Related Posts
Hi Fishes, Can Anyone please tell, one of my friend joined Tech M in August, At the time of joining she was 3 months pregnant and now shes worrying about her manager. She wants to inform them about her pregnancy; is it right time to inform? Or she needs to wait for 6 more months for that to inform? Anyone please clearify.. HCL Technologies Newco Tata Consultancy Accenture Deloitte
Apply to attend the Smithsonian Science Education Center STEM Education Summit to Increase Diversity Within the STEM Teacher Workforce (applicants who are selected will receive fully-sponsored access to the summit and 1 year of mentor support at no cost). https://ssec.si.edu/event/stem-education-summit-building-coalition-attracting-and-retaining-diverse-stem-teaching
Pro
More Posts
Anyone from PwC AC MC-HIA willing to chat?
TIA!
Visual Storyteller
Farmers Market mushrooms 😃🍄
Additional Posts in LGBTQIA+ 🐠
Anyone in Boston this week?
Rising Star
Um, it’s not here in the bowl maybe but the ACLU’s lead trans rights lawyer, a trans man, was NYC Pride Grand Marshall yesterday.
At least in certain corners, the intersectionality of Dobbs is well understood.
I don’t think that the intention is to exclude all genders of people with uteruses from the conversation. There is an outcry for those people. But you have to understand that society is still moving toward the inclusion of all genders being mentioned on the fly.
It isn’t malicious (from everyone who has done it). I think that it would have made sense for you to just make a post that gives visibility to non-cisgendered women and others who can bear children. It’s not helpful to immediately assume that people are actively ignoring an entire group of people.
Pro
^ this.
This comment section cannot be the LGBT bowl holy crap. To the OP, you are 100% correct. I’ve been making an effort to say people with uteruses to make sure everyone is included.
Rising Star
SC...it didn't click for me until I saw your last post. I'm guilty of assuming that that statement made no sense.
Men don’t have abortions. Women do. So yeah, it tracks that cis women are front and center. Not everything is about you.
Wait what..
People get pregnant 😂
The protest I went to did refer to “pregnant people,” rather than “pregnant women,” and used other inclusive language. But I agree, I haven’t seen that inclusive language on this app.
Thank you 🙌🏻
Rising Star
OP, don't take this the wrong way, but your attitude scares a lot of people, especially given that trans rights has progressed so much in the last decade. Many people are still not comfortable with the trans community and the more you push the issue, the more you will see moderate Democrats switch parties. So while the trans community has had many wins in the past decade (though I agree, not enough), it's also causing other minority groups to (e.g. cost women) to lose rights like we just saw or these groups are becoming more afraid that their rights may be taken away.
Rising Star
@APM, thanks for the recommendation and for letting me know that I was supposed to be embarassed. I'll try to grow as fast as possible.
Rising Star
It’s super easy to be inclusive: “your body, your choice” is gender inclusive. “My body, my choice” is gender inclusive. “Freedom of choice,” “pro-choice” is gender inclusive.
I feel like it’s been the exact opposite, but it’s just different perspectives based on our grounds/friends. My gay male friends have been outraged and vocal.
Pro
I am sorry you are feeling marginalized over this. I think a lot of people assume that a transman cannot have a child because they have the birth giving body parts removed.
I follow a lot of political commentary on Pod Save America and they are careful to say "people who can get pregnant" - I think it really just matters where you get your news.
Because that wording effectively erases women from an overwhelmingly women’s issue. That’s a net negative effect in my book. I know it’s done from a good place and I try to use the inclusive term in my own life but from a public policy perspective that terminology replaces a contingent representing 50% of the country with one that only represents 0.01%. If I were a woman I’d be pretty offended by that. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/abortion-rights-debate-women-gender-neutral-language/629863/
I totally agree that there absolutely should be a place for LGBT (and particularly trans) people in conversations about lots of issues that formerly didn’t include us.
To push back a little though, I feel like it’s pretty crucial to call out that removing the word “woman” from conversations about perhaps the most fundamental women’s issue is a big shift. I feel like it gives a massively disproportionate share of the focus to the 0.01% of those who need abortions who are trans. Abortion affects FAR more people than that 0.01% and I feel like it’s actually dishonest to act as though 0.01% and 50% are both equally relevant percentages in this massively important issue, especially when the word that is being replaced is “women.” In order to be aggressively inclusive with our terminology, I fear we’re alienating and maybe actually discriminating against women.
It’s like if a kid asks you what color the sky is and you answer “Well it is all sorts of colors! Purple is my favorite.“ The sky is blue an overwhelming majority of the time, and that fundamental truth wasn’t communicated to the kid because we deemed it more important to convey that there are occasionally other colors of sky than that the sky is by and large blue all the time.
More importantly, advances made to abortion access as a whole will actually benefit trans people who need abortions too, not only women. I feel it’s obvious that those public policy advances will come MUCH more readily when we identify this as an issue that affects 50% of the country instead of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
If our goal is to advance abortion access, then we LGBT people shouldn’t get in the way by making this issue all about us. It’s not our issue. We should support, not aggressively redefine. It’s more important to me that we succeed than make yet another issue that barely affects us all about ourselves.
Likely because it splits the attention from the core issue - rights being taken away. Doesn't matter whose it is, semantics can be a distraction and arent gonna be a focus when you're trying to focus on spreading your cause's message to nonbelievers
I have had to correct myself before in conversations about pregnancy to where I was only really including cis women. I did see some more inclusive posts recently than I have seen in the past.
Someone made reference to a quote from Friends, “No uterus, no opinion”. Thoughts on that?
Interesting point here… hmm.
If myself and my partner agreed that we wanted a child and were able to conceive, I think they should have some level of opinion due to our initial agreement.
That being said, I think the person with the uterus ultimately makes the final call since it’s their uterus at the end of the day
there isn’t more outcry cause it’s bad strategy for progressives - if progressives want to win elections by great majorities.
Rising Star
How do cisgender men have abortions? That would be interesting.
I'm a trans guy and agree that yes the folks you mentioned are affected. I just don't get bent out of shape when people say "women's rights" etc., because it captures the main point and not necessary to pull an online gotcha moment.