Vorpal wrote:For every good piece of information, she seems to include 2 bits of misinformation.
And when the trans community; even gender therapists (I've seen some posting on twitter about it) try to explain to her, which bits are incorrect or misinformed, she doubles down.
My biggest problem with her, was all this started because she mocked a bulletin from an international health organisation that said 'people who menstruate', which I think is a perfectly good inclusive phrase to use to indicate women, girls, gender nonconforming, queer and trans folk who menstruate, without saying all of that, or maybe leaving someone out who will feel excluded (asexual? intersexual?). Also, although it is very rare, there are also men (non trans) who menstruate.
well could be regarded as offensive if used informally , almost reducing women to baby machines - thats almost as accurate? There are also terms for trans women that I wont mention that are quite accurate but would get them very upset.
But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.
seems ok to me
I was hoping that people here might indicate what other things she says in the essay are wrong, as thats the only piece I have read by her ( I dont do twitter or face book etc)