#yes I said people who menstruate yes I meant to include trans men

[moonmaenad]

I really need to unlearn the thinking that people who menstruate should push through the pain and keep working

[radkindoffeminist]

I have a lot of issues with your pinned post and if you are willing to have a respectful discussion in dm's or whatever I will gladly explain my rationale on several of the points you made but I think you are really missing the point of inclusive language.

Yes, there are people who attack individual women for calling themselves "pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people." The reality is that there is always someone out there arguing for the stupidest possible version of any belief in existence. But that isn't the point of inclusive language.

The reason it's actually important isn't about validating people, it's about people getting access to the healthcare they need. If you, as a woman, go to a gynecologist looking for help with birth control, or pregnancy, or menstrual issues, etc etc you're not going to be turned away because "you're a woman, not a person." (This is NOT the same as not being taken seriously btw. Before you bring up that argument.) But trans men can and have been turned away from those procedures because "this treatment is for women/you can't possibly have [insert issue here], you're a man." Basically, read Stone Butch Blues I am begging.

Individual women can call themselves women as much as they want, but in medical settings it's important to use inclusive (and accurate!) language. "People who can get pregnant" acknowledges that there are women who are too young or old to get pregnant, or lack certain organs necessary for it, while including people who aren't women that can. And by the way, there are plenty of trans people who do encourage the use of inclusive language when it comes to male healthcare and are frustrated by terms like "womxn" being popularized.

You say you don't hate trans people or want us to come to harm? Help us protect our access to basic healthcare.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Medical inclusivity? Really? What makes you think that just turning from ‘pregnant women’ to ‘pregnant people’ is going to make people recognise that there are female people who don’t identify as women who can still get pregnant? Like, is that really going to be such a big problem in the medical community that actually we need to change all of our language because that alone will make doctors recognise that trans men can also get pregnant?

Moreover, even if I accept the above -that the language needs to change to accommodate trans people, especially as it seems like disagreeing with you about this makes you think that I want trans people to be harmed but I’ll deal with that later- why should it mean that I’m not allowed to be offended by this language change when it forces me to address myself and other women by our organs? This is especially offensive towards women who have a long history of being treated as a walking baby-maker/uterus/vagina. You only picked pregnant person in your example, but there are so many other terms I’ve seen: uterus owner, vagina haver, menstruator, etc. Why is my offence taken as hate on trans people? There are so many other terms which could be used which are significantly less offensive but those ones aren’t chosen, just the ones where we’re forced to refer to ourselves by our organs. Women, AFAB non-binary people, and trans men, for one.

Finally, if the actual argument that you’re going with is because it’s necessary for medical reasons then why is it only women who are targeted with this language? I literally don’t care that some people are encouraging the male equivalents because the reality of the situation is that these terms are directed almost exclusively towards women. There are so many examples of sites which use this language for women while men are still male! It just goes to show how deeply misogynistic this all is and how it was always meant to dehumanise women and separate us from our sex and our sex class.

You’ve basically just said ‘it’s better and more inclusive to trans people so shut up about being offended about it because if you disagree then you want harm to come to trans people’. You’re never going to care about my arguments or my feelings on this subject because all you’re going to do is say that I just hate trans people and want them to be hurt if I disagree. You don’t care about the fact that this language is deeply misogynistic and targets women. You just want us to shut up, accept it, and feel bad for being offended.

[colourlys]

A commentary on Elsa

I’m asexual, and I am going to unabashedly support asexual Elsa while countering some arguments as to why “asexual Elsa cannot respectfully be a thing.”

“If Elsa asexual, then she can’t be a lesbian.” Asexual, in addition to being its own this, is a large umbrella term for those on the asexual spectrum. There are a variety of asexuals who experience a variety of interests, from none to a little to somewhat, but never truly falling over into the active sexual/romantic groups such as those who identify as active sexuals. You can be sexual and later identify as asexual, or you can be asexual and later identify as a sexual. Whilst asexual, you can also still identify as heterosexual (opposite sex and typically biological), bisexual (either sex), gay and lesbian (same sex), pansexual (all sexes including trans), and anything else I may have forgotten. In other words, you can be asexual and lesbian. Elsa can be both. She doesn’t have to be. But she can be.

“If you support an asexual Elsa, you’re a homophobic, cis, probably white person, who just doesn’t want to see a lesbian - or a strong lesbian!” Actually, I’m asexual, I am cis with slight body dismorphia (who actually likes boobs and menstruation anyway?) but I’ve reincarnated as either sex numerous times so it doesn’t matter what I am now cause this shop is closed, I lean towards pan, and the only thing you’ve conclusively gotten right was I am white (though some of my recent ancestors were not white). But I fail to see what my whiteness has to do with a white character. Those are some pretty large generalizations you made there. Would you like to discuss your own phobias whilst accusing a large portion of people who are none of the above, as all of the above? (Your unnecessary racist tendencies in this situation don’t necessarily have to be included, though they are noted.)

