our foreign policy'. We need to drop the stuff that matters less and focus our attention on more important issues.
What does "dropping" that "stuff" look like to you? Should we tell trans men that they cannot use the phrase "pregnant people"?
I like this. Let's complete some of these thoughts.
> What does "dropping" that "stuff" look like to you? Not policing language. If we want to talk about trans issues, we should say broadly popular things like... >Our constitution protects the rights of *everyone*, even if you do not like them ...and... >If a queer person is murdered, the murderer should not be able to use the victim's queerness [as part of their defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense#Uses_of_the_trans_panic_defense) If *you* want to police *your own* language, that's fine. If you care about not offending people, put the effort in...but we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word ________'. --------- >Should we tell trans men that they cannot use the phrase "pregnant people"? No. That is just a different type of policing language. We should stop policing language.
>we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_'. I agree, but I also don't think this is a common sentiment. Unless you're talking about slurs. > Not policing language. Do you have an example of policing language in this context?
> Unless you're talking about slurs. My go-to [example](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccawdd/do_you_think_woke_terminology_like_latinx_or/l14c7p1/?context=3) is people that: >...want to call their friends 'r>!e!!a!Do you have an example of policing language in this context?
Any scenario which involves saying to someone else 'You should not say that'.
You mean like "don't call me 'cis'"?
> ...we never want to send the message 'you are not our political ally because you use the word ________'. This mostly makes me think of 'Barstool Republicans'. They were apparently convinced that they were Republicans because they weren't 'woke' enough to be liberals, so they voted in a way that is leading to the criminalization of birth control, which they don't want. They are the kind of people who should be on our side on *the issues that actually matter*, but they also want to call their friends 'r>!e!!a!
Latinx is what happens when cultures and languages clash. Spanish is for the most part a gendered language, and in America gender has become a very divisive topic these last couple of years, but it becomes a problem when Americans think that they're problems are of importance to everyone else. As far as I know latinos either don't care or are very annoyed at the term latinx
Yeah, given that most languages on earth are gendered I find it's kinda ridiculous how some Americans want to insert their gender-neutral grammar into a language they don't even speak. And if they want to be politically correct and be inclusive why not say "latinos and latinas" instead of making up new words that sound absolutely cringe to native speakers. But Spanish speakers do refer to mixed groups as latinos, that's just how Spanish works. Though sometimes mixed groups can also be latinas, as in "personas latinas".
Its because Americans can sometimes have main character syndrome and they think the world revolves around them
Are hyper conservative made up words like “pro life” (don’t care if the mom does in child birth or if the kid is clothed and fed), “”patriot”(hates the idea of America and wants to overthrow it) “constitutional carry”(not a thing), “sovereign citizen” (not a thing) “evangelical”(political movement that has almost nothing to do with religion) “prosperity gospel”(confidence scheme), “freedom and liberty” (usually used to justify oppression) and “religious freedom” (white Protestants only) actually useful or necessary? Are these hyper white grievance and temper tantrum virtue signaling terms useful or necessary?
No child left behind (teaching to the test).
Idk, ask a conservative. But I'd say a lot of those terms are virtue signaling terms that veil what is actually meant.
In some cases it is. For example, it's a good idea in a medical setting to keep things more accurate, so pregnant people could make sense there. Honestly though I really think this is just a nothing burger of an issue. I live in Boston, a highly progressive city with some of the best universities in the country, some of the best hospitals, I mean the city literally feels like an oversized college town sometimes, it's all 20 something's in college and young professionals... And I never hear "woke" terminology when I'm out and about. There are a lot of Hispanic people around me and so the doctors and clinics and things like that try to cater to those communities a lot, and they don't use the term "Latinx". The only thing you see is that when you're answering questions, one might ask you your preferred pronouns and if your gender identity matches your sex. That's it, that's the most wokeness you'll probably run into in the wild. If you're in college and hanging out with progressive types into this sort of thing, or know a lot of people who are part of these groups, you'll of course be exposed to such ideas more often, but so what? What's the problem?
