Lennie Pennie: Gender neutral language matters in the Herald

[WandaWomblesaurus]

archive.is/3F1ST

What is she on about? We have hardware apparently. Or we don't. Or something.

Also we are people.

But biology matters or doesn't matter if you feel secure or not.

I think she's quite clear. She wants to use gender neutral language because she feels it's more inclusive and more convenient. To which I say she can fill her boots as far as I'm concerned, it's not going to change how I approach my own language.

I understand and I disagree.

Womanhood is under attack by people, predominantly men, who want to claim it and colonise it. Gender neutral language is no longer neutral in its political project. Its desire to be inclusive has been warped to reflect the wants of a small group over the majority.

Whilst I agree that we should not be limited by our bodies, we are all defined by our bodies and to pretend otherwise is not helpful to anyone.

People who give birth, menstruate, breastfeed, get cervical screenings and go through other experiences do not do so because they are women.

Yes, they do. Men cannot and do not do these things.

People who give birth, menstruate, breastfeed, get cervical screenings and go through other experiences do not do so because they are women.

LOL.

I think I understand where she's coming from here. We know not all women will breastfeed or give birth or menstruate, that goes without saying. Doing those is not a condition of being a woman. They do those because they choose to and are able to and in the right age range, rather than because it is an innate part of womanhood.

So they are able to do those things because they are women but they don't do those things because they are women. I.e. womanhood is the enabler, not the cause.

”I didn't consciously omit gendered language”

Ah yes. Avoiding using common words and standard phraseology just happened without thought…

• of course in many women, womanhood will be the cause of menstruation but not other things like breastfeeding or giving birth.

I'm using it in the sense that they can only do those things because they are women. Not that those things are what defines being a woman.

I agree with that, but I think that means womanhood is the enabler and not the cause.

Say I wanted to have a child tomorrow. I would be getting pregnant, giving birth, and breastfeeding because I wanted a child, not because I'm a woman. The thought process is "I want a child, therefore I have to get pregnant etc", not "I am a woman, therefore I have to get pregnant etc".

Maybe I'm not explaining this correctly, but I do see where she's coming from on this point, even if I disagree with her overarching ethos.

Where a person's sex doesn't matter, use "gender neutral" language if you want to and can.

Where a person's sex is relevant, use "gendered", in actual fact sexed, language.

Only women can get pregnant, so the correct description is "pregnant woman", not "pregnant person".

Quoted out of context:

"I have friends who don’t identify with womanhood, yet still have the requisite hardware, capacity or desire to experience menstruation and pregnancy [...] they are no less women as a result of this fact."

I used to follow her on Twitter but stopped a long time ago (can't remember why). Just had a look... I'm blocked (if her name is LentilPentil) is it?

Out if context seems to be as accurate as it needs to be.

Not all people are women, but all women are people, and as such in one fell swoop I can both cover women such as myself, while also broadening the scope of those I am able to include in my discussions.

Oh I am so looking forward to her future articles when some people stop identifying as people. Will she change her language again or say "don't be daft!"

There was important work progressing in areas where non-sexed/gendered language would be helpful. Firefighter rather than fireman, police officer etc. This matters because the language bolsters assumptions about who can and cannot do certain roles. This work is not complete as far as everyday usage is concerned.

The kind of twaddle that the likes of LP and groups ‘advising’ the NHS come out with undermines that because it all gets lumped under the same ‘woke’ umbrella and the misogynists can carry on misogyning.

To quote ”Women don’t need every aspect of menstruation to be steeped in the pungent pink sludge of stereotypical femininity, replete with garish floral wrappers, cloying floral scents and condescending girlboss marketing.”

gosh her misogyny is showing, isn’t it? I hate the kind of person who thinks pink/floral=feminine=lesser. It’s the root of the issue really isn’t it? Stereotypical femininity is only valid and aspirational when a man is doing it as a drag routine. On a woman? No chance she should shame herself with that “garish, cloying, stereotypical” femininity.

the rest of her writing is turgid and school essay-like. How do these mediocre writers get promoted and paid?

How is the use of practical, accurate, everyday language in any way related to “stereotypical femininity”?

I haven’t read the full article yet and am not sure I will, but there’s quite the aroma of male bovine faecal material about the quoted statement in WeeFree’ post.

''To refer to women as people does not negate their womanhood, rather it emphasises their humanity''

So why don't we see this nonsense happening with men?

How does the term ''woman'' lessen our humanity? Holy internalised misogyny, Batman!

The article is idiotic. Women can do/do do all those things because they are women. Functions of their sex. Identity claims are irrelevant. If they were relevant then how come declaring yourself to be aan makes no difference to your reproductive role or capacity?It's not just bad luck or illness or age which prevents menstruation in a man, it's the fact that he is a male-sexed human being and therefore does not have the equipment.

As for women being people, well duh. So are men. So that's no clearer, is it? Only women can menstruate, gestate, give birth or breastfeed.
Gender neutral/non sex-specific language is a nonsense when talking about functions exclusively found in one sex.

And of course women don't stop being women if they have parts of their reproductive system removed. I am always amazed when TRAs say this thinking it is a "gotcha" because it demonstrates the idiocy of their argument.
Women remaining women post-hysterectomy etc proves that "female" is their sex and that claiming to be a man has no effect on whether you actually are one or not. And it also demonstrates that sex characteristics are not (as Dr Emma Hilton puts it) a smorgasbord or pick'n'mix which randomly attach to a foetus. If you are female you develop characteristics from Column A, if male your characteristics come from Column B.

😂
You're not wrong, @PriOn1!

considering I am, at least the last time I checked, a woman myself.

Would genuinely be interested to know what criteria she checked against. I suspect she did not.

For someone who talks about the importance of language, does she not believe that words need to convey a meaning? Which meaning is conveyed by 'woman', other than 'person'?

I know I'm just repeating myself at this point, but if you want to make the point that 'woman' no longer means 'female', then perhaps consider explaining literally anything about what it does mean, and should mean in future?

It's always "there are many ways to be a woman" - "name one? er I'm busy right now"

Indeed.

Most women interpret 'woman' as sex-based: if they are adult female human beings, then they are women. A small minority of adult female human beings refuses the label 'woman' for them.

Therefore, genderism, to be inclusive of that small group, forces its interpretation of 'woman' on the vast majority. Just a feeling, it is now, being a woman, but nobody tells us what to do if we lack the belief in such abstract inner feelings of femininity. So we are being erased!

Womanhood is not some small insignificance precariously perched atop one word, entirely reliant upon its use or omission, it is an unshakable, immovable foundation upon which each and every expression of what it means to be a woman can comfortably exist.

As previous posters have said - having told us what it isn't, tell us what it is? Please tell us what womanhood is. Grief it is tedious and non sensical and naval gazing and boring.

Is Laurie pennie the idiot who claimed she got PTSD from a bad book review, and said the young girl who was flashed by the Wii soa pervert shouldn’t have been looking? Knobber