A Vanishing Word in Some Activist and Medical Circles: ‘Women’ (NYT)

[CrossPurposes]

I'm pleased to see this issue being aired in the New York Times.

www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html

It's possibly behind a paywall so here's a flavour: From Planned Parenthood to NARAL Pro-Choice America to the American Medical Association to city and state health departments and younger activists, the word “women” has in a matter of a few years appeared far less in talk of abortion and pregnancy.

Driven by allies and activists for transgender people, an array of medical, government and progressive organizations have adopted gender-neutral language that draws few distinctions between women and transgender men, as well as those who reject those identities altogether.

This speed of change is evident: In 2020, NARAL issued a guide to activists on abortion that stressed they should talk about a “woman’s choice.” Two years later, the same guide emphasized the need for “gender-neutral language.”

Inclusive language that is actually exclusive makes me angry and sad.

Quite surprising from the NYT as it has been quite firmly on one side so far.

This article is in the middle, but still lacks clarity because it never defines 'gender identity' clearly and lets us go on assuming that 'woman' is also an abstract identity not based on biological sex. It is the latter for the vast majority, just as 'man' is biology-based identity (in a rough sense, not in the GI ideology sense) for the vast majority.

Also, the author doesn't mention the furious push-back on social media the new terms provoke when used by politicians.

Who exactly are they referring to with “transgender men”? It is ‘transmen’ (biological females) or ‘transwomen’ (biological males)?

I live in the US and listen to NPR for my news. If you were an extraterrestial newly arrived on earth you would think the sex class of "folks" exclusively gave birth and needed access to abortions.

Any doctors/obgyns/politicians with even a smidgeon of media training resolutely refuse to use the words women or mother when engaged in the debate about abortion.

So listening to NPR - one of the most balanced radio stations in the US - talking about the repeal of Roe v Wade, you'd think this was going to affect "people's" or
"folks" health care and reproductive rights.

NO! This affect WOMEN. Only WOMEN. No MEN will die as a result of the repeal of roe v wade only women.

I complain every time but it is now engrained ... "folks who need an abortion". how the fuck did "woman" become the word that cannot be said.

The comments are almost entirely on our side on this issue (900 total comments so far).

I live in the US and listen to NPR for my news. If you were an extraterrestial newly arrived on earth you would think the sex class of "folks" exclusively gave birth and needed access to abortions.

Unfortunately for the gender-neutral ideologues, language evolves through usage.

If they use "folk" too much as a "women" substitute, it will start acquiring a "mainly women" gloss, to the extent that people will stop using it for men, and maybe in a few century's time it will be female-specific, and we'll need another neutral term.

These shifts do happen over centuries - "man" used to be sex-neutral, but ended up as meaning primarily and then specifically male, so we had to invent "human".

The comments are now over 1700, and the vast, vast majority are still very angry at these changes and very clearly gender critical. Based on ten minutes of scrolling, the number of views on our side is around 99%, and almost all the comments are based on being well-informed on the issues.

The majority is also clearly Democratic voters (the main readership group at the NYT).