celeb news Bette Midler turns into Jk Rowling, post transphobic tweet

[Communion]

12 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

I frankly don't think Bette Midler was talking about that

She's literally verbatim referencing this NYT op-ed published the same day as her tweet that said trans people are as bad as the SCOTUS for undoing Roe v Wade.

 

 

[Trent W]

4 minutes ago, Headlock said:

It's both horrifying and sad that this is your response as a gay man to the very literal pushback on trans rights globally being acknowledged.

Like, you can only feign ignorance for so long before it becomes complacency, never mind just plain old stupidity because the ones perpetuating this hatred (hint: it's not ~leftists~) aren't stopping at the T in LGBT.

1- I’m not gay, I’m Bi

 

2- You don’t have the capability to understand that people who don’t agree with these terms aren’t transphobes

 

3- I’m not a right wing, right wing people are transphobes, homophobes and racists. 
 

You need to understand that the world is not black and white, our views differ in a spectrum.

 

The other group that sees the world black and white are religious republicans and leftists are falling into the same.

 

Lack of critical thinking.

 

Stop calling everyone who disagrees with you right wing, like you did before

 

You lose credibility every time you do

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Health journals are organizations. 

Why can't any of you do anything but resort to pedantry?

 

Sis, you made the argument that a medical journal and Planned Parenthood were one-in-the-same. You quite literally said "these two are the same thing YET.." to argue about how their language differs.. for some reason??. Except... it was literally explained to you why their language varies.. because they are different.

 

What do you think can be productive from this if you have no intentions other than to troll?

How have either abortion or trans rights upset you that you find it enjoyable to contribute to attacking either?

[Bloo]

7 minutes ago, Trent W said:

You need to understand that the world is not black and white, our views differ in a spectrum.

I'm going to make a general point about this comment. You're right. The world isn't black and white and it is a spectrum. But, I think often we assume that this spectrum is an even gradient between black and white with a uniform distribution (or transition) of gray in-between. This is rarely the case. Most issues have biases or skews as society evolves. Let's take racism as an example. Plenty of people during the time of slavery in America thought slavery was wrong but also thought Black people were inferior to White people. Are they suddenly not racist because compared to the pro-Slavery wing, they're a bit more to the center? I'd say no. That person would still very much be a racist. Society at that time was heavily skewed towards abject racism.

 

Similarly, today our society is heavily skewed towards transphobia. Many ideas or perspectives many might think are reasonable are still likely to be laced with transphobia and regressive thinking. A person could be less transphobic than someone who supports criminalizing transpeople, but if they still espouse or perpetuate views that are harmful to the existence of trans people, then there's still room to grow. We live in a very transphobic world (reminder that Black trans women have a life expectancy of 35 years in the USA due to their hyperbolic risk of being murdered). The idea that the vast majority of us have some transphobic views is not far off and has more credence than I think many would like to admit.

 

Just a general point about the idea that the world is a spectrum. I think you're right in that respect. But, we also have to be mindful of the skew of that spectrum.

[Headlock]

12 minutes ago, Trent W said:

1- I’m not gay, I’m Bi

Move one letter over then? Statement still applies 

 

12 minutes ago, Trent W said:

2- You don’t have the capability to understand that people who don’t agree with these terms aren’t transphobes

And you have repeatedly demonstrated don't have the capability to understand the terms at all 

And it's true, the majority of people who responding to this made up issue aren't transphobic, they are just falling victim to conservative propaganda and regurgitating the resulting transphobic talking points. Disagreeing with the terms themselves is a matter of taste/comfort with the language, which is moot anyway as the majority of people will never encounter them outside a medical setting. Stating that the ~far left~ are trying to "erase women" for the benefit of trans people is, however, literally a transphobic talking point 

 

12 minutes ago, Trent W said:

3- I’m not a right wing, right wing people are transphobes, homophobes and racists. 
 

You need to understand that the world is not black and white, our views differ in a spectrum.

 

A black and white definition, followed by that sentence, you can't make this up 

 

12 minutes ago, Trent W said:

Stop calling everyone who disagrees with you right wing, like you did before

So then stop using right wing talking points? Like, that's a you problem sis, not me 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Headlock

[More Than A Melody]

26 minutes ago, Bloo said:

On social media? During a time when attacks on trans people are at an all-time high? Shocking. Again, stop falling for and feeding trans panic on the Internet.

