People aren't as thrilled about being dehumanized as our progressive friends think.

My progressive friends seem to be completely comfortable referring to members of the LGBTQIA2S community, and they use that unwieldy abbreviation as a matter of inclusion, so as not to leave anybody out. I've seen little hand-wringing among my progressive friends about any of the long acronyms we use in the name of inclusion.

In that spirit, when referring to people who are being deprived of their bodily autonomy by abortion restrictions, rather than refer to people as "birthing parents" (or worse yet, "birthing bodies"), is it too much to ask to refer to human beings as "women and trans-men"?

If the spirit of inclusion can lead us to wrap our heads around "LGBTQIA2S", surely there is room to include "women" (and to a lesser extent, trans-men) in our description when talking about whose bodily autonomy is being violated.

To be clear, it's mostly not LGBT people (that I can tell) that are using dehumanizing language around women and generally trying to erase them from important conversations. It's a progressive culture war thing, not a gay thing. Don't blame gay folks for this one.

Asking people to stop dehumanizing women and trans-men by reducing them to a set of bodily functions ("A pair of tits and a vagina", "breeder", "bleeder", "birthing vessel", "gestational carrier", "birthing body", etc) is a pretty traditional pro-trans, pro-woman, lefty tradition.

Point is, if progressives are good with including everyone in the name of inclusion, then surely when talking about people who's bodily autonomy is being violated by abortion restrictions, we can certainly afford to include the word "women" on the list.