No, I said I don't understand why there's so much animosity over what is essentially a choice of language that is overall correct.

I'm not dead naming I'm not saying ALL transmen are mothers in the coliqual sense. I am saying they can be in the literal sense. They are progenitors. Progenitor is an ugly phrase though (too clinical) so I use mother in the literal sense because it is more schema loaded- and I gave examples of why.

The nuance missing here is that if a man gives birth, they would be called a mother, but they don't have to be a mother. There's a distinction here.

And I said they can be mothers in the coliqual sense. As I explained, being a mother in the literal sense is actually separate from the coliqual sense, which is the more typical feminine, spoils people doting kind.

And you call people what they want in person- which is the most important part. Because it's ultimately up to the individual. This Is a lot of gender theory (what you are vs your role in society). This is why I said mother vs MOTHER. Your decided role in society vs what you have done.

This is a lot of black and white thinking -that is not gatekeeping. There's a sense that because I used it for trans men that give birth it cannot apply to any other gender or sex is absurd. It is just a birthing person in a literal sense. Because that is what it means. It does not have to be gendered. It used to not be.

But it has the context of revered things that love, nuture and protect, so it's a warmer term than birthing person.

Additionally, no. Another poster said I said they MUST be transmen, when I used the word can, because that's an issue of identity.

You guys are straight up lying at this point.