Draft ruling shows Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade: report

[scoobdog]

Just now, discolé monade said:

so..you, a man, are saying that women need to just adjust to being called pregnant people. menstruating people, menopausal people. lacating people. 

cool cool. 

 

No, I do not believe that is what I'm saying like at all.

[Sawdy]

4 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

No, I do not believe that is what I'm saying like at all.

Scoob, I’m not sure why you choose to speak for others when they post something and say they said or meant what they said…. Just doesn’t seem like a hill I’d wanna die on, even if you think you get the person and what they are saying…

why respond with an assumption is all I’m saying?

[discolé monade]

4 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

No, I do not believe that is what I'm saying like at all.

i guess i misunderstood, and had to look up the hawley debate. 

but it sounds like i should just be ok with the language. given the rights i, as a woman, have had to struggle to keep through military and civilian careers. 

ok u.s.a....carry on. 

[1pooh4u]

On 7/13/2022 at 3:11 PM, scoobdog said:

I don't know if that was stilgar's point, but the "black lives matter" part of the discussion was kind of reductive and mostly unnecessary to her point.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure if this is a valid debate, as in I don't know if any women have been specifically accused of TERFism just by saying pregnant women.  The Hawley debate is more about him grandstanding to sidetrack the discussion than it is any concerted effort to make the term inclusive .

The Black Lives Matter point wasn’t reductive and it absolutely illustrated a point the point being saying All lives matter takes the fangs away from saying Black Lives Matter. Making the Black Lives Matter issue meaningless as people needed to be told that black lives do in fact matter.   Just like if we change the saying if “men could get pregnant we’d have legal abortions by now” how would it sound to change “men” to “people” because a small number of transgender men have babies.   Changing that saying and removing “men” and replacing it with “people” defangs the slogan and fails to explicitly state the issue which is men trying to control reproductive rights of women. 

[discolé monade]

5 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

The Black Lives Matter point wasn’t reductive and it absolutely illustrated a point the point being saying All lives matter takes the fangs away from saying Black Lives Matter. Making the Black Lives Matter issue meaningless as people needed to be told that black lives do in fact matter.   Just like if we change the saying if “men could get pregnant we’d have legal abortions by now” how would it sound to change “men” to “people” because a small number of transgender men have babies.   Changing that saying and removing “men” and replacing it with “people” defangs the slogan and fails to explicitly state the issue which is men trying to control reproductive rights of women. 

thank you for that. 

i am surprised that had to be spelled out to these 2...but here we are. 

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, discolé monade said:

thank you for that. 

i am surprised that had to be spelled out to these 2...but here we are. 

I was surprised too but when people fail to continue reading because they think a point is being made that isn’t. That’s what happens.  Black Lives Matter was mentioned as an example of what they go through when countered with all lives matter. Saying all lives matter defangs the point that Black Lives Matter too. 
 

like I said before this conversation on words pulls focus off the real problem of abortion being restricted 

[scoobdog]

25 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

The Black Lives Matter point wasn’t reductive and it absolutely illustrated a point the point being saying All lives matter takes the fangs away from saying Black Lives Matter. Making the Black Lives Matter issue meaningless as people needed to be told that black lives do in fact matter.   Just like if we change the saying if “men could get pregnant we’d have legal abortions by now” how would it sound to change “men” to “people” because a small number of transgender men have babies.   Changing that saying and removing “men” and replacing it with “people” defangs the slogan and fails to explicitly state the issue which is men trying to control reproductive rights of women. 

All Lives Matter isn't minimizing the point of Black Lives Matter, it's outright refuting it albeit in a typically passive aggressive way.  It's nothing more than rephrasing the typical colorblindness talking point of the system treating all people equally.  When it comes to terminology, a phrases effect isn't divorced from its intent and that needs to be accounted for even when attempting to use a purely linguistic example.

As I take it from the author of the article, her point identifies how "pregnant people" can be used by good actors as a means of competing amongst themselves for recognition.  It's a real danger and the author rightly needs to bring it up now so that everyone is aware of how the terminology is used.  I also don't think we've seen it used extensively yet in that form.  Starting the debate on it now has the potential of creating a wedge between allies early in the push for women's rights.

[katt_goddess]

I say it's a war on women and it's a battle for control over a woman's body against her consent. 

