[ouid]

The thing that set the whole JK rowling controversy off was the idea that using the phrase "people who menstruate" was an acceptable way to refer to women.

If you are commenting in a thread about the Rowling controversy, it is dishonest to say that you do not participate in the part of the internet in which the word woman is considered a slur, when used to refer exclusively to those who have predominantly female anatomy. The people who get pregnant and menstruate, are exclusively in this category. And arguing that this is not what woman means "anymore" is equivalent to asserting that it is hateful to use it.

The ongoing linguistic castration is an assertion that the biological reality of sex is a immoral thing to take part in, because it is traumatic to those who do not wish to. However, note that among the consequences of the biological reality of sex is the notion of sexual attraction. Is it hate speech to assert that you are attracted only to women? What if you are a woman?

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I think this comes off as kind of unhinged. I’ve never heard of someone claiming language that includes other categories must therefore be calling sub categories hateful. This is like the logic of saying “object oriented languages” means that “java sucks” or something. I’ve literally never heard of someone call women a slur except from you, except you’re claiming other people are saying it just by saying they call their own thing something else.

This is all weird and still doesn’t give a real, rational rubric as to insane or sane progressive language. Lgbtq doesn’t mean bi is a slur lol