“Individuals with a Cervix”?

A recent Tweet by evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller, reminiscent of J.K. Rowling’s famous “people who menstruate” Tweet:

I posted this on FB. It drew the following response from Emily Lemonds:

There are men who have cervices and there are women who don’t. There are people who do not identify as men or women who have them. They do not deserve to have their existence erased for purposes of linguistic laziness.

My Response:

That is such a melodramatic and groundless accusation, that anyone is causing anyone else to “have their existence erased” by using a perfectly useful word so deeply rooted in biology and history! Your accusation, as I see it, is a completely unhinged metaphor suggesting physical injury where there is absolutely none (though there might be frustration). No one would be physically or emotionally injured if the CNN announcement used the word “women.” I also disagree with you about who is being linguistically lazy. If you take a random survey of 1,000 people who have cervices whether they consider themselves to be “women,” you’ll prove my case. I believe in continuing to allow each of those people who has a cervix to feel free to use the word “women” A) to refer to themselves and B) to capture the narratives of their lives, guilt-free. The 99+% of women who have cervices did not start this linguistic territorial war.

A person named Robert Pedroli then commented:

Cervical cancer screenings are recommended to start …. This is how to say it. Eric then you don’t need to get riled up about this.

My response:

I stand up to protect people who are being bullied. That’s the way I’m wired. Do you really think it’s rude to use the word “woman” to refer to people with cervices? I should make clear that I have no problem with anyone (with any permutation of sexual organs) referring to themselves as a “woman.” If a person with a penis wants me to call them a “woman” I will happily do so.

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 3 Comments

  1. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth July 30, 2020 Reply

    Colin Wright at Quillette:. The article title: “JK Rowling is Right—Sex Is Real and It Is Not a “Spectrum”

    Till now, even the most thematically ambitious feminist theorists have acknowledged that sex itself is a real biological phenomenon, and that sexual dimorphism is an important component of human existence as well as human rights. Yet increasingly, such common-sense propositions as JK Rowling’s are now cast as hate speech.

    As more and more people refer to themselves as trans, nonbinary, two-spirited, and gender-non-conforming, there’s been a push to realign the objective reality of biological sex to match one’s subjectively experienced gender identity. In the emerging view, the very notion of males and females existing as real biological entities is now seen as obsolete. Instead, some argue, we have only varying degrees of “male-ness” and “female-ness.” And so the very idea of segregating sports (or anything, for that matter) using binary sex categories is seen as illegitimate, since, if no definitive line can be drawn, who’s to say a purported “male” athlete isn’t really female?

    The view that sex is a spectrum is not confined to fringe critical theorists. It has made inroads into mainstream culture, thanks in part to a highly sympathetic media environment.

  2. Avatar of erichvieth
    erichvieth August 1, 2020 Reply

    The FB thread included this approach, which I applauded but caused the Woke to bristle:

    Catherine Caldwell-Harris:

    The phrase “Women are now recommended to have cervical cancer screening at age 25” is more powerful and attention-getting than the passive voice some of the commenters suggested. Anyone who identified as a woman will likely feel that this message is self-relevant and will pay attention. “Cervical cancer screening is recommended…..” doesn’t grab my attention; my attention is grabbed when I see self-relevance. Sentences that start with a low-frequency anatomical term do not grab my attention as self-relevant. So what about women who do not have a cervix? Their attention will be grabbed, they’ll read further, and understand that the advice isn’t relevant. What about men or non-binary individuals who have a cervix? They presumably understand that they have a body-part which typically belongs to women and will understand the relevance of the message. The goal is raising awareness about the necessity of cancer screening; use the language that achieves that goal. Or use this: “Women (or anyone with a cervix)….”

    That drew this comment from Tammy CTrosclair:

    More powerful to yourself as a cis-woman… are you concerned only about what you think serves yourself best? As a cis-woman deaf and numb to hearing society tell “women” what they should and should not do, I disagree btw.

  3. Avatar of Bill Heath
    Bill Heath August 1, 2020 Reply

    Those complaining about conversational use of the word “woman” appear to be seeking something to protest. With all the things available to protest today, these people simply have too much time and too few responsibilities.

Leave a Reply