From my post on our YTT FB after class on Saturday:
I’m not entirely comfortable with the language we’ve been using around the anatomy of the pelvis — particularly, the essentialist division into a ‘male/female’ binary. I think this is the sort of essentialist thinking that can lead to poor language choices in teaching and cuing that then leads to the alienation of trans, non-binary, intersex, gender fluid, etc. folks.
My understanding of the anatomy is that there isn’t so much a ‘male pelvis’ vs a ‘female pelvis’ as there is a ‘loose pelvis’ vs a ‘tight pelvis’ and those have been linked to a gender binary because that’s how our medical language works, to a great extent. I really feel very strongly that this isn’t something we should continue without question.
I did not get what we might call a “helpful” response.