It's not that I'm deliberately not being inclusive. 

It's because words like 'women' and 'woman' trigger the republicans and other cave dwellers who can only scream 'baby' when the very idea of choice is mentioned. There is no 'face' to 'person'. There is a face to 'woman' - it's going to be a little different for everyone that hears it but it's there. 

I'm not going to jump on someone for using person. Just as I would expect them to not jump on me for using women. We both have our reasons for the usage chosen. And it shouldn't be used as some sort of crack in the wall of people who all think this is all bullshit. 

[1pooh4u]

12 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

All Lives Matter isn't minimizing the point of Black Lives Matter, it's outright refuting it albeit in a typically passive aggressive way.  It's nothing more than rephrasing the typical colorblindness talking point of the system treating all people equally.  When it comes to terminology, a phrases effect isn't divorced from its intent and that needs to be accounted for even when attempting to use a purely linguistic example.

As I take it from the author of the article, her point identifies how "pregnant people" can be used by good actors as a means of competing amongst themselves for recognition.  It's a real danger and the author rightly needs to bring it up now so that everyone is aware of how the terminology is used.  I also don't think we've seen it used extensively yet in that form.  Starting the debate on it now has the potential of creating a wedge between allies early in the push for women's rights.

When people say all lives matter not all of the people saying that say it to refute that Black Lives Matter, they say it because their feelings are hurt because they think they’re being excluded. Had Black people marched with signs saying all lives matter that would have been meaningless and that’s the point she was making.  Her point was and is inclusive language sometimes softens the message being sent. 
In the case of abortion focusing on inclusive language is a distraction women fighting for reproductive rights will help all those that get pregnant.  Abortion isn’t a gender conversation it’s a medical and biological one and this language usage is a huge distraction from the issue. Look at our conversation rn. You mentioned putting a wedge between allies but how is someone being an ally when they put language of signs or medical literature above the issue that people are going to be forced to have babies or get illegal abortions if they can’t afford to travel? I’m not saying language isn’t important but that issue is separate from abortion access and does nothing but create distraction 

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

I say it's a war on women and it's a battle for control over a woman's body against her consent. 

It's not that I'm deliberately not being inclusive. 

It's because words like 'women' and 'woman' trigger the republicans and other cave dwellers who can only scream 'baby' when the very idea of choice is mentioned. There is no 'face' to 'person'. There is a face to 'woman' - it's going to be a little different for everyone that hears it but it's there. 

I'm not going to jump on someone for using person. Just as I would expect them to not jump on me for using women. We both have our reasons for the usage chosen. And it shouldn't be used as some sort of crack in the wall of people who all think this is all bullshit. 

EXACTLY 

[1pooh4u]

In this thread there are pages upon pages of replies about how shit is being said and clips of politicians using the “who can get pregnant” crap as a way to not deal with the fact that we’re going backwards and rights are being stripped. Not from people but in this case mostly from women. It’s infuriating honestly 

[scoobdog]

I think you all might be interpreting my post as an argument rather than a separate point.  Suffice it to say, I might quibble about the effectiveness of the comparison but I whole heartedly agree with what she said and appreciate how important it is to not use inclusion as a means of creating a wedge between women and their allies.

[naraku360]

3 hours ago, discolé monade said:

so..you, a man, are saying that women need to just adjust to being called pregnant people. menstruating people, menopausal people. lacating people. 

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth).

It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights.

So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

[naraku360]

2 hours ago, katt_goddess said:

I say it's a war on women and it's a battle for control over a woman's body against her consent. 

It's not that I'm deliberately not being inclusive. 

It's because words like 'women' and 'woman' trigger the republicans and other cave dwellers who can only scream 'baby' when the very idea of choice is mentioned. There is no 'face' to 'person'. There is a face to 'woman' - it's going to be a little different for everyone that hears it but it's there. 

I'm not going to jump on someone for using person. Just as I would expect them to not jump on me for using women. We both have our reasons for the usage chosen. And it shouldn't be used as some sort of crack in the wall of people who all think this is all bullshit. 

Out of curiosity, what would you call a pregnant trans-man?

I don't think "pregnant person" is a phrase that would generally be used for a cis-woman.

[katt_goddess]

19 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth).

It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights.