In what normal social circumstance have you (outside of social media and people complaining about this) heard someone use this term?

This is subjective and pedantic. Again, the jargon is created to include all people that are able to give birth. The phrase is not commonplace or colloquial. The fear mongering of it is being promoted to create more cultural tension and pushback towards trans women. Stop feeding it.

On social media you can be inclusive without reducing women to body parts. That's as simple as that. I'm not sure why you, a cis man, are mad at A WOMAN for asking to use inclusive language that doesn't reduce women to objects. It's not that hard to be inclusive AND respectful. It's not trans panic. It's the language a lot of people use when you CAN LITERALLY JUST USE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE WITHOUT BEING DEMEANING AND REDUCTIVE "people who can get pregnant" is JUST as inclusive. That's all I asked! Why does it bother you SO much? Why did you reply to my comment out of all the comments? I truly think some people on ATRL get off on fighting windmills.

 

  

Me: I wish people wouldn't refer to women as "birthing people" on social media/irl in leftist spaces because I find it triggering and reductive. There are other ways of being inclusive

You: why are you falling for the anti trans establishment! Burn the witch!

 

JFC

23 minutes ago, Communion said:

She's literally verbatim referencing this NYT op-ed published the same day as her tweet that said trans people are as bad as the SCOTUS for undoing Roe v Wade.

 

 

Ok, then she's an assh*le. The question here is, why did you quote me erasing the part where I said "at least I hope she isn't". Seems very much like you just want to pick a fight with random people. Not today, Satan

 

41 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

I frankly don't think Bette Midler was talking about that, or at least I hope she wasn't.

 

[brazil]

It's ridiculous or in bad faith to try to put people promoting the use of trans inclusive language and those responsible for the repeal of Roe in the same boat. Those responsible for what happened to Roe would love nothing more than to restrict trans rights!

[Trent W]

17 minutes ago, Bloo said:

I'm going to make a general point about this comment. You're right. The world isn't black and white and it is a spectrum. But, I think often we assume that this spectrum is an even gradient between black and white with a uniform distribution (or transition) of gray in-between. This is rarely the case. Most issues have biases or skews as society evolves. Let's take racism as an example. Plenty of people during the time of slavery in America thought slavery was wrong but also thought Black people were inferior to White people. Are they suddenly not racist because compared to the pro-Slavery wing, they're a bit more to the center? I'd say no. That person would still very much be a racist. Society at that time was heavily skewed towards abject racism.

 

Similarly, today our society is heavily skewed towards transphobia. Many ideas or perspectives many might think are reasonable are still likely to be laced with transphobia and regressive thinking. A person could be less transphobic than someone who supports criminalizing transpeople, but if they still espouse or perpetuate views that are harmful to the existence of trans people, then there's still room to grow. We live in a very transphobic world (reminder that Black trans women have a life expectancy of 35 years in the USA due to their hyperbolic risk of being murdered). The idea that the vast majority of us have some transphobic views is not far off and has more credence than I think many would like to admit.

 

Just a general point about the idea that the world is a spectrum. I think you're right in that respect. But, we also have to be mindful of the skew of that spectrum.

I agree with everything you posted.

 

Would like to point out, that this is probably the first time super minorities are suggesting to changes in society for them.

 

I mean gays, black population, latinos and women for example are very large groups of people, still oppressed, but extremely visible. Women are almost the majority 

 

I have never known through history about a group of people that is less than 1% asking about changes in language for them. I’m talking about non-binary more than trans people.

 

It’s extremely challenging cause most people don’t even understand what non-binary means.

 

I think I’m just being too realistic but I don’t see “they/them” ever taught in school for non-binary purposes, or “menstruator” or “birthing people” taken seriously in an international level in the medical field.

I just don’t think is realistic.

