Your instructions:
In other words it’s about women. Women are women. It saves a lot of trouble. Women who call themselves “trans men” or “nonbinary” are still women. Intersex women are women. The word “women” is all that’s required, and trying to delete it from the language is not a good idea, given the subordinate status women have had imposed on us.
You mean women planning “to hand a baby off” – which itself is a description that should get more careful thought than how to justify deleting the words “women” and “mother” from the language.
No. I’ll go on calling women “women,” thanks, and you don’t get to tell any of us not to.
Comments
6 responses to “How to include EVERYONE”
Yes, we have to be lectured to by a youngster with pink hair. All her(?) years of wisdom, how nice of her to impart them to us. We haven’t known what to call people who give birth all these years; we stupidly called them “pregnant women”.
“So I say “people who are or hope to be pregnant” or “people who have given or plan to give birth.””
Yeah, those are way better than just ‘mother’ or ‘mother-to-be’.
/ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
There it is again, this “offer” to negotiate – if we don’t like the words, we should suggest new ones. But we already have the words we need. They are the ones who want to change them, and they need to convince us that it’s a good idea (no luck so far, chaps).
Do we know what we’re calling that yet?
@Catwhisperer;
I think I’m going with “shifty diplomacy.”
Haha shifty is putting it mildly, Sastra!
Catwhisperer:
I can’t remember who suggested it, but ‘stockholming’ has my vote.