So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

I actually did hear it at the protest rally I went to. One of the speakers made the point of how this affects everyone and using the term 'person' was a good way of making the point that the issue affects all sorts and not just the female gender. So I've had a little time to think about the inclusion before the story was linked and since the replies about that link have returned, I figured I'd have a say while it's current again instead of bringing it back.

2 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Out of curiosity, what would you call a pregnant trans-man?

I don't think "pregnant person" is a phrase that would generally be used for a cis-woman.

I'd call them what they decide they want to be called. 

However, depending on how they got pregnant, the term 'victim' might be more appropriate. 

I'm a sterile asexual. There are people who would only consider me a cis-female because I pee sitting down and have boobs. 

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth).

It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights.

So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

It’s a distraction but not a harmless one because it’s taking away from the fact that abortions are being heavily restricted and banned across the country cuz we are all talking about what a woman is and isn’t and who can get pregnant and who can’t. 

[1pooh4u]

Matt Gaetz on Lesbians getting assaulted and pregnant 

 

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

It’s a distraction but not a harmless one because it’s taking away from the fact that abortions are being heavily restricted and banned across the country cuz we are all talking about what a woman is and isn’t and who can get pregnant and who can’t. 

When I say harmless, I mean the act of someone saying it rather than the bs Cucker Tarlson & friends narrative.

[Sawdy]

1 minute ago, naraku360 said:

When I say harmless, I mean the act of someone saying it rather than the bs Cucker Tarlson & friends narrative.

Sucker Carlson works too… but I’ll just let myself out

[naraku360]

2 minutes ago, Sawdy said:

Sucker Carlson works too… but I’ll just let myself out

Fucker Carl'sson?

Edited July 15, 2022 by naraku360

[discolé monade]

2 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth).

It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights.

So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

 ok. i get that this doesn't make sense to most of the men, and some women on this board. and maybe it's because i'm early gen x.  

let me try this. 

Replacing words like “women” with more gender-neutral language like “birth-giver” or “pregnant people” in research could have serious implications for women’s health, medical experts argue.

As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America.

“Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive,” the authors write. “Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.”

Those consequences include “dehumanizing” mothers, the authors argue, because alternative, gender-inclusive terms typically involve body parts or physiological processes, like “lactating parents” in place of “breastfeeding.”

“Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as ‘othering’ and dehumanizing,” they write.

 

Conversations about gender and pregnancy in the U.S. and elsewhere are often incredibly polarizing. When Missouri Rep. Cori Bush (D) last year used the term “birthing people” during a hearing, it ignited a firestorm of criticism online.

Later, in June, the White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word “mothers” with “birthing people” in a section about public health funding.

“I’m not the ‘birthing person’ of five boys, I’m their mother,” Ann Romney, the wife of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R), tweeted shortly after the budget proposal was released. “The Biden Administration diminishing motherhood to ‘birthing person’ is simply insulting to all moms.”

According to the paper, which is due to be released in the journal Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, Romney may have a point.

Using gender-inclusive language in medical research and literature can reduce the visibility of women, the authors argue, and terms like “parents” or “families” as replacements for “mothers” can wrongly refer to fathers and other family members, effectively “diminishing and invisibilizing women.”

“Women have unique experiences, needs and rights in relation to pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding that are not shared with others,” the authors write. “It cannot be assumed that a woman’s interests will align with those of her husband or partner.”

The authors also argue that, in some cases, gender-neutral language could threaten the autonomy of women, and text referring to “birthing families” may suggest that other family members have rights regarding a woman’s decisions during and after birth.

In the context of medical research, sex-based language is critical “due to sex-based oppression,” Jenny Gamble, a professor of midwifery with Coventry University and one of the paper’s co-authors, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.”

Gamble and her co-authors write that, in many cases, the use of gendered rather than sexed language is important to reinforce inclusivity and respect. Moving forward, a possible solution could be to develop a separate set of desexed materials for transgender and nonbinary people who do not identify as women.

[naraku360]

10 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

 ok. i get that this doesn't make sense to most of the men, and some women on this board. and maybe it's because i'm early gen x.  

let me try this. 

Replacing words like “women” with more gender-neutral language like “birth-giver” or “pregnant people” in research could have serious implications for women’s health, medical experts argue.

As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America.

“Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive,” the authors write. “Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.”