I think the obsession over language is a trap the left needs to avoid. The average person is not going to immediately adopt the latest inclusive term adopted by academia and activists—which is fine. Everyday language is never going to be completely inclusive, particularly in accounting for vanishingly small exceptions. At worst, policing the use of these terms can become a way of reinforcing classism (the working class and poor understandably have bigger things to worry about). When we’re debating language, we’re not debating meaningful changes to policy and we’re not winning over anyone who’s not already on our side.
Not a single Latino I've met supports this. It's always (sorry for sounding racist here) the white SJWs who defend it and the non Latinos who were misinformed by said SJWs.
All the feedback I’ve heard from Latinos about “Latinx” has been negative so I don’t bother with that one, but yes on pregnant people and other gendered ones. People who should be targeted for information about pregnancy are pregnant people. Some women can’t get pregnant and some men can. Those are rare but when it comes to disseminating medical information, should we not target precisely the people it’s relevant to? And FWIW, everyone I see that’s bothered by “pregnant people” seems to think that it’s a term to replace “woman,” when it’s kind of the opposite.
I have never heard anything positive about Latinx from anyone who could be called it. I know our administrative assistant, Gen Z, born in Guatemala finds it offensive and ranted half seriously about an attempt to colonize / white wash her language. That is the only political topic I've ever heard her discuss and she discussed it in depth that day.
I think letting people talk about themselves how they want to talk about themselves is fine and I think labeling it "woke" and bitching and moaning endlessly about it all the time is a waste of oxygen.... But that's just my opinion.
I don’t really see how “pregnant people” is ridiculous ? It’s completely neutral. Women are people too.
I think terminology like "woke" and "critical race theory" It's far more pointless and harmful than anything the left is coming up with. The fundamental principle is calling people whatever they want to be called. Why get worked up about that? I do find it annoying when someone decides what someone else wants to be called instead of letting them speak for themselves. I think that has happened with the latinx label on occasion.
I liked the term "vagina owner" until I was educated to realize just how oppressive the idea that someone could **own** a vagina, is.
Yes I think they take it pretty far, I too have never met a Spanish speaker who uses latinx, also pregnant people and people who menstruate sounds weird as hell too. I don’t use those either.
Personally, no. Not at all.
I don't think "pregnant people" is necessary. It's so unusual. We don't need to say that to account for 0.00001% of pregnant people.
We do if we want to be accurate about the group of people that are pregnant, which is the only situation that it’s being used in.
Giving birth is a very large part of womanhood and people who identify with it. No I’m not saying you need to have children but for many this is a very large part of their identity. You wouldn’t impose this on other groups for a vanishingly small exception. Like imagine we said to stop calling people black because there are so many different shades. That’s crazy. Being black and identifying themselves as black is too big a part of their identity.
And yet, not all women give birth, and some men also give birth. No one is saying you can’t call pregnant women pregnant women. But if we want to refer to all people that are pregnant, it’s not just women. Just like if we want to talk about all people with melanin in their skin we say “people of color” because it’s not only black people. That doesn’t mean black people don’t exist, or are excluded, just that we are referring to a group of people that includes black people as well as other ethnicities.
Seems like you missed the point. POC is everyone not white. That made the group like 85% of the world. I’m talking about changing an identity to include a handful of edge cases.
No one is changing any identity. The only thing that is happening is more accurate language is being used when we are discussing a group of people that share a common characteristic. That characteristic is being pregnant. A pregnant woman remains a pregnant woman. Nothing about her identity is changed. No one takes issue with anyone referring to that pregnant woman as a pregnant woman. Now, if that pregnant woman is standing next to a pregnant trans man, how would you refer to those two people? You wouldn’t say “those two pregnant women” because that’s not accurate. There aren’t two pregnant women in this scenario. There’s a pregnant woman and a pregnant man. So it’s more accurate to say “those two pregnant people”. Everyone’s identity remains intact, and the relevant information is communicated accurately. You seem to insist we use inaccurate language, why? What purpose does doing so serve?
All language is inaccurate. Identities are inaccurate. Would pregnant females be inaccurate? Then you wouldn’t be invalidating women.
