Except that it is, because it erases entire swaths of people who are able to give birth but who aren't women. Birthing person is inclusive of women and everyone else. I don't understand the problem.

[–] Leshoyadut@fedia.io 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It also doesn’t refer to cis women who are unable to give birth for any variety of reasons. It’s specifically not referring to a pretty sizable group of cis women while also including people who aren’t cis women, because cis women aren’t the ones being referred to; birthing people are.

[–] Adramis@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Didn't even think about that, that's a valid point. Thank you for bringing that up.

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is it ok to force a descriptor on a group of people that do not identify with said term?

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Because it is meant to be used in healthcare care settings in reference to groups of people. It is a way more accurate and complete description of the cohort. Nobody is going around calling individual women "birthing people." Midler took a term out of context and tried to claim people are trying to erase women, which is classic TERF behavior