I am not a "person who menstruates"

A few years ago I sat in a London hospital waiting room for an early menopause clinic with my 32 year old daughter, who had entered the menopause for the second and final time after years of complex medical problems, pain, misery, medical neglect, surgeries and near-death experiences - she is also a survivor of appalling male sexual violence. Sitting opposite were two young men wearing clothing and make up that would have befitted porn stars on an night out, one had a moustache, the other a full beard, both were very loud and chatty and frequently got up, one at a time, to have a walk around the waiting room. They were utterly oblivious to the agony of the women, many in their teens, 20's and early 30's that were struggling with the most complex gynaecological problems and the emotional devastation that accompanied them. Why wouldn't they be? They have no conception of what being a woman is and they were being indulged and pandered to by society on an unprecedented level. Womanhood is not a costume that can be worn by a man.

My daughter called herself a biological failure, she felt her body was defective. Her experience as a woman cannot be diminished by supposedly well meaning imbeciles that always prioritise a man's feelings over a woman's very existence. I am so sick of this crap. Sex is an immutable, biological fact. Saying so is not unkind, it is just stating reality.

Women's healthcare is so undervalued and under researched and my daughter spent so many years of her young life going to GP's and emergency rooms only to be told there was nothing wrong with her, that it was all in her head, until she had to have emergency surgery and nearly died - and even then they cocked that up! Obfuscating and outright denying biological reality literally endangers women's lives.

Went for a lower back x Ray recently and I was asked my gender said female and was asked if I have always female and if I am a complete female… wasn’t sure whether to laugh or be offended that looking at me thinking I may have previously been a male

Thanks. Really clear - and more patient than mine.

"Dammit, Jim, I don't know what to use. She says they're upset by 'person' as well as 'people' now! Let's leave this crazy planet! Beam me up, transportation-system-controlling-person!"

"Gah! Spock, kindly, that's exactly the distinction I've been trying to make to you. This lot down here are crazy, and we're leaving right now before they kill us. But good ol' Scottie did have a bit of a point earlier when he said you were reducing him to a function with no humanity - just show some respect and use his name or title, FFS!"

More seriously, re: your point about "it belittles the very real dehumanisation of groups of people by politicians and governments..." - what makes women's dehumanisation in this language "not real"? Or its consequences insignificant? (The worst I read of was some recent research into women with head injuries in prison, the data of which was wholly corrupted by the inclusion of transwomen, who have different skull thickness. Cos they're women, and no different, right?! The most upsetting for me personally was a video account by a Black woman who explained how the current association of women with their bodily functions can be, for people familiar with this, distressingly similar to the language used by southern slave owners to describe their "females" with reference to their functional value).

My views are pretty simple here. I think that systematically removing the language that a historically oppressed demographic needs to describe itself and advocate for its needs (and the dismissal of its members concerns as no big deal, and the argument that it's something they should accept for the greater good, as implied above), is the clearest indication imaginable of how much that same oppressed demographic - women - actually need their language. Transwomen have their word, transmen theirs. I'm all for additive language: "women and transmen" etc. But to leave human females with no explicitly unambiguous noun of their own at all (and this less than a century after women got the vote and not many decades after the British recently decided women's husbands didn't have a right to rape them? while we see women enslaved in Afghanistan and the world largely indifferent?) That, to me, is unambiguous and genuinely frightening oppression. (Well, that and the fact that it's not even yet universally acknowledged as such).

I think you may be conflating two different phrases here.

The objection to dehumanising language isn't usually to the phrase "a person who ... [ insert uniquely female biological or social experience ]", it's to constructions like "menstuators" or "ovulators" or "gestating bodies" that do remove the humanity of a complete person and refer only to functions as if they were separate and unconnected, losing the recognition that if one is a "gestating body" then one is very likely to have also been a "menstruator" and an "ovulator" and ones life expereince will be informed by all these things, whereas if one is a "sperm carrier" than one has never and will never be any of those others so ones life experience cannot be formed in any way by ones response to them.

Whereas the objection to the language "people who..." is not that is is de-humanising but that it removes the specificity of which humans all this happens to. It breaks the connecting thread between the sex based experiences and challanges of women by which we can recognise these are shared experiences and, yes, at times, shared injustices. And to be clear, I am not meaning the simply biological experiences and challenges but also the social, domestic, public and political experiences and challanges that arise from our sexed bodies in a specifc society. Not biological experiences, but nevertheless rooted in the reality of our biology, something that regardless of what we may do with our language is an inescapable and unchangeable fact.

