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

[More Than A Melody]

41 minutes ago, Communion said:

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. 

Sis, all I said, from my first message to the last one was

"I find the term 'birthing people' triggering and much prefer terms like 'women and other people who can get pregnant'"

 

I then explained that my issue was SPECIFICALLY with leftist spaces using terminology that reduces women to birthing people (active verb, constant action of giving birth) in the context of the country I claim as home for at least 50% of my life forcing people to give birth even when they don't want to, when they were raped, when they have health issues, when they're minors.

 

The Halsey tweet was NOT talking specifically about Halsey. It was talking about EVERY person who's affected by the overturn of Roe as "people with uteruses" which I personally find triggering, as it's reducing me to the specific body part that certain aspects of my government want to use to rule over my body. It was an example of the thousands that are roaming around social spaces (irl left spaces too). In an effort to being inclusive they're being triggering and reductive. If the person who tweeted that is a woman, I will have a conversation with that woman, not with cis men. What is it that escapes you about this? You don't get a say on how women feel on this subject because it doesn't affect you. And for the record, I am ALSO queer. I ALSO advocate for trans rights. I ALSO despise transphobes. I ALSO think inclusive language is not only preferred but necessary. I just happen to be able to find nuance in things.

 

You know what you and your friend could've done with my first message? SCROLLED. That's it. Scroll and argue with people who are actually being combative, who actually have issues with trans inclusive language. The idea that I'm falling victim for right wing rhetoric is so freaking condescending it makes my blood boil. Because I've been feeling triggered and irked by the language I routinely see and hear my formerly safe spaces using for months now, ever since we first learned about the Roe overturn draft. People correcting me when I use sentences that are inclusive but that include the word "women" people talking about women as birthing machines. I've found it revolting ever since. I gave Bette the benefit of the doubt BECAUSE of how I felt. No one told me I felt this way. I don't blame trans people for it. I don't want to roll back to less inclusive language for that reason. I'm evolved enough to understand that it's something that we can correct. But we cannot if whenever someone suggests it the response is condescension and mansplaining. Telling me how I feel, why I feel this way, how pedantic the distinction I'm making is.

 

For the love of god next time just scroll.

 

 

[AintNoOtherMe]

She’s right. 

[blueberries]

[Communion]

23 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

The Halsey tweet was NOT talking specifically about Halsey. It was talking about EVERY person who's affected by the overturn of Roe as "people with uteruses" which I personally find triggering, as it's reducing me to the specific body part that certain aspects of my government want to use to rule over my body. It was an example of the thousands that are roaming around social spaces (irl left spaces too).

We're obviously not going to agree - and that's fine! we do not have to! you have every right to your own views - but the reason why people are having a conversation about this, even cis men or trans women despite the claim it won't impact us, is because the reality we live in is that actual intra-left discussions about what words to use *are* being predominantly use to achieve far-right harassment campaigns against LGBT people.

 

Underneath the tweet you linked before:

  

 

This thread exists let alone not because Bette Midler had a genuine reaction as a cis woman to language, but because she, as someone with immense class privilege, bought into a reactionary article from a elite publication that purposefully spreads misinformation and hate rhetoric.

 

My apologies if you felt statements made about the topic felt aimed at you - that was not the intention. I imagine @Bloo, like myself, are just reacting to the objective fact that this conversation is predominantly being controlled by right-wing forces regardless of if we like that or not. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Communion

[More Than A Melody]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

We're obviously not going to agree - and that's fine! we do not have to! you have every right to your own views - but the reason why people are having a conversation about this, even cis men or trans women despite the claim it won't impact us, is because the reality we live in is that actual intra-left discussions about what words to use *are* being predominantly use to achieve far-right harassment campaigns against LGBT people.

 

Underneath the tweet you linked before:

  

 

This thread exists let alone not because Bette Midler had a genuine reaction as a cis woman to language, but because she, as someone with immense class privilege, bought into a reactionary article from a elite publication that purposefully spreads misinformation and hate rhetoric.

 

My apologies if you felt statements made about the topic felt aimed at you - that was not the intention. I imagine @Bloo, like myself, are just reacting to the objective fact that this conversation is predominantly being controlled by right-wing forces regardless of if we like that or not. 

Your reaction is misguided. It's part of the problem. Someone saying that we can review the inclusive language we use to be more caring to women, more inclusive to women (I repeat that "birthing people" excludes those people who can't give birth because of medical conditions regardless of whether they can get pregnant or not)is part of the whole "the left tearing itself apart" thing.

 

I wasn't aggressive in any of my messages. i don't think anyone on the left uses these terms with malice. I think it's simply a matter of tweaking the language. Gentle observations should not be received with torches, people offering constructive criticism shouldn't be accused of "buying into right wing propaganda" and observations by the people affected should not be qualified as "pedantic"

 

"We aren't going to agree" that's the thing. We do. Do you disagree that inclusive language should be inclusive for everyone? I presume you don't. It's just a reactionary response, a knee jerk reaction to someone saying "this thing the left wing is doing could be done better" the reflex is to go "NO BECAUSE" and sometimes, we can all benefit from actually listening to what the other person is saying before reacting.

 

I'll admit I gave Bette Midler the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have. That's why I worded it "I don't think she's... or at least I'd like to believe she isn't". I was wrong, I stand corrected. It sucks. That doesn't change my sentiments around the subject, because they're rooted on something completely different, and I explained it from the get go. Now please let's close this subject.