Those consequences include “dehumanizing” mothers, the authors argue, because alternative, gender-inclusive terms typically involve body parts or physiological processes, like “lactating parents” in place of “breastfeeding.”

“Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as ‘othering’ and dehumanizing,” they write.

 

Conversations about gender and pregnancy in the U.S. and elsewhere are often incredibly polarizing. When Missouri Rep. Cori Bush (D) last year used the term “birthing people” during a hearing, it ignited a firestorm of criticism online.

Later, in June, the White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word “mothers” with “birthing people” in a section about public health funding.

“I’m not the ‘birthing person’ of five boys, I’m their mother,” Ann Romney, the wife of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R), tweeted shortly after the budget proposal was released. “The Biden Administration diminishing motherhood to ‘birthing person’ is simply insulting to all moms.”

According to the paper, which is due to be released in the journal Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, Romney may have a point.

Using gender-inclusive language in medical research and literature can reduce the visibility of women, the authors argue, and terms like “parents” or “families” as replacements for “mothers” can wrongly refer to fathers and other family members, effectively “diminishing and invisibilizing women.”

“Women have unique experiences, needs and rights in relation to pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding that are not shared with others,” the authors write. “It cannot be assumed that a woman’s interests will align with those of her husband or partner.”

The authors also argue that, in some cases, gender-neutral language could threaten the autonomy of women, and text referring to “birthing families” may suggest that other family members have rights regarding a woman’s decisions during and after birth.

In the context of medical research, sex-based language is critical “due to sex-based oppression,” Jenny Gamble, a professor of midwifery with Coventry University and one of the paper’s co-authors, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.”

Gamble and her co-authors write that, in many cases, the use of gendered rather than sexed language is important to reinforce inclusivity and respect. Moving forward, a possible solution could be to develop a separate set of desexed materials for transgender and nonbinary people who do not identify as women.

This all sounds like conjecture. It isn't a matter of understanding or not understanding. We have the data backing trans mental health in relation to social ostracization, but on a cursory look (on a 15 minute break) it doesn't seem they have any data, like, at all to back the claim.

[discolé monade]

i guess i'm wondering why i'm tying to get my point across. 

*shrugs*

we'll see what happens in the very near future. 

i don't know what data you're looking for. 

As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America.

[naraku360]

20 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

i guess i'm wondering why i'm tying to get my point across. 

*shrugs*

we'll see what happens in the very near future. 

i don't know what data you're looking for. 

As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America.

Okay, but what are they basing it on?

If they have a legit paper with research and data coming out, cool. But if it's not out I can't analyze the reason for the statement before the paper is released.

It's like saying 1+1=2 because you shouldn't look directly at the sun. Perhaps they have the right answer, but I'm putting emphasis on the how they got there rather than the conclusion itself. I can't replicate the process of the aforementioned math equation despite reaching a correct answer.

I'm not contesting the article in premise, more specifically that at present I can't really look at the claim critically without knowing the process of the research or how it was applied to the answer.

[scoobdog]

4 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth).

It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights.

So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

I better way to frame it is that both pregnant women and pregnant people are impacted.  One term doesn’t replace or include the other, but both are equally affected in different ways. The idea that one can be used to minimize the overall impact of the other can’t be ignored, but that doesn’t mean just using the term to refer to non women is a distraction.  You just have to conscience refer to both whenever discussing the topic.

[rpgamer]

2 hours ago, discolé monade said:

"Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.”

This part is kinda what felt most important out of that. It's not about dismissing trans experiences, just communicating a sex issue rather than a gender issue.

But, on one hand, as katt points out, not every AFAB individual falls into that reproductive category.

On the other hand.... I have a hard time imagining trans individuals truly being put out by "non-inclusive" language with regards to reproductive health. This feels like an argument being made on their behalf that they (may have) never wanted. As pooh said, a distraction.

But, I could just be insulated/sheltered; maybe some in trans community actually do appreciate the attempt, idk. Either way, I'd like to believe they also have enough sense to recognize the importance of the rights under fire right now, and have no desire to quibble over the language.

[discolé monade]

2 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Okay, but what are they basing it on?

If they have a legit paper with research and data coming out, cool. But if it's not out I can't analyze the reason for the statement before the paper is released.