 

 

 

[Bloo]

34 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

On social media you can be inclusive without reducing women to body parts. That's as simple as that. I'm not sure why you, a cis man, are mad at A WOMAN for asking to use inclusive language that doesn't reduce women to objects. It's not that hard to be inclusive AND respectful. It's not trans panic. It's the language a lot of people use when you CAN LITERALLY JUST USE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE WITHOUT BEING DEMEANING AND REDUCTIVE "people who can get pregnant" is JUST as inclusive. That's all I asked! Why does it bother you SO much? Why did you reply to my comment out of all the comments? I truly think some people on ATRL get off on fighting windmills.

 

  

Me: I wish people wouldn't refer to women as "birthing people" on social media/irl in leftist spaces because I find it triggering and reductive. There are other ways of being inclusive

You: why are you falling for the anti trans establishment! Burn the witch!

 

JFC

First, I'm not bothered. If the language were "people who can get pregnant" I would be fine with that. To me, the distinction between that and "birthing people" is pedantic and subjective. Someone could easily take offense to "people who can get pregnant" just as easily. My point is nobody commonly says, "my best friend is a birthing person and she has the best advice for fashion." Nobody talks like that. This language is not colloquial and it is used in prescriptive, medical ways. Social media is blowing it up because there are active efforts to delegitimize trans people and criminalize them. The fact you continually cite social media as a source for the use of this word only lends credibility to my point (and the point of others in this thread) that this is a blown up issue gaining traction on social media because transphobic people want the general public to view trans people in a negative light to veil their assault on civil rights.

 

Transphobes have, unfortunately, been very successful of weaponizing the notion of feminism to attack trans women and have made attacks on trans women in the guise of being "pro-woman". No woman—cisgender, transgender, etc.—benefits from perpetuating and lending credibility to this.

 

As for your comment about me being "bothered" as a cisgender man, I'm a member of the LGBTQ+ community and I will defend trans people because they are a part of my community. So, yes, I am going to put in effort to challenge transphobia.

19 minutes ago, Trent W said:

I agree with everything you posted.

 

Would like to point out, that this is probably the first time super minorities are suggesting to changes in society for them.

 

I mean gays, black population, latinos and women for example are very large groups of people, still oppressed, but extremely visible. Women are almost the majority 

 

I have never known through history about a group of people that is less than 1% asking about changes in language for them. I’m talking about non-binary more than trans people.

 

It’s extremely challenging cause most people don’t even understand what non-binary means.

 

I think I’m just being too realistic but I don’t see “they/them” ever taught in school for non-binary purposes, or “menstruator” or “birthing people” taken seriously in an international level in the medical field.

I just don’t think is realistic.

I think the point of changes to language is frankly... silly. Language changes all the time. For instance, many women are in favor of moving beyond the dichotomy of Ms./Mrs. Would it be such a big deal if we moved forward with such change to language? I don't think so. The next thing you're bound to say is, "Well, women as a whole are a much larger population than the trans population." This is true. But the language in discussion in the OP is not colloquial terminology. No trans person is asking to be referred to as a birthing person. This is a term medical professionals and other people focused on policy decisions related to healthcare use to highlight the reality that the ability to give birth is not just attributed to women. Trans men can give birth. Some cisgender women cannot give birth. It is not sufficient for a medical expert to ask, "Are you a man or a woman" before giving treatment for people who can get pregnant. That distinction isn't informative enough for such treatment. 

 

In conclusion, this term in discussion is used by a minority of people (medical experts) who are required to be as precise as possible to make decisions and have to cater their language in whatever way to meet the needs of whatever community, regardless of how small. Trans women generally want to be referred to as she/her/hers; trans men generally want to be referred to as he/him/his. 

 

Again, this is all just a blown up issue to make trans people look bad.

[More Than A Melody]

8 minutes ago, Bloo said:

First, I'm not bothered. If the language were "people who can get pregnant" I would be fine with that. To me, a cis man who has no say in how women feel on the subject the distinction between that and "birthing people" is pedantic and subjective.

Fixed it for you.

[Bloo]

7 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

Fixed it for you.

"Subjective" literally means up to one's own personal feelings, meaning, yes, you are free to find "birthing person" off-putting. Just like how other women are free to feel the same about your suggested term "person who can get pregnant".

[Communion]

9 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

Fixed it for you.

Do you think it's men in these largely women-run orgs and women-run health services like PP and NARAL making the decision to use trans inclusive language? 