“But asexuals have acceptance.” From whom? Pretending we don���t exist in a group isn’t acceptance. Hearing: “It’s just a phase, you’ll want to be in a relationship later.” “But what about children?” “Do you want to die alone?” “Maybe you just haven’t been with the right person, if you know what I mean?” “One night with me and I can fix that for you. ;)” “Aw, that’s so sad.” “I hope you get better.” None of that is acceptance. Hearing: “But you have acceptance!” Isn’t acceptance when we’re not being accepted. Dreading telling ANYONE you’re asexual, having to explain it, getting the looks, the talks, the disgust, the confusion, and then to receive it all over again from the allegedly supportive LGBT+ community isn’t acceptance. Knowing that all of our icons will be sexualized to please the sexuals/romantics one day isn’t acceptance. Hoping one day we’ll find happiness and love with someone else because how can we be anything other than secretly sad and lonely as asexuals, isn’t acceptance. Pretending that we are all secretly in the closet and oppressed and that we really want to have unlimited relationships and sex with someone of the same or either sex, isn’t acceptance. You can be condescending while being positive towards somebody, you know? “We accept you” is just platitudes until you actually show it towards someone. Some of us have received little to no respect from any community. I have personally received little to no respect from any community. Pretending my sexuality is something to be undiscussed and covered by a rug does not make you accepting of myself or the asexual community.

“The LGBT+ community needs an icon!” Oh, so you’re finally admitting that the “you’re valid” campaigns for asexuals and aromantics within the LGBT+ community is a farce? Because if Elsa is asexual, and asexuals are part of the LGBT+ community, then Elsa is already an LGBT+ icon. She just isn’t the icon you wanted.

“Lesbians needs an icon!” Yes, lesbians need an icon, but Elsa does not need to be your icon. You want Elsa as your icon. There is, in fact, a difference between generalized needs and personal wants. And Elsa, at present, is sexually unidentified or sexually asexual. Though she can still be a lesbian, she is, at present, not sexualized. As in, she is not running around, making out, cuddling, or having sex with people of any gender or identity, nor is she openly desiring such a relationship.

“But her clothes are sexualized!” You sexualize her clothes. I wear low shirts and blouses even though I’m not personally fond of my boobs because I want to keep the nasty things known as collars away from my neck. I don’t personally like wearing dresses (though I think many are cute) because I don’t like anything restricting my constant movement, but I do wear form fitting clothes, and like doing up my eyes because I have lovely long lashes. I think I’m pretty. Just because I’m asexual doesn’t mean I don’t want to look nice for myself. I have no other motives to look nice other than for myself. I am literally impressing nobody but me. Not you, not him, not her, not them. Please do not hit on me. Please do not think I want to hook up with someone just because I care about my appearance. The same can, matter of factly, be said for other people and fictional characters. Don’t sexualize characters like they’re pieces of meat to have their clothes ripped off. Sound familiar?

“She interacted with another woman!” I interact with other women daily. Other women interact with other women daily. Other men interact with other men daily. Interaction does not immediately equal sexual and romantic attraction. Being sexy, attractive, or LGBT+ does not increase this possibility either. Friendships can exist WITHIN reality and fiction WITHOUT needing to be sexualized. It would actually be very healthy for asexual, lesbian, or asexual lesbian Elsa to be friends with another woman without the need to force her into a relationship another person or woman.

“Let It Go is an LGBT+ anthem!” And it can be, but it was not written solely for the LBGT+ person or community. It was meant for everyone. Yes, even heterosexuals and cisgendered people. It was written for everyone, to relate to a multitude of issues, especially mental health and self care, as it was meant to relate to Elsa and her point in life. Me, an asexual, who did not sexualize the meaning of the song, took it as an inspiration to not be so scared, to not be so anxious, to not shy away from what I know I can and need to do in my life to function, to actually show myself to others and accept myself even though that is hard. It has helped me grow as a person and the things I am doing now, you would have never imagined me here 10 years ago. You have no idea how much Let It Go means to me on a psychological level. It can be an anthem for LGBT+ all you want, but it is not yours or their sole anthem. It is a shared anthem. And it is the same with Show Yourself. Saying LGBT+ are the only people for whom these songs apply is as dumb as that one kid who told me it wasn’t fair that I liked blue and it is my favorite color because it was their favorite color. We can share it, you know, it doesn’t belong to any one person or group except Disney.

“People need to respect others sexualities!” Yes, they do. Unless they’re possibly or confirmed asexual, then you can whine and moan all you want because asexuality isn’t valid compared to the rest of the LGBT+ community, amiright? /sarcasm

“But asexuals don’t need an icon!” Did you read any of this? Did you read the part where all of our icons are made sexual? Did you read the part where discrimination towards myself and our community exists? Did you read the part about respecting others sexualities? Have you thought about this? Because I’ve been thinking about it for years. You know, since this asexuality of mine isn’t a phase (there are now adults younger than I’ve identified as asexual) and I would like to have one icon who doesn’t end up in a sexual relationship that is greatly dependent on the “sexual” aspect rather than the “mutually respecting and dependency” aspect, you know, the kind of relationships asexuals such as myself usually drift towards if we drift towards relationships.

In closing You can want lesbian Elsa all you want. That does not give you the right to throw myself, others, or the asexual community into the dirt because you didn’t get your way.