[AlecSchueler]

In humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children.

> It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[lllkml]

And here's how it was socially constructed -

Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male).

Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex.

Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them.

Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity".

Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison.

Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.

[Athari]

This sounds like a valid interpretation which doesn't outright ignore valid points made the progressives, however, by calling gender stereotypes sexist, you sound more like a gender abolitionist believing that the distinction between male and female in behavior is completely arbitrary.

This IS theoretically a valid solution to the problem, however it requires a massive change in the society as it doesn't reflect how real humans behave here and now anywhere on the planet.

The way I see it, the current solution proposed by the progressives, with treating gender stereotypes as something substantial, is a tiny bit more practical in terms of healthy coexistence (leaving contested topics like sports aside). As to whether it'll be a temporary bandaid solution and the humanity will choose gender abolitionism, I guess we'll see in 500 years.

[AlecSchueler]

I'm not sure these stages apply to any known theory in contemporary gender studies.

[lllkml]

It's roughly how this ideological viewpoint has developed, and how it's affected language and policy, in the past few decades.

[Chris2048]

> gender affirming language

Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)?

If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans;

since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?

[AlecSchueler]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking me. Pregnant person covers everyone who is a person and pregnant. That can be a cis woman, a trans man or a lesbian woman with a non-pregnant co-mother as a partner.

[The_Colonel]

Doesn't "mother" work just fine to cover these cases as well? It just sounds like an unnecessary awkward neologism.

[AlecSchueler]

No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father.

[AlecSchueler]

Too late to edit, but it's also not useful when we're specifically talking about pregnant people. If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs, for example, then it's inaccurate as they could have a same sex partner who will also be a mother but who is not going through the process of carrying a child.

[The_Colonel]

> No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father.

Why?

> If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs...

Yes, but

a) you rarely need such differentiation.

b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context.

[AlecSchueler]

> Why?

Because they're fathers, not mothers.

> a) you rarely need such differentiation

How common does it need to be before precise language becomes preferable?

Around one in a 100 couples with children are same sex couples, at least in the US. Acceptance rates of homosexuay vary of course and laws have been lagging behind, so we can expect this number to raise as acceptance grows. Inclusive language is part of that acceptance.

You also have many families with adoptive mothers who didn't give birth to their children.

> b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context

And I'm pretty sure even children can understand the term pregnant person. I'm surprised that so many people here are confused by it

[fractallyte]

You're on the attack over some commenters who affirm the reality of "female" vs "male".

Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.

[AlecSchueler]

I didn't think I was "on the attack." Could you point out where you were reading an attack in my comments?

I asked why "pregnant person" was a confusing term and defended it on the basis of inclusivity. Social constructs are indeed not based on immutable truths, they reflect our beliefs and feelings. It seems reasonable to me to consider the beliefs and feelings of others when perpetuating social norms. Mother is an ambiguous term when we're talking about child bearers. Not everyone who bears a child is a mother and not every mother bears children.