There are some uses radfems get super upset about that I find useful, though. Like "people with cervixes" if you are asking for cervical cancer screenings. Because increasingly, that affects people who do not feel spoken to if you use the word woman and this adds clarity to who the audience is.
Go measure the prevalence of "people with prostates" and compare. The word "man" is, strangely, not subject to this erasure.
(That being said, the likelyhood of getting prostate cancer on HRT is pretty low. Not quite the level of cis men getting breast cancer, but it's down there. It's a very androgen dependent cancer.)
Huh? What fascist dog whistle? Sounds like the person was just describing their opinion and experience. The whole idea of dogwhistling sounds like a weird conspiracy theory. I’m sure it’s happened more than 0 times, but thinking dogwhistling is everywhere sounds just as unhinged to me as any of the wacky right wing conspiracies.
The beginning of this essay explains the phrase pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAMM3l156Oo
You left that part out.
>it's now controversial to ask "what is a woman?"
to Matt Walsh is pretty clear. The entire documentenary is based on the premise that it's now controversial to ask this, because the answer must inevitably be "adult human female". It's treated as if these are magic words that dispel gender ideology instantly. Meanwhile in reality, nobody finds this question controversial, only that Matt Walsh puports to know the one and only, extremely obvious answer. That many people disagree with.
I guess if you want to be exact, I will correct to "nobody found this question controversial before it became a dogwhistle". But the question itself is still not controversial, it's all context.
It does exactly make the point, you are somehow trying to define what a woman is, and asking if the definition only encompasses adult human females or underage as well.