"Why Can't I Call You a Person with a Uterus? Is That Not Accurate?"
An explainer on why women hate your inclusive "gender neutral" language (and no, it's not because they're all transphobes)
A few days ago, Ana Kasparian, executive producer and host of TYT, generated a storm of both backlash and praise with the following tweet:
Ana Kasparian is not alone in feeling this way. This sort of language produces a negative visceral reaction in women who hear it used. Even if they cannot clearly articulate why they hate it, they know they hate it.
Now, I am not speaking for every woman here. There are some women in that very thread who express that they don’t see what the big deal is, that they’re fine with this sort of language or maybe even prefer it. There are also a lot of men and people who identify as non-binary in that thread expressing confusion over why women hate language that is, in their view, more medically accurate.
If you are one of those women who cringe at “people who menstruate” but can’t pinpoint why, I am writing this for you, to validate your instincts and give you language to describe your discomfort.
If you are one of those people who genuinely don’t understand why women hate language that you believe to be inclusive, I am writing this for you as well. I hope you read this with an open mind and that I am able to broaden your perspective.
“Are People Trying to Use More Inclusive Language? Yes! That’s Good!”
Clearly referencing Ana Kasparian’s earlier tweet, feminist Jessica Valenti tweeted the following:
Valenti’s argument consists of two parts: 1. She dismisses Ana’s concerns as overblown, since no one is forcing Ana not to call herself a woman and 2. She acknowledges that while people are indeed using terms like “people who menstruate", “birthing people," etc., this is merely the result of people using “more inclusive language,” which is “good.”
I will get back to the first part in a minute, but right now I want to examine the idea that more inclusive language should automatically be celebrated.
One counterexample that comes to mind is Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter. Surely, All Lives Matter is the more inclusive slogan, since it includes everyone of every race, but is it inclusive in a good way? In this case, people on the progressive left, who largely supported the BLM movement, took a stand against inclusive language, arguing that it removed focus from those who were suffering disproportionately from police brutality and was a bad-faith slogan meant to derail their movement under the guise of inclusivity. In this instance, trying to use more inclusive language, replacing Black Lives with All Lives, was not “good.”
Another counterexample is growing use of the term Latinx in progressive political circles, intended as a more gender-inclusive version of Latino. I believe that the intentions of those who use “Latinx” are probably nobler than those who insisted upon All Lives Matter, but is using it for voter outreach necessarily “good”? Polling from 2020 indicates that only a quarter of Hispanic people had even heard of it, and only 3% use it as an identifier. If your target audience does not understand or actively dislikes the way that you are referring to them, perhaps a different approach is needed.
So, while “more inclusive language” sounds like a positive, noble goal (and, indeed, it can be!) you cannot simply declare that inclusive=good. Newly introduced language needs to stand up to scrutiny on its own merits.
“Anatomy-Oriented Language in a Clinical Context”
One of the common rebuttals against Ana’s argument (the above tweet is but one of many examples) is essentially accusing Ana of making shit up, because “no one” is going out of their way to call her a person who menstruates. Which… okay. It is true that there are very few people going out of their way to address individual women as female reproductive functions (or, at least, it was true, some trans activists are cruelly doing so now despite her clearly stated boundaries).
But, the “no one is doing what you’re describing” is immediately followed up with a concession that, okay, yes, some factions of the left are insisting on language like “people with uteruses” and “people who menstruate” and “birthing people,” but only in the context of female reproductive health... You see, they aren’t referring to Ana specifically but to all female patients seeking healthcare or information related to their reproductive organs…
Well, yes, no shit. That is exactly what women are objecting to.
Women do not want to referred to as “birthing people” or “people with uteruses” in any context. It is not a comfort that we’re “only” dehumanized as “bodies with vaginas” or “birthing bodies” when we are at our most medically vulnerable and seeking healthcare for the most intimate parts of our bodies. In fact, that makes it worse. Women deserve to be listened to and treated with human dignity especially in matters regarding our sexual and reproductive health, an area where we have historically been dehumanized, devalued, degraded, and told to shut up. The left’s response to Ana Kasparian has been appalling on that note alone. (And she is not the first woman to receive vitriolic backlash from the left for addressing this. Every woman, most notably J.K. Rowling who jokingly pushed back against the phrase “people who menstruate” in 2020, has gotten responses that range from dismissive to outright violent). Women deserve better.
