I recently saw a story about a trans man who was seeking care for severe abdominal pain. The doctors misgendered him. They also didn't quite view his pain as possibly linked to reproductive organs. This is one reason why it's good to normalize "people w/ cervixes" etc.

That's not to say the abdominal pain of cis women is well-treated either. However, if you can imagine a person's pain being treated even *worse*, that's the case for many trans men.

From the stories I've heard, trans men often experience a painful limbo where doctors do not see them as "real men," but also do not see them as possibly having uteruses, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervixes etc. Using inclusive language is one small step to correcting this

I do get why some might object to the term "birthing people." It's not justified to object to it on the grounds of inclusivity, but rather just b/c "birthing" can sound dehumanizing. "People who give birth" might be a better option. It's inclusive + avoids dehumanization

I wouldn't personally want to be called a "birthing person" or a "birthing woman." I wouldn't want to be called a "menstruating person/woman" either. There's just something odd about those adjectives. "Person who gives birth/menstruates" sounds better.

Some people think I am suggesting we call all cis women "people who give birth." That is not what I am saying. I am referring to the fact that some have used the term "birthing people" in reference to the specific act of childbirth. I'm saying a different term could be better

"Birthing people" as a term for all cis women and trans men would indeed exclude a whole lot of people, including, but not limited to: everyone who for whatever reason has not given birth. That would be ridiculous.

I *am* saying the term was recently used to refer to a subset of people who were experiencing childbirth. It's been suggested as an inclusive alternative to "mothers" when talking about *childbirth*, not overall existence.