@TheEconomist fuxake not you too

@TheEconomist Then stop using them. We, the women, like being called women and we want it to keep it that way. Don’t feed the womenphobia.

@TheEconomist Why is the economist going down this track? It's so disappointing

@TheEconomist I have had enough of this nonsense. I am not a “birthing person”, I am a mother, a grandmother and the daughter of a woman who was a mother. I feel insulted to be called anything else. Do my feelings matter?

@TheEconomist When will guys be referred to «bodies with penises»?

@TheEconomist As a man (not a “cisman”, but a man) I’m offended by the way this movement dehumanizes women. Both “woman” and “man” are enough to describe these categories. Why change this? Just to please a very tiny but very loud and aggressive minority?

@TheEconomist It's not really tying too many people in knots. The vast majority know exactly what is meant (and what we mean) by the term "women". "Bodies with vaginas" etc aren't about to enter common usage any time soon. Not even among the "birthing people" themselves.

@TheEconomist I’m older and maybe prone to gaffs in this area so please bear with me. Is there a similar debate around the definition of a man? If not, why not? If so, it seems much quieter.

@TheEconomist Ufortunately, there are two bodies of opinion which feel equally passionate about this. I understand the trans perspective but I also know that women have spent decades trying to get beyond being classified as only their genatalia or reproductive function.

@TheEconomist It’s insanity. I don’t even know why people accept this unscientific nonsense ?

@TheEconomist Please call us women. We don't identify with our sexual and reproductive organs, we have a brain, a heart, a body and much more than that. And this refers to ALL women...

@TheEconomist Try as much as the surgeons may, the testicles and ovaries are not a social construct.

@TheEconomist Why is it hard to understand that people want to be able to distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity? If a word results in ambiguity use different words like a direct reference to the relevant anatomy. Pretty simple really.

@TheEconomist “Bodies with vaginas” sounds disturbingly necrophiliac! 😳

@TheEconomist Do the people it applies to in general appreciate this label? That must be the important part, right? From my point of view this sounds so much more insulting…

@TheEconomist What about the word 'man'. What does that mean? Is it a human form with a prostate gland? As an artist, I know that destabilising and breaking down meanings is a form of oppression. Let's stop this now.

@TheEconomist Just call women women

@TheEconomist Transphobia, the British disease.

@TheEconomist The word woman is perfectly fine. Everything else that is pushed is just a way to divide us so that we are easier to control and distract us while our freedoms are under attack.

@TheEconomist Just another way of taking away from our dignity and autonomy once again! I am a woman. I know there a small number of trans men who have vaginas but I don't think its ok to take away references to "women give birth" etc just because we now recognise trans people (and I do).

@TheEconomist British media talk about one other thing for one day challenge

@TheEconomist 'birthing people' isn't a word for everyone who can give birth. It's a term for a person who is either preparing to give birth or actively giving birth at that point in time. The word 'woman' could just as easily refer to the midwife assisting with the birth.

@TheEconomist lets just agree to use the terms 'biowomen' and 'transwomen'

@TheEconomist I think pregnant people is fine. There is no inaccuracy there, just as quick to say.

@TheEconomist Hey fellow strangers! Let's all share our opinions on this! We probably don't have any idea what we're talking about but let's tell each other anyway! Then argue when we disagree!

@TheEconomist We can include everyone. We can use the word woman, man, and other words for people who choose not to identify as either. There is room for everyone at the table. Bottom line – people should be able to choose the wording of their own personal narratives.

@TheEconomist You know, if millions of people can adjust to addressing a Catholic priest as "father" when he's not your actual father, then other people can demand silly custom titles too.

@TheEconomist The simple fact is, any attempt to force the use of inclusive language will fail. And any attempt to stop its use will fail. It'll either come into general usage or it won't.

@TheEconomist Stick to economics. Last few publications have been used as toilet paper.

@TheEconomist People with testicles?

@TheEconomist 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of America’s Congress, talks of “menstruating people”. '

Welp, that leaves me out! 😁

@TheEconomist It’s not tying people in knots. It’s tying abusive men, and the women going along with them, through naïveté or self interest, in knots.

@TheEconomist And 'non-men' is another I've heard lately

@TheEconomist @Mystifiedmum Someone somewhere in the public health world is seriously whacking off at the idea of women being dehumanised and referred to almost exclusively by their genitalia.

@TheEconomist If anyone wants to be called a birthing person - fine. But I want to be called a woman and find it highly offensive to be referred to as a birthing person.