[More Than A Melody]

Just now, Communion said:

Do you think it's men in these largely women-run orgs and women-run health services like PP and NARAL making the decision to use trans inclusive language? 

I think a cis man has no right to tell a woman she's being PEDANTIC for finding the usage of the sentence "birthing people" in layman situations triggering. For a response on all the other nonsense in this post go back and read everything I said. This is TWICE now that you quote me with strawman arguments in the past hour.

 

2 minutes ago, Bloo said:

"Subjective" literally means up to one's own personal feelings, meaning, yes, you are free to find "birthing person" off-putting. Just like how other women are free to feel the same about your suggested term "person who can get pregnant".

My problem is the word "pedantic" not "subjective", cis man. I'll have that conversation with other women, not a cis man.

[Bloo]

6 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

I think a cis man has no right to tell a woman she's being PEDANTIC for finding the usage of the sentence "birthing people" in layman situations triggering. For a response on all the other nonsense in this post go back and read everything I said. This is TWICE now that you quote me with strawman arguments in the past hour.

This is not what I said. I said the difference between "birthing people" and "person who can get pregnant" is pedantic because the difference is so miniscule. While you might find the latter (which you suggested) more agreeable, it's very easy to imagine other women are going to take issue with the latter just as easily as they would the former because those phrases are so lexically adjacent.

[Communion]

12 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

I think a cis man has no right to tell a woman she's being PEDANTIC for finding the usage of the sentence "birthing people" in layman situations triggering. For a response on all the other nonsense in this post go back and read everything I said. This is TWICE now that you quote me with strawman arguments in the past hour.

I'm asking you a question because you're being dishonest about what Bloo said to you. They nowhere called *you* pedantic. They said the difference in the verbiage was pedantic enough that just as many cis women, for example, could also claim to find offense at the example that was offered as an alternative to "birthing people".

 

You responding by highlighting his maleness is why I asked you the question I did. No one has the intentions of strawmaning you

 

The reality is we're not talking about conversational language. We're talking about language created for a very specific purpose. Highlighting Bloo's maleness feels cheap to discredit their point that the differences between the language cited as harmful in these examples isn't actually substantial enough in difference in how it'd be applied.

 

If the issue is Bloo's maleness, then how do we address that there are many cis men in this conversation attacking cis women doctors and healthcare professionals who are the one's championing this trans-inclusive language at PP and NARAL?

 

What is the recourse if it's largely cis women advocating *for* this language as healthcare professionals?

Is it then that, if you don't like said language, your doctor should kindly not use it towards you, but it undeniably serves a purpose in the context of the medical field it is being used it?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Communion

[More Than A Melody]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

This is not what I said. I said the difference between "birthing people" and "person who can get pregnant" is pedantic because the difference is so miniscule. While you might find the latter (which you suggested) more agreeable, it's very easy to imagine other women are going to take issue with the latter just as easily as they would the former because those phrases are so lexically adjacent.

You: "I did not say it was pedantic to make a distinction between 'birthing people' and people 'who can get pregnant' I said it's pedantic to make a distinction between 'birthing people' and 'people who can get pregnant'

 

 

Why I find one triggering and one not triggering is an issue I can argue with a woman, not with a cis man. You don't get to call me pedantic over it. I don't know if you need me to use a different language or...? I only know Spanish an English.

 

I will explain to you why regardless, because I'm feeling generous... and also because I already explained it in multiple posts above this one. You just don't seem to be able to find the nuance.

 

"People who can get pregnant" includes a POTENTIAL scenario. It includes women who can get pregnant but can't give birth. It includes women who can get pregnant but don't want to. It's, by definition, more inclusive than "birthing people". "People who can get pregnant" also doesn't define women as an action that has largely been used to subjugate us. Throughout history. Literally the very reason Roe V Wade was overturned... "Birthing people" is what certain sides of the right political agenda want. For women to be reduced to objects that give birth. While it's OBVIOUSLY not the reason left wing people use the term, it's TRIGGERING in the middle of an effort to turn this country into Gilead. If we can be mindful of trans people in our language, then we can be mindful of women in our language as well. Why must inclusion stop at trans people? Why must mindfulness around mental health stop at trans people?

