"Inclusivity" A short thread.

We& #39;re told we mustn& #39;t say "women" when talking about female biology because it excludes transmen and females who identify as "non-binary".
That& #39;s not the reason.

It& #39;s because it upsets & excludes transwomen who like to think of themselves as women.
There& #39;s never any pushback about the consistent use of "men" when it comes to prostate & testicular cancer. Yet surely "men" excludes transwomen and males who identify as "non-binary"? https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤔" title="Denkendes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Denkendes Gesicht">

But using "inclusive" language for these two, male-specific, conditions, would remind transwomen (& "non-binary" males) that they are, in fact, male. And they don& #39;t want to be reminded of that .

Let& #39;s face it, virtually all the prominent, high profile, adult transpeople are transwomen. (Which reflects what we know about the age & sex of transitioners).
They, and their allies, are the ones pushing this one-sided "inclusive" language for their own benefit.

They& #39;d like to see the word "woman" rendered so vague as to be meaningless. They won& #39;t rest until there is no longer a word for "adult human female" and *only* "adult human female". They don& #39;t care about the word "man" because they discount themselves from that category.

/End