To say that abortion bans, like those recently passed in Texas, are part of a war on women is true. But to say they are a war on women alone is to erase the harm experienced by the transgender, intersex, nonbinary and gender expansive individuals whose lives are also deeply impacted by access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.
Even though US District Judge Robert Pitman noted in his short-lived stay of the Texas ban, “The court recognizes that not all pregnant people identify as women,” very few major media outlets have made any change in how they discuss abortion. A New York Times article (10/6/21) that focused on Pitman’s decision and language overlooked the footnote, as did subsequent reporting on the ruling in the Times and the Washington Post, where most articles on abortion used exclusively gendered language like “pregnant women.”
‘Political purity test’
Framing an issue as a “culture war” (Atlantic, 9/17/21) takes the focus off the people actually affected.
Other journalists have tried to minimize the importance of the issue. Emma Green argued in the Atlantic (9/17/21) that “only niche groups” seem to care about how we talk about gender and pregnancy. (The ACLU has a “niche” Twitter following of 2 million people, while Planned Parenthood has a “niche” audience of 987,000 on Facebook.)
Green spent much of her interview with Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, raising questions about whether “there’s something lost in trying to create a more inclusive vision of pregnancy.” In one question, Green argued that “aspects of these terms are also exclusionary. Talking about ‘birthing people’ means you are not talking about ‘women giving birth’ or ‘birth moms.’” To which Melling accurately responded:
Talking about birthing and gender discrimination is still something that women can do. We just also simultaneously want to talk about the ways in which we’re not recognizing trans men as parents. If we’re doing this right, we’re creating more, not less, conversation, because we’re talking about the many different ways in which gender expectations are playing out on who we are.
The Atlantic also featured Helen Lewis (10/26/21)—whose transphobic statements made her a controversial hire for the outlet two years ago—defiantly headlined, “Why I’ll Keep Saying ‘Pregnant Women.'” Lewis argued that people shouldn’t be forced to use gender-neutral language like “pregnant people,” which “progressives” have supposedly “turned…into a political purity test.” This is “an etiquette code set by the rich and well-educated,” she wrote, that ultimately obscures “the social dynamics at work in laws surrounding contraception, abortion and maternal health.” Her argument here not only minimizes the impact of language change on the lives of non-cisgender people, including those who are not rich or “well-educated,” but also falsely claims that including more than just cisgender women in this discussion erases the discrimination that women face.
Lewis even went so far as to paint “pregnant people” as the analog to “all lives matter.” But, of course, “all lives matter” erases the racism that “Black lives matter” highlights by decentering those most vulnerable, whereas saying “pregnant people” does the opposite. “Pregnant people” underlines the sexism and heteropatriarchy that abortion rights advocates work to highlight, by including another group of people equally or even more marginalized by those systems.
The pervasive current and historical reliance on the phrase “pregnant women” demonstrates how deeply embedded in our cultural conceptions is the assumption that pregnancy is inextricably linked to femaleness. Using the phrase “pregnant people” will not erase this connection to women, or suddenly suggest that cisgender men might be included under this umbrella.
A focus on the vulnerable
Politico (9/10/21) reported that some who reject inclusive language are “fearful of alienating potential supporters and provoking an even bigger backlash from the right.”
Nicole Huberfeld, professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University, says that abortion and healthcare discussions often lose sight of those most affected: “The thing that often gets lost in these discussions is the real-world implications, especially for already vulnerable populations.”
A focus on the theoretical argument, rather than the people affected, results in discussions of sexual and reproductive health that are neither full nor accurate. Writers trying to bring awareness to the problematic nature of abortion bans are missing their responsibility to foreground the lack of access and adequate care for those who are not cisgender.
Talking about inclusive language and the Texas ban, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said (Politico, 9/10/21): “‘Whether you say A, B, C or D—get rid of the law…. That’s the most important thing.’” The implication is that getting rid of the Texas law will fix abortion care for everyone, so the language doesn’t make much of a difference. While such a move would absolutely help, the reality is reproductive rights and access are not currently equitable, and they haven’t ever been (CounterSpin, 9/10/21).
Using inclusive language does not minimize the reality that abortion bans affect cisgender women, but simply reflects the reality that transgender men and intersex, nonbinary and gender expansive individuals are also affected, and are especially vulnerable.
Consequences of exclusion
Ms. (3/11/21): “Transgender and nonbinary people access reproductive health services, including abortion, every day.”
