My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

One in 10 women and other people with a uterus of reproductive age have the disease.

185 replies
OP posts:
Report
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/08/2020 14:12

I can live with that.

Report
ListeningQuietly · 05/08/2020 14:13

"other people with a uterus"
which people other than women have a uterus?

OP posts:
Report
NotTerfNorCis · 05/08/2020 14:16

At least they use the word woman, rather than 'people with cervixes'.

Report
TheGoogleMum · 05/08/2020 14:17

As much as it is female sex only I don't mind conceding "and other people" for the sake of inclusivity when they have still used the word "women" instead of pretending just anyone can get it

Report
Floisme · 05/08/2020 14:18

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Report
MiladyRenata · 05/08/2020 14:23

Trans men? Or do you want to erase them?

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2020 14:25

Trans men? Or do you want to erase them?

Why doesn't it say "women and trans men" then? Less dehumanising?

Report
MiladyRenata · 05/08/2020 14:26

Non binary people?

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2020 14:27

I actually don't mind this phrasing, it's much better than most. But I'd like to know how "people with a uterus" rather than "trans men" is respectful to FTM trans people.

Report
DialSquare · 05/08/2020 14:28

@Floisme

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Same here.
Report
Floisme · 05/08/2020 14:28

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2020 14:28

Non binary people?

Everyone is non binary. These people are female.

Report
SheWhoMustNotBeHeard · 05/08/2020 14:29

It's a change in the Guardian's language isn't it? Maybe they are listening after the pounding they got on Twitter.

That study though gives me feel sick. It took the researchers 7 years to withdraw the article and not even an apology.

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2020 14:29

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.

Agree. Identity isn't the issue here.

Report
CharlieParley · 05/08/2020 14:34

@MiladyRenata

Non binary people?

Who are they in this context?

This is a paper about a medical issue affecting the body. There is no such thing as a non-binary human body. Women have endometriosis. W-O-M-E-N. Women.

The word woman is a sex designator, not a gender description.

Medical conditions do not give two hoots about how a person identifies. If it's a gynaecological condition it only ever affects female people. Women and girls.

Keep religion and quasi-religious beliefs out of medical practice. But then I'm an atheist who understands how badly served women and girls are by and in this male-dominated field.
Report
MiladyRenata · 05/08/2020 14:38

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree. Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

Report
MiladyRenata · 05/08/2020 14:39

Far clearer...

Report
Floisme · 05/08/2020 14:41

I think you will find that we're not the people trying redefine the word 'woman'.

Report
JellySlice · 05/08/2020 14:52

One in 10 women and other people with a uterus of reproductive age have the disease.

To me that reads as one in ten women have the disease and other people have the disease and that in order for these other people to have the disease they must have a uterus of reproductive age. Gobbledegook.

Report
CharlieParley · 05/08/2020 14:57

@MiladyRenata

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree. Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

When just under half of all women do not know what a cervix is and that they have one, it is less clear to use the word person with a cervix than the word woman.

And that results in more women dying.

As for me seeking to redefine the word woman, that's incorrect. In every language in the world there is a sex designating word for female people. In English that word is woman. That's why in national laws and in international human rights law, the word woman has been used to describe female people and only female people for more than 70 years.

That society expects women qua females to conform to particular sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the word woman is a sex designator and not a collective noun for those who conform to their societies notion of how a stereotypical female person is expected to look and behave.

The idea that the concept of woman self-evidently also necessitates accepting harmful, regressive and oppressive sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes as an indelible part of the deginition of the word woman and therefore of being a woman is the opposite of progressive.
Report
CharlieParley · 05/08/2020 14:58

^definition

Report
isabellerossignol · 05/08/2020 14:59

@Floisme

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Me too.
Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

maxicheddar · 05/08/2020 15:03

'other people'? looks round for the other categories of human..

The word used should be female if woman is deemed to difficult for some. (not that I am prepared to give up the word woman)

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. We can see your very obvious DARVO milady

Report
DrCoconut · 05/08/2020 15:06

Genuine question here as I haven't done much reading on the subject. Are conditions that only apply to biological males described in such odd and unclear ways? Or just female issues?

Report
Quillink · 05/08/2020 15:07

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree.

I'm aware that in recent years some people have tried to change the definition of 'woman' from that which has been used throughout the world for millennia. The universally understood, strict biological definition. Disagree if you must. The onus is on you to persuade that this definition is wrong.

Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

To somebody with a fluent grasp of English. And somebody with a basic education in reproductive biology. Don't be silly. 'Woman' is far clearer.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.