 

My biggest grip with all your messages quoting me is that this is what I've said from the beginning. I literally have maintained my point throughout. My problem is the reduction as body parts (because "people with uteruses" sounds just as bad as "birthing people") and the reduction to a specific action that's LITERALLY being used to subjugate us RIGHT NOW.

 

If other women find this distinction pedantic, then I'll have a conversation with them. I will not, however, entertain said conversation with a cis man who's hellbent on arguing with me and calling me pedantic and all the other things you said ("falling for the anti trans propaganda" jfc).

 

PS I also do think adding "women" somewhere in the sentence is not a problem and should not be a problem and I have found people complaining about that inclusion all over leftist spaces as well, and it's really really tiresome.

[More Than A Melody]

6 minutes ago, Communion said:

I'm asking you a question because you're being dishonest about what Bloo said to you. They nowhere called *you* pedantic. They said the difference in the verbiage was pedantic enough that just as many cis women, for example, could also claim to find offense at the example that was offered as an alternative to "birthing people".

 

You responding by highlighting his maleness is why I asked you the question I did. No one has the intentions of strawmaning you

 

The reality is we're not talking about conversational language. We're talking about language created for a very specific purpose. Highlighting Bloo's maleness feels cheap to discredit their point that the differences between the language cited as harmful in these examples isn't actually substantial enough in difference in how it'd be applied.

 

If the issue is Bloo's maleness, then how do we address that there are many cis men in this conversation attacking cis women doctors and healthcare professionals who are the one's championing this trans-inclusive language at PP and NARAL?

 

What is the recourse if it's largely cis women advocating *for* this language as healthcare professionals?

Is it then that, if you don't like said language, your doctor should kindly not use it towards you, but it undeniably serves a purpose in the context of the medical field it is being used it?

My first comment on this thread was that I found "birthing people" triggering and that preferred "women and other people who can get pregnant" and I've, since then, been quoted TO DEATH by cis men telling me how wrong I am for feeling that way and how I'm falling for right wing propaganda. It's both insulting and condescending. I'm highlighting his maleness because I said, repeatedly, that I do not have an issue with physicians using those expressions. I explained, repeatedly, why I feel how I feel (even though I don't owe cis men explanations).

 

You're either arguing because you like to (think you) sound smart online, or being disingenuous at this point.

[Bloo]

8 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

Why I find one triggering and one not triggering is an issue I can argue with a woman, not with a cis man. You don't get to call me pedantic over it. I don't know if you need me to use a different language or...? I only know Spanish an English.

Not once did I call you pedantic. I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone making dishonest interpretations of my points. But, before I go...

Quote

PS I also do think adding "women" somewhere in the sentence is not a problem and should not be a problem and I have found people complaining about that inclusion all over leftist spaces as well, and it's really really tiresome.

Trans men (i.e., people who do not identify as women) can get pregnant and give birth. For medical experts, it is important to not assume only people who identify as women can exclusively give birth so they can give proper medical treatment for such patients. If this is a problem for you, then yes, you are falling for transphobic and trans-exclusionary rhetoric. Because the healthcare of trans men who can get pregnant is none of your business and making sure that medical experts have the language prepared to properly treat all of their patients is priority number one.

[More Than A Melody]

Just now, Bloo said:

Not once did I call you pedantic. I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone making dishonest interpretations of my points. But, before I go...

Trans men (i.e., people who do not identify as women) can get pregnant and give birth. For medical experts, it is important to not assume only people who identify as women can exclusively give birth. If this is a problem for you, then yes, you are falling for transphobic and trans-exclusionary rhetoric.

You called the distinction I want to make pedantic. This is semantics nonsense.

 

Medical experts can do whatever they want. My comments, from beginning to end have been about leftist spaces. I'm not falling for any rhetoric. I'm triggered by seeing myself referred to as "birthing person" at least "person who can get pregnant" gives me the potential not to, which the verb "birthing" does not.

 

Go with god.

