I'm not responding to you to win anything. And, no, it's not that clear. Your argument is that any person who gets pregnant is a woman, by definition. But a woman, by definition, is someone who has reached adulthood (i.e., sexual maturity). For the case you were referring to -- a girl who has not had her period and still got pregnant -- do you think "woman" is an accurate descriptor? I don't. So your word choice relies on expanding the meaning of "woman" to include prepubescent young girls who become pregnant as well as people who don't self-identify as women who can become pregnant. "Menstruating persons" may leave out the very exceptional case of young girls who become pregnant before puberty. So, yeah, not perfect. Doesn't have the same issues as "women", though.
Women or female would have been more factually wrong. Here's her quote: "Number one: I have the constitutional ability to bring a lawsuit to protect constitutional rights of people of Michigan. So I brought a lawsuit on behalf of all the menstruating people in Michigan — 2.2 million. And another tool I have is to go straight to our state Supreme Court," Michigan has nearly 10 million people. You can do the math and realize she wasn't referring to all females or all women in her statement. Aren't you the person who said you "didn't have enough facts" to know whether the 2020 election was legitimate? This is a good example where your time might be better spent learning how basic democracy works instead of spending lots of time and posts complaining about one person using a word you don't like.
It’s not “very exceptional” , it is categorized as “uncommon” which is different and distinct. In addition it’s not just girls , it’s young women that ovulate which is the release of eggs from their ovaries , as soon as a woman has begun ovulation, she can become pregnant. This can happen without the occurrence of a menstruation and again it’s certainly NOT common but it’s medically classified as uncommon instead of rare.
She used the term “menstruating people” which is wrong. Menstruation is NOT required for pregnancy. Ovulation IS. Only biological women ovulate. Had she said “ovulating persons” that would be accurate and we all know who that applies to and who it doesn’t
Again, a woman is an adult. You're referring to cases of females who have not yet reached sexual maturity getting pregnant. Are they included or excluded by the term "woman"? And you didn't address the other part -- there are people who don't identify as women can become pregnant, whether you approve or not. If she chose to use your preferred term, they would consider themselves excluded. Moreover, it's not just about coming up with the most inclusive term. Precision also matters in this case, because she was referring to a lawsuit that she filed on behalf of the people who would be affected. So what's the right term that most accurately represents that group of people? As @Major pointed out, it is clear she didn't file the lawsuit on behalf of all women.
Sounds like she should have gone with "Ovulating" then. I suspect that if she said "ovulating persons", we would see the exact same article in Fox News with "menstruating" replaced by "ovulating". Disagree?
If a female has reached ovulation, then she has reached sexual biological maturity. It may be less than 18 but from a biological POV, the woman is now on a path to pregnancy production green light status until menopause or age decline decision. That’s a fact. Only people that ovulate can become pregnant ..it doesn’t matter the identity term, that’s a fact. Only biological females that are also known as women can ovulate. That’s a fact
How you choose to define "woman" or "adulthood" is not a fact. You can assume that the ability to ovulate means they're an adult, but that isn't a fact (facts are things that can be proven or disprove based on evidence). It's just something you are asserting definitionally. When you say "Only biological females that are also known as women can ovulate", what does "that are also known as women" mean? "Known", as in some people view them as women (even though it could also be true that others know them as men)? Or "known" as in, the Lord sayeth these people are women, and so it is? My conclusion from this thread is that "menstruating persons" is pretty close to the mark, but "ovulating persons" would be most accurate. "Woman", as I stated from the beginning, means different things to different people and wouldn't have been appropriate given the statement she was making.
How many millions do you think fall in the category you are referring to (young persons who haven't reached puberty and get pregnant)? Anyway, yes, best to go with the most accurate term. I see no reason to prefer menstruating over ovulating in this case.
Yes, but you and others looking to be angry because of unknown reasons seem to be the only ones that care so much about her word choice. You may want to focus on what's wrong in your brain that causes you such anger over a woman in another state using a word you don't like referring to people who aren't you about a topic that doesn't impact you. This thread says way more about you than it does about her.
I assume you will hold yourself to this standard from now on when referring to groups involving millions of people? Or are you just a run of the mill hypocrite?
Who says I am angry? You make assumptions it appears based on a unfounded basis. Maybe need to address that possibly and get anger management. You seem bitter or maybe I am just assuming like you. I want accuracy when it applies to millions. I value representing everyone even those uncommon types. That’s what this thread says about me and I’m completely fine with that. Thanks. God bless
Those types belong in a country like IRAQ. They think alike. There they can fit in with the extremists.
The word woman isn’t marginalized in the context it was being used. Also gender and sex are not the same thing. I am a big supporter of feminism. I am sure since you don’t want marginalize women then you are too. There are examples of people using the term “menstruating people” when it IS offensive and on these very message boards I have pointed it out, I have defended J.K. Rowling based on the original article she complained about the use of the term. When discussing people that are capable of carrying a child to term because of Roe being over turned, the term menstruating human” is more accurate that women because there are people that can carry a child to term that do not identify as women. Most of the backlash to the term has been in the context of males that transition to females and and want to identify women that were born female. So they began using the term “menstruating people” to refer to those are female and identify as women. In that context it is offensive, because “women” have had many rights taken from them and live in a patriarchy where they are socially subservient to men. I just don’t think the context the governor used the term is inaccurate or offensive. You have a basis for your opinion, I just don’t think this is a good example. I also wish you had just laid out your actual basis and opinion from the start. I enjoy talking to you when you explain the basis for your opinions.
Maybe I am just old but I find this way of talking forced and annoying. And I would argue that the vast majority of the population agrees with me on that.
