Indeed.  It really is too bad that TERF includes the phrase “radical feminist” because I can’t think of anything less radically feminist than “You are defined as a woman by your ability to reproduce.”

Terfs got suckered into being misogynist.

I mean, yes. For things like testicular cancer there is a similar push to just say "people with prostates" or "people with testicles".

I’m not suggesting eliminating the word women. I’ve not seen anyone suggesting that. Even the progressive organizations that sometimes use more inclusive language to account for trans people often slip into using “women” where broader language would be both more inclusive and accurate (see the ACLU’s page on…

So by and large you depend on social cues. Presumably, you also depend on how people describe themselves. What else do you think you need?  What is it you think you need this for?  What types of decisions depend on a need to know the particular gender/sex/whatever of another person?

I agree that the vast majority of people who do those things are cis woman. No one is arguing otherwise, and saying “People who give birth” isn’t an attempt to change that fact. But NOT ALL people who can give birth are women, NOT ALL people who menstruate are women. NOT ALL women can give birth and NOT ALL women…

But people aren’t suggesting replacing the word “women” with “people who give birth.” That wouldn’t make much sense, because people who give birth are not always women (see, e.g., 13 year old cis girls) and because not all women are capable of giving birth. That is why you don’t see trans activists running around…

Nobody is asking you to give up on “women.” You can still refer to yourself as a woman. Nobody’s going to arrest you over it.

I’d love for someone to explain how “People who can give birth” or “people who menstruate” eliminates anything or is exclusive in any way towards women? Isn’t using “women” when what you actually mean is “people who menstruate” far more exclusive, since it implies that womanhood is defined by whether you menstruate or…

Right.  The rallying cry for trans women is, well, “trans women are women.”  Kinda hard to see how that is seeking to erase women, unless you think including trans women in the club of women somehow devalues womanhood.

So if a trans man came into that organization needing midwife help, they would refuse to treat him? Or insist on misgendering him before treating him?

Well, for one thing, saying “people who menstruate” isn’t “doing away with” anything. Just because you don’t define women as “people who menstruate” doesn’t mean you are doing away with the concept of women. You just aren’t using a definition of women that inaccurately implies that womanhood is defined by whether you…

The New York Times Op Ed actually made some really fantastic points

I will never have children and I still don’t like the idea of doing away with woman/women, for any reason.

Which are compelling? Because this seems to be the crux of the op-ed:

Why does it have to be “women and birthing people”?  Why can’t it just be “people capable of birth” or “people who menstruate.”  Probably “women” shouldn’t be defined by whether you can give birth, or menstruate.

But cis women who are infertile are the first to point out that not ALL women can give birth, so I don't think you can really lay this on trans people.

How is a gender being eliminated?

“But sadly, a gun was used on Ashli Babbitt, with no price to pay against the person who used it!”

Have you never heard of Zines before?

They’ve existed forever. People regularly put these together, especially people who ship characters.

Star Trek fans made these things in the 80s etc.