It's like saying 1+1=2 because you shouldn't look directly at the sun. Perhaps they have the right answer, but I'm putting emphasis on the how they got there rather than the conclusion itself. I can't replicate the process of the aforementioned math equation despite reaching a correct answer.

I'm not contesting the article in premise, more specifically that at present I can't really look at the claim critically without knowing the process of the research or how it was applied to the answer.

it's kind of like you're saying that i have no right to speak my peace on the matter, because 'the data isn't there', and that 'it's harmless'. 

i think, at this point, i'll will end defending my stance, as i have no need to. 

i will just agree, that a woman trying to explain this, is futile. 

silly me, i'll just let all the men decide what's best /s/

[PenguinBoss]

Why are you making a big deal about someone wanting the source of the info from the article?

[naraku360]

27 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

it's kind of like you're saying that i have no right to speak my peace on the matter, because 'the data isn't there', and that 'it's harmless'. 

i think, at this point, i'll will end defending my stance, as i have no need to. 

i will just agree, that a woman trying to explain this, is futile. 

silly me, i'll just let all the men decide what's best /s/

I'm only saying that the article linked doesn't give me enough info to base an opinion on.

 

3 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Perhaps they have the right answer, but I'm putting emphasis on the how they got there rather than the conclusion itself.

I explicitly said it could be correct. I just don't know one way or another if the research they did isn't public yet.

It's not saying you're wrong. It's saying I can't really form an opinion without knowing how a conclusion was come to.

Edited July 16, 2022 by naraku360

[naraku360]

By the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what stances people have 

[scoobdog]

11 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

I'm only saying that the article linked doesn't give me enough info to base an opinion on.

 

I explicitly said it could be correct. I just don't know one way or another if the research they did isn't public yet.

It's not saying you're wrong. It's saying I can't really form an opinion without knowing how a conclusion was come to.

What research are you referring to? 

[naraku360]

2 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

What research are you referring to? 

The article mentioned a paper would be released at some point, which I'd imagine would deal with research into the impact of the terminology. The paper wasn't in any of the links and there wasn't much about the contents, though, so the article itself was primarily testimonial. That's not inherently bad or wrong, it's just not what I would be looking for to draw my own conclusions off.

[PenguinBoss]

Yeah, the article was from the first day of February saying a paper would be published later that week, but they didn't bother updating the article when it released so someone could actually find it in the future.

[naraku360]

32 minutes ago, PenguinBoss said:

Yeah, the article was from the first day of February saying a paper would be published later that week, but they didn't bother updating the article when it released so someone could actually find it in the future.

Ah, I was on my 30th minute of my 15 minute break while typing.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean to. I thought I had to poop more than I did, okay?

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

The article mentioned a paper would be released at some point, which I'd imagine would deal with research into the impact of the terminology. The paper wasn't in any of the links and there wasn't much about the contents, though, so the article itself was primarily testimonial. That's not inherently bad or wrong, it's just not what I would be looking for to draw my own conclusions off.

You don't research terminology like a science project.  Words continuously evolve as you well know, so you're not determining what a word means as much as predicting how it will be used in the future.  The article premises a well established pattern of using generic terms to despecify problematic groups, and reasonably predicts how allied groups can damage their individual causes by trying to create an all-inclusive group.  You don't need research to find the logic sound, you need it to address the the results of the prediction.

[naraku360]

59 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

 You don't need research to find the logic sound, you need it to address the the results of the prediction.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was asking more or less for what you're describing. 

Or thought I was...? I mean, their conclusions are naturally going to need research. To what end I'm no expert. I just didn't see the paper linked there and was wanting to see what studies the looked at or performed and how it was utilized. But I didn't need anything terribly specific insofar as what kind of research, literally whatever paper the article is referencing was what I wanted to look at.

This might also be an I dumbdumb situation.

Edited July 16, 2022 by naraku360

[scoobdog]

Yeah, I dunno.  

[discolé monade]

there seem to be several articles that touch on the fact that gender shouldn't be inclusive

 

preliminary paper that was accepted, and the final to be written soon.

another that talks about AMR and gender inequalities

and the gendered approach to breast cancer.

 

[discolé monade]

11 hours ago, PenguinBoss said:

Why are you making a big deal about someone wanting the source of the info from the article?

because if anyone read the article, they could see that 'Frontiers' was mentioned, and anyone could have just as easily searched for the info themselves. 

but, what is happening is that there are 3 (i assume men) that are asking a woman to defend her stance on the language being used, and that is what has been happening since...well forever. 

