Demi Levato has switched back to her/she/ pronouns for those keeping score. She said," I am such a fluid person". This pronoun thing is getting harder and harder to take seripusly.

I never took it seriously.

Keep it simple: refer to everybody as It.

Before the haters start storming in: It is neither poor grammar nor poor syntax to refer to a person as "It."

For example, the doctor informs the new daddy after his wife gives birth that "It's a girl" or "It's a boy."

As an aside, whoever coined the term "Birthing people" should be publicly broiled in oil immediately.

As long as we're allowing people to hide behind biz names/corp entities then just changing them when they get sued to avoid paying--I'd say the pronoun thing is pretty small potatoes.

A small potato is still a potato.

but its not beer

takes 2 seconds not to be an ******* and refer to someone as they would prefer. gender is fluid social construct, sorry you dont understand.

I've certainly noticed in Canada, fwiw, that 'Mother' is never used in regards to a person who can or has given birth, in public forums now, news or otherwise. It is always some form of 'a person who has given birth' or another way to say it while seeming to avoid 'birthing person' specifically as much as possible.

It is as if they feel saying 'birthing person' may garner some heat or push back, while instead just describing the action generally, gets more of a pass.

Right, which I agree everyone should understand.

But at the same time then not one person should struggle with the logic then that sports should be segregated by biological sex and not gender for the very 'fluidity' you recognize and I agree with. Any application of logic then exposes the absurdity of allowing someone to fluidity move in and out of divisions, created in the first place to create fair playing fields based on commonalities. To simply give a trans individual a pass on any of that requirement is illogical, especially when there are numerous others way for them to participate in sport.

Anyway I digress, but your point above was screaming out to this one.

Wow, someone actually agrees with what I suggested in the Trans forum before it was closed. But I was told "it" would be dehumanizing.

I always thought gender was a social construct as well, which is why it doesn't make sense to me that someone would want to change their bodies to fit one.

And if gender is "fluid", it doesn't seem like a good idea to make a permanent change to one's body to fit the current state of mind. Especially for "people who have not yet reached the age of majority".

Who is against the use of the word "mother" anyway? I've never heard any complaints about it.

I'm trying to figure out what the corresponding term for "birthing person" might be. "Inseminating person"?

Have you not watched some of these folks that refuse to use mother as men can have babies also ?


https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin...idance-1598343

Ya, we just dumped some pure cancer in your water--but now we identify as/are doing biz as regular potato so you get zero. And all your kids can do is cry about it with all 3 eyes

Maybe we should just focus on society's real problems instead--gay people lol

But if the word "man" is expanded to include some people who give birth, why wouldn't "mother" be expanded to all people who give birth. "Mother" has less inherent gender specificity than does "man".

And the document mentioned in your link still includes the word "maternal", which literally means "relating to mothers".

It's a work in progress. We'll all be informed when it's settled, just a temporary fix for now.

A) it’s not your choice to make, nor your decision of whether or not a “permanent change” is made to someone else’s body or not. That’s like saying tattoos should be illegal because you personally don’t think they are a good idea.

And b). The fear mongering of surgery on children is just that. Fear mongering. It’s akin to the near birth abortion fear mongering. And it makes us all dumber to give it space in the dialogue.

Over/under when America renames Mother's Day?

Not dehumanizing at all.

There are even a couple places in the King James Bible where the third person of the Godhead (the Holy Ghost) is referred to as Itself.


26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. - Romans 8:26

Yikes. This is a question of basic respect. When a non-binary person tell us their preferred pronouns are 'they', that should be then end of discussion.

And it is no surprise that the community has, for the most part, settled on "they" as the default singular non-gendered pronoun that is used as opposed to "it". "It" most commonly refers to objects, not people. We all use the singular they commonly (ex: I heard about this student and they did the most outrageous thing...". It is true that we do have that pretty isolated funny expression "It's a girl/boy" reserved for that one time before the world knows, but I think the community has it right here.

It is certainly a welcome linguistic development that official positions are inclusive of trans men who are giving birth as well as cis women. I don't think you are actually correct that there is a specific campaign to avoid "birthing person" and instead say "person who has given birth" - I think this is just public officials trying to phrase things in accessible language (I wouldn't say "birthing person" is quite standard enough for everyone to immediately understand the connotations). Regardless of which way you permute the words, great job Canada on being more inclusive.

Yes, referring to a non-binary person who uses "they" pronouns as "it" is absolutely dehumanizing.

This is great news!

As trans men can have birth too, it is very welcome to use language that includes them as well. These small linguistic shifts can build over time to greater acceptance of trans people.

Your suggestion is that a trans man - someone who identifies as a male - should use "Mother", the term to describe a female parent? No. A trans man likely chooses to be referred to as the father of their child.

Why can't trans men just be called mothers too? Shouldn't it just be that if someone has given birth then they're a mother and if they haven't given birth then they aren't a mother?

Somewhere between no time soon and never.

Perhaps your silly question stems from a belief of the post you quoted, which is completely inaccurate. Just for the hell of it, I went through my history from the last couple of hours, and there were two articles that involved a parental relationship of some kind. Here's what I found:

1) Local newspaper article about parents dying in a car crash, kids surviving. Only "parents" used, which is what I would have expected.
2) CBC article about a school issue. The word "mother" was used four times, and she was never called anything else.

So, LOL sample size, but it certainly isn't the case that " 'Mother' is never used in regards to a person who can or has given birth, in public forums now, news or otherwise". I wondered if perhaps I missed the context since I don't see his posts and can't be bothered to go and unhide them all for this silliness, but just in case this was only in the context of stories related to birth, I did a quick search for "birth Canada", and in most articles had no issue finding the word "mother", usually several times.

Pretty much no one. I mean, I'm sure there are a few people who have tried to make an issue of this, like there is on the extremes of any issue, but it's pretty rare.

But it is the kind of bogeyman that some love to bring up for political reasons. They're cancelling Christmas, cancelling mothers and fathers, blah blah blah. Everyone get outraged, we need to be saved from the zealots is often a great bit of projection.