Gabriel's feelings are understandable. In his view, he's protected a oppressive class of people (i.e. women, uterused people, or XX's as some of them like to be called). And in fairness, Women do have some battles to fights. As do men, XY's, penisihavers in fairness. 1/2
-
-
-
But it's all feels a bit silly now. The dialogue broke down almost a decade ago, as rad fems, & then MRAs, developed these impenetrable, over-generalised ideologies imbued with incessant identity-politics. Gabriel's approach, however valid in feeling, is patently unhelpful. 2/2
-
I think he’s simply pointing out that it may get more noticed if the words men/man stop being used for the sake of ‘inclusivity’. It’s doing what TRAs want though so it’s a nah from me!
-
The thing is, outside his little Twitter bubble, the terms women/woman are not being avoided or undermined in the public domain. And yeah, in doing this, he too is participating in the insulting, sass-infected, broken-ass dialogues that plague these conversations online.
-
They are though, the NHS is stopping terms such as woman/women, head teachers are stopping the language to describe the sexes and this has resulted in two head boys instead of a head girl and a head boy in one grammar school.
-
The institutions that are "stopping" those terms for women/woman are also doing so for men/man. It's not systematically targeted at women, which is something Gabriel suggests. And again, generally, in the public domain, it's business as usual, as the explicit push-back evidences.
-
Will come back later as I’m at work now :)
-
Ok so giving this a bit more thought, I think you’re mainly right that where officials are changing language to be more inclusive it’s affecting both sexes. It often feels like there is more impact on women because it tends to be transwomen who are the loudest activists 1/
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.