Did you guys know that there‚Äôs actually a movement to move toward gender-neutral language when talking about abortions?
Apparently so.¬†Katha Pollitt writes in The Nation:
Who has abortions? For most of human history, the answer was obvious: women have abortions. Girls have abortions. Not any more. People have abortions. Patients have abortions. Men have abortions. ‚ÄúWe must acknowledge and come to terms with the implicit cissexism in assuming that only women have abortions,‚ÄĚ wrote feminist activist Lauren Rankin in July 2013 in truthout.com. She went on to criticize as exclusionary slogans like ‚Äúthe War on Women‚ÄĚ and ‚ÄúStand with Texas Women.‚ÄĚ
Although Pollitt doesn‚Äôt necessarily agree with this:
I‚Äôm going to argue here that removing ‚Äúwomen‚ÄĚ from the language of abortion is a mistake. We can, and should, support trans men and other gender-non-conforming people. But we can do that without rendering invisible half of humanity and 99.999 percent of those who get pregnant.
And get this ‚ÄĒ Pollitt is getting grief over the wacky idea that we should focus on women when discussing all of this:
So, basically nobody is happy with this piece? Great job, libs!
Editor‚Äôs note: The headline has been updated to correct a spelling error.