Matisyahu's Blog

Another day and another example of the right wing misrepresenting an article. This time the noise makers are claiming that MSNBC is claiming exercising is right wing (link) but then again that is assuming that such noise makers had any intention of being honest with their audience. Long story short it is raising the same sorts of issues that have been bought up in the past regarding influencers online who are using seemingly innocuous past times such as self help, meditation etc. then using that as a cover to launder conspiracy theories, misinformation etc.

This whole phenomenon has been analysed by the podcast ‘Conspirituality’ which dives into how conspiracy theories, right wing politics etc. are laundered through something that on the surface seems pretty innocuous – “oh, this seems nice, a podcast about meditation and healthy eating” only to find that it ends up leading people down a rabbit hole. It doesn’t always lead to right wing politics, sometimes it goes in the direction of unhinged anti-capitalist politics but where ever it ends up it is never in a good place.

Long story short, it was a gross misrepresentation of what was actually taking place but this isn’t the first nor will be the last time it’ll happen. The most recent one before the MSNBC article was the hysteria whipped by the right was the hysteria created over the term ‘bonus hole’ and the claims that women will have to refer to their genitals in the future as a ‘bonus hole’ but the problem is that no evidence has been provided to back up such a claim. Over on Yahoo there is an article that gives an overview of what has taken place (link) but long story short a LGBTQ+ non-profit was working with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust to develop an outreach strategy to encourage trans men to get test for cervical cancer and part of that was developing inclusive language when dealing with trans men. In other words, it had nothing to do with forcing the adoption of gender neutral language on the general public and yet some how the story acquired legs of its own and now the right wing are obsessing over something that is a non issue for the vast majority of people.

Then there is the whole saga regarding a TYT host getting worked up over the use of ‘birthing person’ who clearly ignored the evidence that, once again, is not a word use in the mainstream or as outlined by the National Institute of Health from the United States (link):

Both pregnant women and pregnant people are acceptable phrases. It is unnecessary to avoid the word women by substituting phrases like birthing people, or people with uteruses. Neutral terms like pregnant patients, pregnant people, or other wording as applicable (e.g., pregnant teens), present an inclusive alternative. Use judgment and context to determine whether to use pregnant women or pregnant people / pregnant patients.

Using more limited and specific language is sometimes important. For instance, if discussing a study that only involves cisgender women, gender-specific language (pregnant women) would be most accurate to reference that study’s findings. If the word women is preferable, but transgender and nonbinary people are also referenced, phrasing like women and other pregnant patients can provide an inclusive alternative.

I’ve put in bold and underlined the text that can summarise this whole ‘storm in a tea cup’ down to – once again there is no demand for it’s wide spread use outside specific scenarios where it may make sense. So I kept searching further and found the usual propagator of half truths making claims that the evidence doesn’t back up. A good example of that is the recent furore regarding the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust using gender include language but as outlined in the article (link):

However, while some reports have stated that Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is entirely replacing any language related to womanhood, this is not the case.

“We are taking a gender-additive approach to the language used to describe our services,” a statement from the hospital explains.

It adds that “a gender-additive approach means using gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure that everyone is represented and included”.

Which is no different to the situation in New Zealand where we have the name of a government department in both Maori and English or in the case of the above scenario using the gender neutral word along side the language related to womanhood. Once again we have the misrepresentation of what is happening in an area of medicine by those who wish to politicise gender-affirming care into yet another thing that the right wish to throw around in their ‘culture war’. In the right wing world it appears that anyone who isn’t white, heterosexual and cis is seen as some sort of existential threat to civilisation that all the reactionaries feel the need obsess over – see ‘woke mind virus’ as the recent manifestation of right wing nonsense.