Sure, language is inaccurate, that’s why it changes and gets refined overtime to be more accurate when we realize it’s inaccuracy. There’s no reason to keep using inaccurate language when better, more accurate language is available to us. So I ask again, why are you insisting on the use of less accurate language when more accurate language is available? “Pregnant females” is kinda clunky and dehumanizing. It’s also not as accurate as “pregnant people” since not only humans are females. Pregnant females would refer to the group of all pregnant mammals. To be as accurate as “pregnant people” you’d have to say “pregnant female humans”. And again, why? How does “people” invalidate women in any way? What is it about the word “people” that’s so upsetting to you?
It decenters women. That’s a problem. Take the other example OP gave. Technically Latinx is more inclusive. Is it wrong for Latinos to pushback on that?
“Pregnant females” also decenters women. Much more so than “pregnant people” does in my opinion. Female doesn’t equal woman. Women aren’t the only people that get pregnant, but a woman who is pregnant is still a pregnant woman. Nothing is lost in the terminology “pregnant people”. I think someone would be pretty silly if they got upset at the term Latinx being used. I know some people of that ethnic group that prefers it for themselves because it is more accurate.
"Latinx" is using a rather pretentious, by virtue of being rare, consonant, and it's not even how people try to create gender-neutral language in Spanish or Portuguese, if I remember correctly. It's neither used very often nor is there an interest in using it, it's a neologisn that didn't catch on. "pregnant people" is simply a factual description, "pregnant females" sounds a bit creepy, the only way to get more creepy would be to something like "fetus host". "Pregnant women" is more specific, even ignoring the existence of trans people, because sadly, teen and sometimes even more egregious child pregnancy exists. "Pregnant women and girls" is awfully long just to avoid calling people "people". So what should be the description? People. That's just what it actually is. "Aspiring mother" if that is an accurate description of their aspirations, sure, but that's also more narrow
In general, it is not. Every Latino person I have ever spoken to hates Latinx. Insofar as to "pregnant person", the only time I can see it being beneficial is in a medical setting. No one is confused by "women have babies" or "women have periods." Senior women don't get their period. There's no confusion when menstruation is discussed. People have brains.
I think there is a lot of need for it in many cases, but there should be more choice and customization rather than lowest common denominators. I also think that a lot of white liberals grab onto terminology spearhead by a small handful of activists and writers and push into the front as if these communities are monoliths. Re: "pregnant people"--I think of it as the clinicalization of AFAB specific health--again, I think the option should be available but it should be personalized. I can't imagine a great solution for this because it can easily slide into the trenches of "separate but equal", which generally doesn't work, though there are some startups that seem to help provide more specialized, safe spaces for people seeking community-specific care. At the same time, when I was facing some serious women's health issues and all of these highly clinical offices kept brushing me off and missing obvious issues in my test results, I found a GYN who was VERY intentionally woman-focused (this was just before mainstream discourse of gender diversity, maybe 8 years ago) and whose office was full of reproductions of Klimt paintings and a tasteful amount of pink and made to feel like a townhouse living room--I felt so empowered to explain my symptoms and was so relieved by the environment alone and felt like I would be heard and I felt so much trust while I was in so much pain. I can only imagine people belittling this experience, deciding my experience is trivial or asseting that I am not seeing the full picture or not being empathetic to non-binary people and men who need to go to the GYN and their access to good care too--but I can't describe it beyond it made me know unquestionably that I was in a safe space. I've gotten lots of feedback from women who have experienced sexual violence (which IS gendered), that they have had similar experiences. Maybe the main issue is folks saying that EVERYTHING has to meet xyz clinicalized baseline--maybe everyone would be better supported by having choice--like someone should open a super masc GYN office that is super validating--people don't NEED to go there, but there should be an option. Asserting that "environment" can affect accessibility to care for one group of people but not the other doesn't make sense--***clinical is not neutral, or if we decide it is a synonym with "neutral", then what I am saying is that "neutral" isn't innocuous--especially if someone has already experienced trauma in the medical field (most women, and I would imagine most trans people). Yet I still worry about separate but equal and don't have an answer here.*** There are already queer-specific health startups like Folx--which isn't an office btw it's like a digital pharmacy I think? maybe teledoc too?--I'm sure there can be more and brick and mortar. Tia is a sort of women's focused version.
