Insulting, Dehumanizing "Inclusiveness"
The insanity really is getting out of hand. Matthew Walther writes in the New York Post, "Sorry, but they're called 'mothers' -- not 'birthing people'":
Three years ago my wife came to me with a stack of papers and some textbooks. "Can you believe this?" she asked. "They are calling women 'birthing people.'" She explained that in the curriculum for her certification as a birth doula it was now de rigueur to refer to mothers with this ridiculous-sounding neologism. "It'll never catch on," I told her. She disagreed.My wife was right. When Rep. Cori Bush made headlines last week with a speech and a follow-up tweet about "birthing people," the Missouri Democrat was not speaking in a vacuum. The pro-abortion group NARAL was there to explain that Bush was simply being "inclusive." Nor is she the first member of Congress to refer publicly to "birthing people." The ludicrous phrase is becoming ubiquitous, not just in activist circles but in the medical profession.
On the Web site of Harvard Medical School, you can read about how advancing something called "maternal justice" is "essential for all birthing people." The National Institutes of Health, the New York State Department of Health, the apparently real California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, the Hawaii Department of Human Services and even the city of Milwaukee all present helpful information about this hitherto-unknown category of human beings. Countless state legislators across the country have introduced bills or resolutions that include the preposterous terminology.
...The rise of "birthing people" and "chestfeeding" follows a well-established pattern: Universities carry the terminology from once-fringe activist groups to the professional classes during what passes for their education. Graduates bring it with them to hospitals, law firms, big business and, of course, politics. A new consensus about apparently settled questions such as the definition of motherhood is established before ordinary Americans are even aware that new terms exist, much less that the liberal establishment wants to mandate their use.
"Birthing people" should be a line in the sand for all decent and rational Americans. It is not a question of so-called "political correctness," which is often a simple matter of politeness. The phrase is not only an insult to mothers everywhere; it is an attack on reason itself. Everyone knows that women who give birth to children are mothers. Those who suggest otherwise are either living in a fantasy world or the kind of people who get their jollies by forcing others to say that 2+2 = 5, which is the ambition of every totalitarian.
“They are calling women 'birthing people.'”
I prefer to call them “people of contractions.”
JD at May 16, 2021 10:57 PM
Speaking of boys and girls, here's a short tweet secret about transfolk: m2f's tend to start as really aggressive guys.
Crid at May 17, 2021 2:06 AM
It was supposed to say "sequence," rather than secret, but whatever.
Crid at May 17, 2021 2:18 AM
Speaking of boys and girls, here's a short tweet secret about transfolk: m2f's tend to start as really aggressive guys.
I followed the page down, down, down, and arrived at this little gem.
On the other hand, one of my daughter's friends has decided she's a "they/them," and she's one of the sweetest girls I know.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 17, 2021 4:34 AM
The director of the CDC says they only found out in the last two weeks that vaccines work.
https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1393916542551724032
If they want to know about the efficacy of various vaccines maybe they should talk with those guys at the FDA who signed off on them.
From the FDA's website:
FDA Approval: What it means
FDA approval of a drug means that data on the drug’s effects have been reviewed by CDER, and the drug is determined to provide benefits that outweigh its known and potential risks for the intended population.
Ben at May 17, 2021 4:55 AM
> she's one of the sweetest
> girls I know.
Ord, we can't tell if you're kidding… Because if you word it like that, they might be offended.
Crid at May 17, 2021 5:17 AM
Also —
That use of "we" is a joke, right?Facetiousness is very difficult in print media.
Crid at May 17, 2021 5:25 AM
So, they're people of contractions?
==========
It's still a long, long way to Tipperary.
Conan the Grammarian at May 17, 2021 5:29 AM
✔ May 17, 2021 5:29 AM
Crid at May 17, 2021 6:29 AM
Also, I'd never seen the word Angleterre.
