LogFAQs > #964730956

Muscles posted...

I mean, yeah sure intersex and transmen exist so if you want to get super nitpicky and technical that's true but for like 99% of the population you can say women menstruate and men don't and you'll be good.

And therein lies the issue of inclusivity: It's a matter of trying to speak in a way that doesn't require backtracking if you discover that you've left somebody out that shouldn't be left out. People are generally happier when they aren't treated as an afterthought.

Now, is that somebody everyone should be doing all the time? Not necessarily. As you say, the vast majority of the time, you're not going to be leaving anyone out (though there is the flip side of women who don't menstruate, which is actually quite common) and it's an easy correction to make if you do, so you probably won't cause any harm. That doesn't mean, however, that anyone that does choose to speak more inclusively is wrong to do so. They are in fact more right than you are, just in a way that you value less than the added effort of a couple extra syllables and some conscious effort.

That difference, however, becomes much more significant for public figures and when dealing with policy writing. When public figures make a habit of speaking inclusively, that influences the culture at a broader level and can lead to normalizing that habit (and a huge part of your resistance to speaking that way is feeling like it's unusual and not wanting people to think you're weird), or at the very least sparking discussion around it to raise awareness of the issue (see: our conversation right now). When it comes to policy, anything that is meant to affect menstruating women should extend to anyone that menstruates, so it's very important there to speak precisely and inclusively. AOC is both a public figure and somebody who participates in writing governmental policy, so her choosing to speak more inclusively and think in those terms is very definitely a good thing.