Men who played rugby union at an international level are more than twice as likely to develop dementia as the general population and three times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease https://t.co/PqnMxoDx6U
So completely safe to have male assigned male at birth rugby players on woman’s teams where they will be impacting smaller, lighter, and less muscular players?
“Among people who menstruate, the length of their menstrual cycle may vary according to their ethnicity.”
Why not just write, “Menstrual cycles may vary by ethnicity”?
This doesn’t even violate any rules against saying the word “woman”. The original wording is just needlessly clunky, obviously menstrual cycles would only vary for “people who menstruate” – to start the sentence with that is redundant.
Of course, I get the reason why they go with that wording, it is to irritate a chunk of those “people who menstruate” into driving engagement on social media.
In other words, it is trolling, and that is not something a reputable publication should be doing.
Also, “people who identify as Asian”? So women can pull a Rachel Dolezal and identify into a more convenient menstrual cycle? Who knew?
I occasionally wonder how much of this “identify as” phenomenon is due to polling and paperwork. All that can be said of those who respond to, for example, phone surveys is that they identify themselves as being something or other. When the results are reported, responses are often given qualifiers like “self-identified”; e.g., self-identified Asian.
Obviously a person must have the trait in order to be a person with the trait. This ‘people with thing’ construction is only ever used when the anatomy or function is a female trait. Its role is performative – partly as a lightning rod for those you mention, and partly to signal lefty cred. Better yet, when the lightning rod does as lightning rods do, they can point to the torrent of criticism and repeat the performance – the next announcement will be how they are ‘standing firm’ against the so-called abuse. Another opportunity to signal for some more lefty cred.
Got an e-mail from a Canadian drug store chain mentioning “World Menopause Day.” Out of curiousity (and expecting the worst) I checked out one of the links and was surprisingly pleased to see the article using the word “woman.” The short (1:19) linked video did not, but it was a pharmacist speaking directly to the camera, saying “you.”
But you can’t say “women” because that would be defining people by their reproductive biology.
Does that only affect women who identify as Asian, or also women who are assigned Asian at birth?
So completely safe to have
maleassigned male at birth rugby players on woman’s teams where they will be impacting smaller, lighter, and less muscular players?“Among people who menstruate, the length of their menstrual cycle may vary according to their ethnicity.”
Why not just write, “Menstrual cycles may vary by ethnicity”?
This doesn’t even violate any rules against saying the word “woman”. The original wording is just needlessly clunky, obviously menstrual cycles would only vary for “people who menstruate” – to start the sentence with that is redundant.
Of course, I get the reason why they go with that wording, it is to irritate a chunk of those “people who menstruate” into driving engagement on social media.
In other words, it is trolling, and that is not something a reputable publication should be doing.
Also, “people who identify as Asian”? So women can pull a Rachel Dolezal and identify into a more convenient menstrual cycle? Who knew?
I occasionally wonder how much of this “identify as” phenomenon is due to polling and paperwork. All that can be said of those who respond to, for example, phone surveys is that they identify themselves as being something or other. When the results are reported, responses are often given qualifiers like “self-identified”; e.g., self-identified Asian.
#4 Bruce
Clunky, and tautological.
Among people with hair, hair colour may vary…
Among people with eyes, eye colour may vary…
Among people with bones, bone density may vary…
Obviously a person must have the trait in order to be a person with the trait. This ‘people with thing’ construction is only ever used when the anatomy or function is a female trait. Its role is performative – partly as a lightning rod for those you mention, and partly to signal lefty cred. Better yet, when the lightning rod does as lightning rods do, they can point to the torrent of criticism and repeat the performance – the next announcement will be how they are ‘standing firm’ against the so-called abuse. Another opportunity to signal for some more lefty cred.
Where is the “trans woman” or the menstruating EnBe in the accompanying photo? Not a beard in sight, how can they be so transphobic?
Got an e-mail from a Canadian drug store chain mentioning “World Menopause Day.” Out of curiousity (and expecting the worst) I checked out one of the links and was surprisingly pleased to see the article using the word “woman.” The short (1:19) linked video did not, but it was a pharmacist speaking directly to the camera, saying “you.”
It’s so bizarre that we have to brace ourselves for the “everyone can have menopause” nonsense.