Crid at May 17, 2021 7:31 AM
Ord, we can't tell if you're kidding… Because if you word it like that, they might be offended.
No, I'm not kidding. I'm genuinely fond of the young woman, and I'm not inclined to use language in her presence designed to offend her or argue with her self-image -- whoever's job that is, it isn't mine.
The trouble is, I don't like using a collective pronoun to describe a singular, unique individual, though I have no solution to propose, if there even is one.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 17, 2021 9:00 AM
👍🏼
Right there with you on that one.
Conan the Grammarian at May 17, 2021 9:08 AM
I prefer to call them “people of contractions.” ~ JD at May 16, 2021 10:57 PM
Someone who's XY will still insist that "they" get contractions as well.
How about "The Uterine?"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 17, 2021 9:16 AM
> she's one of the sweetest
> girls I know
Queer theory is being pushed very heavily in many school systems under the guise of LGBT 'inclusiveness'. And with that comes the stigmatization of 'heteronormativity'. In response, we're seeing a lot of kids, mostly the girls, identifying as non-binary or one of its variants.
That's a large part of what's behind the dramatic jump in LBGT identification among teens, which has suddenly gone from 3-4% to 16%. When you look into the survey results, you'll notice that it's not an increase in homosexual identification, but in Transgender and Bisexual identification. And even Bisexuality appears to have been redefined to mean no-binary.
Basically children are being subject to a social engineering program intended to manipulate their sexuality.
matilda at May 17, 2021 9:33 AM
The trans are the reason for this. Consider a man who "transitions" to female--he does not have a uterus and cannot give birth. A woman who "transitions" to male can give birth but if she is dosing with heavy hormones this is a terrible idea. Women have a certain set of hormones in order to properly nurture a fetus, give birth, and nurse. Heavy testosterone and low female hormones will have some unknown but possibly serious effects on the baby. This is not a joke. Experiments are being done on real children.
cc at May 17, 2021 11:56 AM
A candidate in a local election thought it pertinent to include personal pronouns in election materials (and they were not standard pronouns).
As the person wasn't a family member or friend, I found it cheeky, and relevant only in the sense that I voted for the opponent.
I find pronoun-stating presumptuous unless everyone involved is well-acquainted. Seeing someone's pronouns at the end of an email from some rando: you overestimate your role in my life.
Kevin at May 17, 2021 12:13 PM
The trouble is, I don't like using a collective pronoun to describe a singular, unique individual, though I have no solution to propose, if there even is one. ~ Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 17, 2021 9:00 AM }}}}
Completely agree. They have no right to do this. They should have agreed on a neutral identifier such as "per" and then gently introduced it into the culture to see if it would take.
RigelDog at May 17, 2021 3:49 PM
I'm the opposite, I much prefer "they", I hate the random made up pronouns. But I'll use "they" anyways when I talk about someone whose sex I don't know.
NicoleK at May 18, 2021 5:02 AM
CC, trans "men" go off the hormones to have the babies.
But yes. There is an experimental component to this.
NicoleK at May 18, 2021 5:11 AM
NicoleK, pretty much the same here.
Especially when the only alternative is to say "he/she" three times or more in one speech or post. (If one has to say that only once or twice, it should not be considered a hardship for anyone old enough to write coherently. After all, it isn't just foreigners who get understandably frustrated when trying to understand spoken English - so do children! Changing the rules all the time doesn't help people.)
Lenona at May 18, 2021 9:39 AM
Btw, this isn't on the same level as what Amy was talking about, but I think some here will be surprised by MM's response to the lesbian writer, in this column. (It's about what to wear at her daughter's wedding.)
https://www.uexpress.com/miss-manners/2021/5/17/1/madam-vice-president-is-respectful-correct#disqus-comments
Lenona at May 18, 2021 9:54 AM
"Also, I'd never seen the word Angleterre."
That's just a Los Angeles pied-a'-terre.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2021 3:31 PM
Leave a comment