[Jujubaruda]

 

[Communion]

25 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

My first comment on this thread was that I found "birthing people" triggering and that preferred "women and other people who can get pregnant" and I've, since then, been quoted TO DEATH by cis men telling me how wrong I am for feeling that way and how I'm falling for right wing propaganda. It's both insulting and condescending. I'm highlighting his maleness because I said, repeatedly, that I do not have an issue with physicians using those expressions. I explained, repeatedly, why I feel how I feel (even though I don't owe cis men explanations).

 

You're either arguing because you like to (think you) sound smart online, or being disingenuous at this point.

Except the example you used was not someone using it in reference to you as a person, which is where this gets murky.

 

Your example was a Halsey fan (who you have no way of knowing isn't a cis woman themselves) using language, probably unsurely, trying to navigate if it'd be okay to use the word "woman" or not in reference to Halsey.

 

Which continues this. What if someone like Halsey came out and said "don't refer to me a woman, refer to me as a birthing person"? Should Halsey's wishes as someone who is AFAB not be respected if the moving of that language into the public sphere is upsetting to some cis women? 

 

I think this is where wires get crossed. You have every right to not like a phrase. You especially have every right to not have that phrase be used to describe you or in reference to you. You have every right to not like a phrase and determine and decide if it can or cannot be used towards you.

 

One example I can give is something like the word "queer". Some LGBT people like the word queer... but just as many find it dehumanizing, stigmatizing, and will get triggered and upset if it is used in reference to them. I think that's reasonable for them to then ask that it not be used towards them. But then... can that discomfort be used to argue that... no organizations should use "queer" as a word? Can "queer" being triggering be an argument that it not be used in any context towards anyone? Should queer be removed from conversational English? What if organizations are started by and ran by LGBT people who proudly identify as "queer" and want to use it? In social media posts? In tiktok? In rhetoric spread across all their channels during Pride Month? Does a term like "queer" 'erase' people who are indeed queer but do not identify with that label?

 

I think @Bloo's point is that the rhetoric around trans-inclusive language in healthcare is much similar to that. That such is what they're trying to speak on, not if individuals do not have a right to say what is or isn't acceptable to refer to them as. Of course these things are not a 1:1, but they very much do align (queer as terminology) with the kind of rhetoric re: such language we're seeing used in this thread 

 

Again, I can only affirm that you have every right to do as you want and be spoken to how you wish. I just don't exactly think that anyone is actually trying to say otherwise. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Communion

[Nip Tuck]

While I agree that those terms come off a little weird, I find it ironic that the people mad about them will be the first to call trans people snowflakes or easily offended when language isn’t inclusive.

 

Like there’s nothing wrong with saying people who give birth or people who menstruate? idg the outrage

[Rican]

Is it a bad thing that I’m out of touch with such terminologies? In my world as a gay Latino I don’t see these type of conversations and issues occurring. I’m constantly attending pride events and not once has this topic come up. I don’t hear the cis woman and transgender woman in my circle ever talk about stuff like this. 

 

All this seems like Twitter and Tik Tok type of stuff, which I don’t use. 

 

This thread is literally the first time in which I have witness debating over the medical terminologies and both sides seem to have made valid points. Years ago I did experience a cis woman being refer to as a birther I just thought it was weird and random. 

[Rainy Devil]

5 minutes ago, Rican said:

Is it a bad thing that I’m out of touch with such terminologies? In my world as a gay Latino I don’t see these type of conversations and issues occurring. I’m constantly attending pride events and not once has this topic come up. I don’t hear the cis woman and transgender woman in my circle ever talk about stuff like this. 

 

All this seems like Twitter and Tik Tok type of stuff, which I don’t use. 

 

This thread is literally the first time in which I have witness debating over the medical terminologies and both sides seem to have made valid points. Years ago I did experience a cis woman being refer to as a birther I just thought it was weird and random. 

Is like the use of the word latinx lmao.

I have yet to meet irl the first latino who likes that. 

[Headlock]

18 minutes ago, Rican said:

Is it a bad thing that I’m out of touch with such terminologies? In my world as a gay Latino I don’t see these type of conversations and issues occurring. I’m constantly attending pride events and not once has this topic come up. I don’t hear the cis woman and transgender woman in my circle ever talk about stuff like this. 

 

 

You don’t hear them because are not used colloquially because for the millionth time, this is a made up issue peddled by conservatives against trans people