[KatyPrismSpirit]

is it transphobia tho? many women take pride in being a woman or being born as a woman. just because she does not like certain inclusive terminology that was made up to include a small minority doesnt make her a transphobe 

 

it actually means people that those who dont want to consider her point of view are the actual intolerant ones. she has the right to not take pride in being labelled as a "person with a uterus" or "birth giving person" cause in reality - what are we even talking about? nobody uses that in real life. it literally sounds strange to even call someone that. so i get her concern. to me it didnt seem like an attack or her being in utmost dislike of trans people.

[KatyPrismSpirit]

8 hours ago, Illuminati said:

I personally prefer menstruators, like Arianators Maybe the birthing people can be called [little] bornsters 

 

[KatyPrismSpirit]

On 7/5/2022 at 5:26 AM, Trent W said:

“Birthing people” and “Menstruators” sounds offensive af to women.

 

Who the **** talks like this

it sounds like describing mammals on national geographic or something if nobody is willing to admit that calling a woman "birth giving menstruator" is pretty much ridiculous i will. Does anyone seriously approach someone like this in the real world? thats actual lunacy

[Headlock]

6 hours ago, KatyPrismSpirit said:

nobody uses that in real life.

The way everyone keeps saying this and not realizing it completely negates their entire point 

 

6 hours ago, KatyPrismSpirit said:

it sounds like describing mammals on national geographic or something

Like a... scientist, perhaps? 

[Digitalism]

I understand what the term is trying to show but "birthing people" sounds horrible

[KatyPrismSpirit]

27 minutes ago, Headlock said:

 

Like a... scientist, perhaps? 

More like a dehumanizing SJW...

[Headlock]

30 minutes ago, KatyPrismSpirit said:

More like a dehumanizing SJW...

You do realize when you use the term ~SJW~ you immediately lose all credibility in your argument 

[Squall]

23 pages for this? Why?  

Edited July 6, 2022 by Squall

[iiswhoiis_max]

"people who menstruate and people who produce sperm"?!

 

[Rican]

14 hours ago, Rainy Devil said:

Is like the use of the word latinx lmao.

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

I have been around Latinos 95%
of my entire life and ATRL has been the only place in which I have seen the word latinx being used. 

[Into The Void]

How the f did this get to 23 pages 

[Into The Void]

3 hours ago, Squall said:

23 pages for this? Why?  

For once I agree with u

[Miracle Whip]

She’s absolutely right.

[Vermillion]

This really blew up on politics Twitter across the spectrum since it was posted and I'm glad I missed all of it, honestly. 

 

If there was a real-time way to harness how perceptions were changed for enough casual observers cheering or lamenting the fighting within the left that otherwise wouldn't have followed these issues as closely and vote, I'd care more. 

 

But as of now, only about 20% of the US is on Twitter and even less are active. 

 

Until I see more data on the language affecting action in real-time short or medium term as opposed to long-term beyond what Christopher Rufo, for example, is doing already, it's not worth my energy. 

 

 

[nichsonline]

21 hours ago, iiswhoiis_max said:

"people who menstruate and people who produce sperm"?!

 

it's actually hilarious watching you people short circuit at the mere thought of someone using more inclusive terminology. if the phrase "people who menstruate and people who produce sperm" offends you, please develop a real identity/personality. Thanks. 

[iiswhoiis_max]

1 hour ago, nichsonline said:

it's actually hilarious watching you people short circuit at the mere thought of someone using more inclusive terminology. if the phrase "people who menstruate and people who produce sperm" offends you, please develop a real identity/personality. Thanks. 

I don't know why you think this offends me in any kind of way. But seeing how defensive you get just confirms to me that this is hopeless topic. If you dont agree with it, they offend you and act like you are some kind of anti person. There is no room for discussion and I'm tired of it. Woke Twitter can do whatever they want.

[TiaTamera]

There are 23 pages and I apologize if this convo was already had. I just don’t want to read through a 23 page atrl thread.

 

anyways

 

ive heard trans and gender nonconformining people say (as an insult) to cishet women that we are “reducing our womanhood to our reproductive abilities”. Isn’t calling someone a “birthing person” or a “menstruator” not reducing someone down to their reproducing abilities? 
 

but if I were to call a transman a female it’s transphobic, but only females can menstruate and be “birthing people”, no?
 

Like I’m a WOMBman, not a “birthing person”. Like let people identify what they want to identify as. I refused to be called a menstruator  but I also don’t dead name people NOR intentionally misgender people (I have to work on my unconscious biases).

[Egon Schiele]

I get why this could be taken as offensive, sure, but read the room, she's referring to tha awful backwards bs going on in the USA. I really don't think she means this as anti-trans, but as anti-goverment. 

I could be wrong though, but that's what I'm getting. 

[Into The Void]

I legit never heard anyone use the word birthing person or menstruator 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Insanity

[Headlock]

36 minutes ago, TiaTamera said:

Isn’t calling someone a “birthing person” or a “menstruator” not reducing someone down to their reproducing abilities? 

Indeed it is, because that is literally the point. You know where that would be necessary? In a medical setting where the entire focus is on someone's reproductive abilities, aka literally the only place where this language is actually used in the real world 

And you want to know something better? The PHYSICIANS who dominate this field and are proponents of using these inclusive terms are cis women  And furthermore, if they know it makes certain patients uncomfortable, they would just not use the terms for them, because they are rational people whose goal is to treat patients with the best care possible. It cannot be stressed enough how much of a non-issue this is.

 

This is pure right-wing propaganda designed to scare cis women into turning on the trans community. And sadly, it seems to be working.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Headlock