![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
soniaI 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-05 07:00 pm (UTC)Personally, I'm not always so nice, and have lots of experiences where I can reasonably predict the feedback *won't* be received well and thus call somebody out in public because the feedback is really for onlookers and not for them :)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-05 07:19 pm (UTC)Some places to start, though:
http://amydentata.com/2012/08/02/from-bite-an-introduction-for-biological-womenwarning-for-non-biological-women/ (it's funny, read this one first)
http://skepchick.org/2011/12/bilaterally-gynandromorphic-chickens-and-why-im-not-scientifically-male/
http://intersexroadshow.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/phalloclitoris-anatomy-and-ideology.html
http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/male-female-broken-language/
http://eateroftrees.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/sex-is-also-a-social-construct/
http://unpitchable.tumblr.com/post//language-tips-for-cis-feminists-speaking-on-trans
http://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/
http://transstingray.wordpress.com/annettas-trans-101/
http://kaberett.dreamwidth.org/102050.html
The thing that bothers me so much about misconceptions of the kind that you're expressing here is that they're not just anti-trans. They're anti-intellectual and anti-science.