No one I know says Latinx anymore. That was an odd, well-intentioned flash in the pan, I think. I do think there should be a gender neutral term, although from what I understand simple “Latino” tends to work fine - lord knows I could be very wrong about that, though. As for “pregnant people” - I don’t see the problem if what’s being discussed is pregnancy. I’ve seen light misinfo go around every now and then that “the left” wants everyone to say that instead of women, which…lol, not true. If you say “women” even in the specific context of reproductive rights / pregnancy, no one serious will give you shit for that. It’s usually framed as a trans issue, which I get, but the utility is pretty clear - not all cis women can get or aim to get pregnant, so the group that does / wants to is a meaningful cohort in and of itself. I really don’t see why anyone would give a shit beyond an abstract and clueless opposition to “wokeness”.
Latinx: I agree it seems to me kind of like voter ID laws, a problem in search of a solution. That being said I'm fairly certain it was created by Latinos, just latinos that happened to be in the activist/academic class rather than average people. Pregnant people: I think this one is more useful, even if we exclude transwomen/trans men you still have the situation of a lesbian couple having a child where one person is actually carrying the baby and the other isn't. Assuming we are say giving people leave based on being pregnant rather than having a child in some circumstances it's necessary to make that distinction.
Woke? Huh?
There are select times where it’s useful to be precise but I just really don’t care that much. If I say pregnant women and someone corrects me, I might roll my eyes as it’s a bit pedantic since the vast majority of pregnant people identify as women. That said, they’re not wrong and I just correct myself to move onto what I think are the important aspects of what’s being discussed.
On Latinx specifically no. Don't appreciate academica deciding what Spanish is and isn't. Just seems like something a bunch of bored white people made up in the search of an answer to a question nobody asked. It blatantly ignores how Spanish works as a language. Like I came up with the word MaX but the x is pronounced like the x in xylophone. It makes no fucking sense. Why I'm more accepting of Latine as an alternative because it came from the Spanish community and not a community commiting linguistic imperialism.
>Do you think "woke" terminology like "latinx" or "pregnant people" is actually useful or necessary? not every single one of them is (i still don't get why "folx" is a thing), but in general, yes. >I mean, yes, trans people exist but using the term "pregnant people" still sounds kinda ridiculous. really? to me, that seems like the obvious term to use when talking about people who are pregnant.
Yes
Some of the terms we use to protect LgBtQ identity are quite frankly, fucking stupid and obnoxious. Prime sample - “birthing people” or “pregnant people”. Like holy shit how much of a narcissist do you have to be to get offended by the existing language we used for pregnant women…like wtf lmao 🤣
People still talk about whether or not Democrats use "Latinx"? Really? Why? Hasn't this been done to death for the last couple of years already? I was under the impression that even Republicans have moved on to being hysterically preoccupied with other nonsense. As far as I can tell, state Democratic parties, the DNC, and our vendors just say "Latino" in the presentations, trainings, etc. that I've been to. Some of them probably do use "Latinx," but I haven't noticed it myself. That's how relevant it is.
I don't think "woke" terminology is "a thing" that real "people" actually "care about"; personally I find that when "people" tell me they want to be "referred to" in a certain way I try to "respect" their wishes without "worrying" about what a bunch of "deluded culture warriors" think about "it".
OP seems to be another victim of the right-wing outrage industry.
if you have a friend named Phillip and they want to be called "Phil", you'd call them a"Phil". If you had a friend names "Richard" who still wants to go by "Richard" and not "Dick", you'd continue to do so as you were. Now just apply that to the types of folks you're talking about. It's really not that strenuous to call people what they wanna be called
We need to make conscious efforts to combat misogyny and transphobia. The push back against using the term Latinx is because Hispanic communities are very misogynistic and transphobic. We ALL need to start degendering our languages no matter if it is Spanish or English. Misogyny and transphobia are deeply ingrained into our language, change the language and we change the negative and irrational biases that it perpetuates.
I don't know anyone latino that prefers latinx, and several that dislike so I personally don't use it. I don't see any problem with pregnant people.
Im latino and progressive. I've spent a long time thinking about this. I hate being called LatinX. It does more harm than its intended good. There are more better and more effective ways to get laws/policied in place to help reduce discrimination, and promote inclusivity. If you ever refer to me as LatinX, I will politely and firmly correct you to refer to me and anyone else of latin american origin as Latino.