captain-irrayditation:

realsocialskills:

dogprob replied to your post: secret-x-stars asked realsocialskills:

hi,…when youre referring to a specific kind of genital i think its typically better to just say the organ youre talking about than call them female or male parts, like if youre talking about folks affected by abortion you can say people with uteri

I do that in some contexts, but it doesn’t work in all contexts.

It didn’t work for me in this context because:

  • I was talking specifically about a misogynist slur. It’s a specifically gendered insult and I don’t think there’s a good way of explaining it that’s gender-neutral.
  • Because it’s not an anti-vulva slur, it’s an anti-*women* slur. Even though not all women have vulvas and not all people who have vulvas are women.
  • Also, I wasn’t 100% sure which part of anatomy was meant. Just that it was a misogynist genital-targetting slur.

Beyond that, I often find it very difficult to use person-first language, because of how cumbersome it is. It makes it difficult to say a lot of things. There are things I can’t say using person-first language that I think it’s important to say.

fwiw i’ve heard people using terms like “female-coded/assumed/etc" to talk about things, like genetalia and secondary sex characteristics, that are part of misogyny even though they aren’t inherently female. I’ve also heard them used to talk about discrimination that happens to people who are assumed to be women because of how they look but aren’t.

Duly noted

Edited to add: I’ve been informed that “duly noted” sounds dismissive. So I wanted to say that what I meant was “Good to know. I will take this into consideration in the future.”