WOMEN had to fight for the right to vote, to work, to own a bank account, to play sports, to join the military, to get equal pay(still not happening), and a long list of WOMEN'S rights, that just keep getting pushed aside, trampled or dismantled, 

and now ROE v. WADE. 

it wasn't pregnant persons in 1972 that were fighting for the right to dictate what happens to their bodies, it was pregnant WOMEN. 

[naraku360]

I wasn't asking anyone to defend themselves....?

Seriously, I was at work so I was asking for clarification since I didn't see the paper in the article and didn't have time to search for it.

If you're going to make it an argument, you aren't going to get very far just repeatedly pointing out that men are being mean to you for asking clarifying questions. I wanted to understand your stance on it. That's not fucking telling you to shut up and it has nothing to do with my dangly bits.

I don't know why the base assumption has to be that I don't respect you, nor why I have to be accused of sexism.... based 110% on my sex.

At no point have I accused you of having wrong opinions for being a woman despite the dozen+ allegations of such, while you've repeatedly pointed to my sex as why I'm too stupid to "get it." You know damn well that's not my intention so quit accusing me of being sexist. And if you do, please point to direct examples where I'm clearly disregarding your opinion because you're a woman and don't act openly sexist in the process.

Edited July 16, 2022 by naraku360

[Sawdy]

7 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

I wasn't asking anyone to defend themselves....?

Seriously, I was at work so I was asking for clarification since I didn't see the paper in the article and didn't have time to search for it.

If you're going to make it an argument, you aren't going to get very far just repeatedly pointing out that men are being mean to you for asking clarifying questions. I wanted to understand your stance on it. That's not fucking telling you to shut up and it has nothing to do with my dangly bits.

I don't know why the base assumption has to be that I don't respect you, nor why I have to be accused of sexism.... based 110% on my sex.

Instead of constantly challenging, shouldn’t we shut up and listen? 

[naraku360]

1 minute ago, Sawdy said:

Instead of constantly challenging, shouldn’t we shut up and listen? 

I'M NOT FUCKING CHALLENGING PEOPLE.

WTF GUYS.

[Sawdy]

Just now, naraku360 said:

I'M NOT FUCKING CHALLENGING PEOPLE.

WTF GUYS.

But you also aren’t shutting up and listening to the people that are directly being impacted.

[naraku360]

Just now, Sawdy said:

But you also aren’t shutting up and listening to the people that are directly being impacted.

Listening isn't the same as shuttng up and mindlessly agreeing.

[Sawdy]

Just now, naraku360 said:

Listening isn't the same as shuttng up and mindlessly agreeing.

You’re right, but it also doesn’t require your rebuttal on what you believe to be true based on something we can’t possibly understand.

You do you man, you and Scoob in that canoe spinning in circles is a sight.

[naraku360]

Just now, Sawdy said:

You’re right, but it also doesn’t require your rebuttal on what you believe to be true based on something we can’t possibly understand.

You do you man, you and Scoob in that canoe spinning in circles is a sight.

So I'm not allowed to disagree because she's a woman?

[Sawdy]

1 minute ago, naraku360 said:

So I'm not allowed to disagree because she's a woman?

You’re more than welcome to do whatever you want man, what I’m saying is… there is a time for listening and understanding… which sometimes means shutting the fuck up and actually listening instead of splitting hairs on definitions (not you) and just listening….

you’re quick to form a response, and sometimes you just can take a bit to actually think about what is being said, especially considering that we aren’t experiencing this first hand…. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for women, but I’m mad too.

[naraku360]

Just now, Sawdy said:

You’re more than welcome to do whatever you want man, what I’m saying is… there is a time for listening and understanding… which sometimes means shutting the fuck up and actually listening instead of splitting hairs on definitions (not you) and just listening….

you’re quick to form a response, and sometimes you just can take a bit to actually think about what is being said, especially considering that we aren’t experiencing this first hand…. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for women, but I’m mad too.

How many times do I have to say the entire point was to get a better understanding before even 1 person gets that I'm having this conversation to understand better?

10? 50? A million?

[Sawdy]

[naraku360]

6 minutes ago, Sawdy said:

77465865915894594583138848689578388 times?