Excluding them from the discussion, on the other hand, has dire material effects. BU Today (9/11/21) explains that “women-specific gendered language” in health conversations and settings can often
manifest in extreme discomfort—for example, feeling like one doesn’t belong in a medical center. Consequences of this harm include individuals not seeking regular, preventive healthcare.
Ivy Gibson-Hill, part of The Campaign for Southern Equality, says in an interview with Blue Ridge Public Radio’s Lilly Knoepp (5/17/19) that each time a non-cisgender person goes to the doctor, they
are having to think, “Am I in a stable enough mental place, to be able to put up with this, and to have my identity called into question and be disrespected in the doctor’s office, or have my pronouns laughed off—which is an experience that I have almost every time that I go to the doctor.”
Misgendering in healthcare can also lead to inaccurate or false diagnoses. According to an article in Ms. (3/11/21) by Sachiko Ragosta:
In clinic settings, language that conflates gender and sex assigned at birth can lead to inadequate or inappropriate screening and treatment for certain outcomes, including organ-dependent cancers, resulting in higher rates of cancer among TGE [transgender and gender expansive] people.
The effects are physically, mentally and emotionally damaging.
Words have impact
Language changes, then, are important at all levels—in politics and healthcare settings, in workplaces and everyday conversations—including in news media. This would mean incorporation of phrases like “pregnant people” and “birthing persons,” using “people” instead of specifying gender, using “they/them” pronouns when speaking about those affected, and noting that those affected include transgender men and nonbinary, intersex and gender expansive people.
This language change is not everything, but it is a basic first step. And it is a reminder to not just mention but to also take into account the experiences of these individuals and communities, and to advocate for them. Appropriate language on the impact of abortion bans wouldn’t stop at gender expansive, transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals, but would also include unhoused, low-income, and Black and brown people, who are likewise especially vulnerable in their quest for adequate health- and abortion care.
Our words have an impact. It’s time journalists use them wisely.
A child was born with ambiguous genitalia. Its doctor and parents opted to surgically “correct” its genitalia to make the child female or male, but the child was genetically predisposed to the opposite gender. Neither parent nor doctor ever informed the child, who grew up always feeling things “just weren’t right,” never understanding why until, having reached adulthood and investigated the matter thoroughly, it wrested a revelation from the mother as to the lifelong secret she had kept from her child. There are no doubt many stories like this one to which ordinary people having had no direct experience with gender dysphoria may nevertheless react with considerable empathy and sorrow.
Juxtaposing it with some of the appeals you make in your article, in my opinion, helps elucidate the proper level of seriousness called for. “A doctor laughed off my pronouns” just isn’t compelling. A woman transitioned to a man and then lamented that the phrase “pregnant women” now excluded him? What is that compared to the untold numbers of gender-dysphoric people throughout history for whom transition was never an option?
English is a centuries-old language and already contains more words than any other, but you’ve added at least four words or phrases entirely new to me, not counting “ze.”
This self-serious, world-is-obligated-to-care mentality might win you A’s at Hamilton College, but the real world is populated by real people with real problems, and anyone with enough time to fret over pronouns is probably a lot better off than they’re willing to admit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
Well said.
Great comment. I’ll thrown in the word “latinx” that only the academic types use, but is not used in everyday vernacular of Latin peoples. Also, do transgender women that have not undergone transition surgery go to OBGYN for care? Of course not, and that is what people like the author fail to realize as much as they want to impose these beliefs about “birthing people” and such, biology is still very much a reality.
Yes, words have impact. Words should also reflect reality and the fact of the matter is that only WOMEN get pregnant and only WOMEN have need of an abortion. How an individual socially ‘identifies’ does not alter that reality. Stop erasing women, our unique biological functions and our words. It’s offensive as hell and it must end.
And your erasure of trans people is offensive, but you clearly don’t care about that reality, do you?
Acknowledging biological reality isn’t erasure. Only a woman can get pregnant.
“Woman’ is a scientific term that means adult human female. That isn’t hateful, it is just a fact and doesn’t erase trans people. Trans men can get pregnant because they are women. Some non-binary people can pregnant. Which ones? The ones who are women. Some intersex people can get pregnant, again, only those who are women.
How am I erasing ‘trans’ people, exactly?
