Better terms than "female/male" pelvis, suggestions wanted!

[sonia]

I was kindly notified (feel free to let me know in comments if you want to be named) that in my article Change the Rules, Inhabit Your Pelvis, referring to female and male pelvises is cissexist.

I want to change the article to be more correct/welcoming, and I'm looking for suggestions for better phrasing. "People with uteruses" probably correlates fairly well with wide pelvises, but seems indirect to me. "Assigned female" has the benefit of being compact, but is not entirely accurate. "Child-bearing" pelvis? What would I pair that with?

I welcome google search suggestions - I haven't come up with useful search terms yet. I imagine that trans-aware anatomists have come up with acceptable terminology, but I don't know how to find out what that is. What's a good way to say "anatomically female," or "female-bodied," or ....?

ETA: I changed female to cis female, and added a bit of text about "your pelvis may be wider or narrower than you expect." I thought about eliding gender altogether, but that felt like silently going along with cis male being the default everyone learns about.

Comments

[sonia]

Good point. I hear that it's not helpful for you to compare "male" vs. "female" characteristics. I definitely want to add something about a spectrum of pelvic shapes to the article.

Where I was coming from is that "male" (sticking with that until I get something better) pelvises are generally pictured as the default and not even labeled as such. "Female" pelvises are structured quite differently to allow a baby through, so those of us that have them need clear differentiation to picture how our own bones are structured.

It's similar to how we discuss vagina vs. penis. Yes there's a spectrum from one to the other, but we need terms for both ends of the spectrum as well. If it's not correct to say "male" genitals and "female" genitals, what do people say?

I'm thinking wide/narrow might solve my immediate terminology problem, and I think there's a more general issue of how to discuss sex-linked anatomical variation in an inclusive way.

(I'm sitting with all this and am aware that I might be defending a cissexist stance. I am open to learning more and changing my position.)

[elainegrey]

I don't know how to solve the language issue with the pictures. I noticed and as a body that is usually left out of the depictions of "normal" appreciated the female "normal" being depicted. I don't know how to do the more general instruction around the range and the general steretypical male and female body structures with out making comments about sterotypes - but that's what one is doing in that case, isn't it? Presenting stereotypes?