“Gender-Neutral Medical Language Is More Accurate And Safe”
Another common rebuttal is that language like “people who menstruate” and “people with a uterus” and “birthing people” is simply more medically accurate. That since not all women have uteruses and “not all people with uteruses are women,” then people-with-a-uterus is the most accurate way to describe that group. Here is an example of this style of argument.
So, there are a lot of problems here. The first one being that “birthing person” has never been the popular clinical term for women of reproductive age, pregnant women, women in labor, mothers, or whatever the hell “birthing” is supposed to describe. “Birthing people” and its hideous variations like “birthing bodies” are non-clinical, useless, and offensive. I’ve met very few women who do not express deep disgust at the first mention of it. “Birthing people” should immediately be wiped from your vocabulary if you do not want to signal to the women around you that you view them as livestock.
But even with phrases such as people with a uterus, people with a vagina, people with a cervix, people who are capable of getting pregnant, people who menstruate, people who are post-menopause, etc., is that you are still, 99.99% of the time, describing a patient whose sex is female. And yes, distinguishing between male and female is important. A “person without a uterus” can be either male or female, certainly, but the male patient without a uterus is healthy whereas the female patient without a uterus may need additional health considerations. It is counterproductive to chop up women’s healthcare into separate parts and functions, using dozens of different “gender-neutral” phrases to replace the two words “woman” and “female.” As if the uterus, vagina, vulva, ovaries, cervix, the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause are not all interconnected pieces of the female reproductive system that requires the same specialized healthcare for the female half of the population. People who act as if these are all separate, unrelated, gender-neutral descriptors of a “person’s” body are doing women a disservice. It makes getting the right healthcare for ourselves even more confusing to navigate than it already is.
For example, telling “people with a cervix” to get screened for cervical cancer is bad public health messaging. Women, particularly women who do not speak English as a first language, may not know whether they are a “cervix haver” or not. Why should we exclude women who may not be familiar with every detail of female anatomy, all for the comfort of a few who prefer to be called “people with cervixes”?
Furthermore, a wide variety of health indicators are different for women than men, and gender-neutral language is not sufficient to get women the healthcare they need. A popular example of this is heart attacks. The signs of a heart attack are different in women than men. Women need to be able to recognize their symptoms and get help quickly. And there is no gender-neutral way to educate on this, as the difference in heart attack symptoms is not obviously related to any specific female reproductive organ or function. The differences between male and female bodies cannot adequately be covered through crude language like “body with a vagina.” It is dangerous to pretend that bodies are gender-neutral. Certain health considerations need to be made for male and female patients on the basis of sex in order for them to receive the proper care.
Finally, chopping up women into organs and functions harms women not only in a medical setting but as a political class. An example of this is Republican attacks on the right to an abortion. This is not an attack on “people who can get pregnant,” it is an attack on women. It has everything to do with the subjugation of the female sex. We need to be clear that all women suffer from losing rights and focus our messaging to women. “Inclusive” gender-neutral language in this context would exclude the large number of women who cannot or can no longer get pregnant. We cannot afford to divide women so needlessly when our rights are under attack.
“What about Girls? They’re Not Women.”
One of the more ridiculous arguments that I keep seeing is that saying “women” excludes girls.
Okay. The only thing that makes me angrier than being referred to as a “birthing person” myself is the thought of an 11 year old rape victim being referred to as a “birthing person.” This is not the slam-dunk they think it is.
It is pathetically dishonest to act like women are objecting to the phrase “women and girls” being used when appropriate. Women and girls are having our rights rolled back due to being born female instead of male. All “people” are not being forced to carry pregnancies against their will or having their miscarriages closely regulated and scrutinized by the government, only women and girls are. Gender-neutral language obfuscates the biological & sex-specific nature of who is being oppressed by the Republican Party’s abortion restrictions.
“What About the Trans Men You’re Excluding?”
I will say this to the trans men who feel excluded: Stop trying to enforce gender-neutral language onto women’s healthcare just because you need it too. Your demands are unreasonable. Women should not have to silently endure being called dehumanizing names to coddle the dysphoria of a few.
Stop trying to debate women’s boundaries. If a woman tells you that she does not want to be called a “birthing person,” the proper response is, “Sorry, I know that phrase is demeaning. It will not happen again” instead of guilt tripping and launching smear campaigns against her.
This has already gone on for way too long. No means no.
Man up.