We should all rework all of society for a very small percentage of society? No. The overwhelming majority of people in this world do not suffer from gender dysphoria. The rest of us do not need to play in a world of make believe for that very small percentage. Sometimes, life is difficult
Fully agreed, Kerri! I was going to say “amen”but felt that might send the wrong signal. It is time for the trans agenda folks to understand the we who recognize the time-honored acknowledgment of the reality that men and women are biologically different is NOT being “hateful” much less “transphobic.” To claim that is being intellectually dishonest. Let people present how they wish, but don’t make believe that a man can “become” a woman, any more that a neutered bull becomes a cow. Men don’t menstruate, even if they had a surgical operation. Come on folks at FAIR, get REAL.
How many transgendered men are actually becoming pregnant and then making regular trips to Planned Parenthood for natal care? That number must be infinitesimally small, especially since hormonal treatments can render a female infertile. This is the same for intersex people, whose ambiguous genitalia at birth have presumably been corrected if they are getting pregnant, too. I have nothing to say about nonbinary people except that I have never interacted with one in real life who was not biologically female and presenting as such.
“Centering” this minuscule population is profoundly alienating to most women outside of progressive activist circles, especially people who have a low socioeconomic status who have never before been exposed to this sudden and radical shift in how Americans are supposed to think about sex and gender. These are also the women who have the hardest struggle to get the natal care or abortion services they need, which perfectly exemplifies the critique that many non-progressive feminists have: women, true women, always take second place. Non-progressive leftists have also been saying for a long time that class issues also take second place when the choice is between class and bougie/elite trends, such as the nonbinary movement.
Women have been fighting to have their sex-based rights recognized in law and society for hundreds of years. In a matter of less than five years, any progress made has been wiped out by efforts to be inclusive. Language does matter, and by erasing “woman” to be inclusive, women are being excluded. And, nullifying important biological, sex-based differences between men and women is resulting in real and harmful impacts on women through the loss of woman-focused protections and social supports (e.g., female prisons, shelters, public washrooms, medical research, social services, sports, equity-based positions/awards, etc.). Erasing the ability to speak about women as a sex-based class removes the ability to advocate for greater legal and societal recognition for these important sex-specific differences. If this was truly a question of inclusion and not a misogynistic power play, then why are we not similarly discussing the use and definition of the word “men/man”? Yes, language matters, and women matter. Pregnant people? Cervix havers? Menstruators? No thank you.
Just write “I deserve more rights than minorities” next time it will be easier for the reader
Biological men will always find a way to be the most important members of society….even by co-opting the title of woman. It’s just evolution.
I deserve to live in reality.
Fixed it for you.
The Atlantic is just neoconservative culture war politics written with a New Yorker style guide
The way humans do gender is different from what you might have learned in Catholic school. This conception (so to speak) is supported by Nature magazine, the leading scientific journal.
I have to agree with the critical commenters above that this viewpoint by Ms Poucher is, in the scheme of things, about a minuscule population perhaps(?) feeling slighted by not being entirely included in something they might be peripherally involved-in? Excuse me for being blunt, but there are WAY more pressing concerns in this world, starting roughly from the top with climate-change, possible nuclear war, overpopulation with its attendant pollution and environmental destruction, income inequality, militarism, racism, pandemics (obviously), etc to name just some of the major ones that come to mind, all of which involve 100’s of millions (if not billions) of people world-wide. As a life-long progressive, I’ve observed that it’s hard enough to get positive, humanistic solutions to these problems even discussed, and it gets even more difficult when we on the left give the crazy right wing conservatives fodder like this that they can exploit and use as distractionary propaganda, until too many people just develop a political apathy, which ultimately works in the favor of the MIC who are never apathetic. Maybe some students at Hamilton College (which currently lists an annual estimated student cost of $75,200/yr) have to collapse on their fainting couch because of a real or imagined lack of inclusion in certain pronouns, but this is ultimately a niche problem of very low priority.
When “transphobic” is any divergence from the latest pronouncements of college-age trans activists or the refusal to promulgate pronouns on demand, complaints in mainstream media about “political purity” would seem to make a great deal of sense.
What’s more puzzling is why these essays in race and gender ideology now pass as media criticism on this website. Ideology is now regarded here as factual. Women are what we say they are, and anyone who disagrees is a corporate shill.
Is there any movement which has done more damage to progressive causes than this one?
You’re absolutely right about FAIR treating opinion as fact these days. It is normal for ideologues to not understand – or pretend not to understand – that what they are saying is not objectively true. This article complaining about people who have taken the wrong side on a culture war issue is a far cry from their factual coverage of things like the impact of sanctions on Venezuela.
Exactly, Wilmer. I have little doubt that this is part of COINTELPRO #2, specifically designed to inhibit unity of the oppressed class.