“Bodies with vaginas,” “menstruators,” “birthing people.” Aforementioned are the array of terms utilized by press in reporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade, chiming in on the horrors of a world under an abortion ban, and enumerating social groups who would be most hurt by the decision. But something is peculiar. Why is the seemingly most common denominator – “women” – not included in this narrative?
As the traditional, dichotomous way of perceiving gender is increasingly challenged, progressive mainstream media is gradually easing out of the terms “men” and “women”, as such distinctions rely only on one’s assigned gender. Controversy arose, however, when a considerable number of news publications did not employ the word “women” and opted instead for gender-neutral terms that relate to the rudimentary anatomical functions of those discussed when reporting on topics that predominantly affect cisgender women, such as pregnancy or abortion. (Noticeably, 99.9% of all abortion patients are cisgender women.) This form of narrative within feminism has led to The Atlantic describing the current situation as such: “The right has declared a war on women. The left has responded by declaring a war on saying ‘women.’”
The dispute over the potentially problematic status of gender-neutral language, however, is prone to spiral into an exhaustingly emotional clash. The hardly earned rights and social stance of transgender and non-binary individuals face nullification if society were to regress to times with no gender-inclusive language. As society approaches one of the most contentious debates of our time, the voices of both sides must be considered for sustainable resolution.
Advocates of strictly gender-inclusive language contend that those who identify as transgender males or non-binary may also have abortions, and that their access to reproductive healthcare is abundantly more difficult than the situations faced by cisgender women. As the abortion ban affects every individual who can give birth, it is fair that everyone is included in mainstream discussion. Moreover, the general benefit of incorporating gender-inclusive language is not limited to the limited scenario of abortion disputes. It challenges the notion of gender as a restrictive construct and liberally opens the ground for the acceptance of all. With its status as one of the most controversial issues of our time, the pregnancy debate is just the tip of the iceberg; hence, it should serve as a prime example at the forefront of inclusive language.
However, some find the phasing out of the term “women” to be inherently problematic. When excluding the term “women”, media inevitably turns to refer to their subjects based on their reproductive systems when reporting on gender-sensitive issues. It is offensive and grossly objectifying to refer to women based on their anatomical body parts, as women were socially constrained solely based on the female sex in the close past. Many activists additionally consider the potential retirement of the term “women” to weaken the possibility of feminist consolidation, which they consider to be exigent in matters such as the abortion ban.
The full social acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is an indubitable priority of our society. It goes without saying that reproductive health care should rightfully be given to whoever requires it, regardless of their gender identity. The term “women”, however, holds an irreplicable value both as an amalgamation of feminist resistance and a respectable alternative to disreputable referrals based on one’s anatomy. Biological women have their unique needs and prerogatives and respecting such is necessary for a more sustainable debate.
Perhaps, an agreeable compromise would be denoting “girls, women, and other pregnant people” while listing those who may be impacted by pregnancy. It is not a zero-sum game; respecting one group need not equate to the other losing social ground.