Losing specificity of the single sex group "women" in favour of the mixed sex refers-to-all-of-humanity "people" disconnects us from our history and each other. It denies us the language and framework to connect our individual experiences with the consequences of being women (female bodied) rather then men (male bodied).

So, while the construction "People who..." is not dehumanising, nevertheless it is still reductive of the reality of being female and not male. And in a society framed and shaped by Patriachy is not a minor oversight.

Certainly, concern over losing the language to express the commonality and differences between women in favour of simply mixing us into an indistinct soup of differences and commonalities between "people", where the challenges that come specificallly because we are female can no longer be clearly recognised and articulated, is not something that I as a Feminist would consider "ridiculous".

One more response to the above, then I'm calling it a day on that post (you may be pleased to hear!)

I hadn't noticed the criticism "a lot of bile" in the above - I read it as "bilge" 😅. On seeing it, I do want to post the link again to invite any other reader who can be bothered to click for themselves to see if they can find much "speech or writing that expresses bitter anger or hatred" (M-W). I mean, I agree she's pretty peeved, and I definitely don't agree with all her views, but in this blog at least I've only ever found good humour in the tone and not a trace of "hatred"? (Except for the erasure of women in language to their detriment). I wouldn't read it otherwise.

Perhaps seeing Hill's (OK, fairly acerbic!) analysis of (what she sees as) a sexist trend in language as "bile" could make it easier to assume that others would be genuinely upset at something as inconsequential as being called people? I dunno.

It's a good point. Many posters who bang this drum relentlessly bang on about how being called a person who (insert whatever you want here) instead of a woman is dehumanising when by definition calling someone a person cannot dehumanise then because all humans are people!

Dehumanising language is when people are compared to animals or objects with no humanity and that is used to justify the mindset that they do not deserve humane treatment. I actually think it belittles the very real dehumanisation of groups of people by politicians and governments who are then demonised by society leading to their abuse to claim being called a person is dehumanising. So it's a good point to highlight in my opinion, because a lot of FWR posters do have a problem with being called a person and a lot of people find that ridiculous.

Gah, above obviously a response to Flirts. I promise I can use the quote function... usually.

And came across as rather rude itself in the absurd way a more nuanced view many have explained with some care was framed as being "upset" by "being referred to as people", with and the clear intimation of, "Proper weirdos, they are!"😁

(I mean, to be fair, we would be weird if that's what we thought. Like, random- planet-on-classic-Star-Trek weird! "They're people, Jim, but not as we know them!" "Spock, do you have to be so literal? You used the P-word again. They're very upset, they may attack! Oh no - phasers out, people! Ah, bugger - not people, no, er... Men! Oh, bugger - sorry, Uhura! Er...")

Ahem. Blame the glass of wine and a tough week.

But seriously, sometimes it's hard to take some of these arguments... well... very seriously.

I hate this sort of language because it reduces women to their biology when we're people with personalities and skills.

Honestly this is up there with councils making children sing ‘baa baa green sheep’ and ‘they’ve cancelled the word Christmas’. In other words- paranoid, reactionary nonsense.

In my dealings with healthcare I have never encountered these terms. I am sure you can dredge up some examples to enjoy being offended by, but it is really such a non issue, just an excuse for performative outrage.

We’re heading into ‘they no longer say Easter on chocolate eggs’ season, so that is something to look forward to.

@Catiette

Re: what I took from that is some women get upset by being referred to as people. Each to their own I guess.

I think this is either a deliberately cynical or surprisingly superficial interpretation of 5 pages of some quite nuanced discussion.

I agree. That little dig did seem to undermine the wide eyed tone the poster was affecting.

Hm. Just took a minute to look at your last claim, too: quite a few appeared to be posts by private individuals rather than UK public bodies. I find this surprising. I mean, the UK part, granted, but the fact that this is global, to me, compounds the issue. But private people? Here are the sources cited in Post 84, in order, all included (hopefully! - quickly done):

1. the European Medicines Agency
2. director Georgie Wileman at the Baftas
3. NHS
4. Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
5. The Breastfeeding Medicine Podcast series
6. Health New Zealand
7. NUPAS
8. the "core curriculum" tome for lactation consultants
9. a tweeter.

= 2/9 are "private individuals", although the first of these, in an extremely high-profile public context.

In case I was being unfair, I then did the post below, number 83 (cos I'm a pedant and stickler for fairness!) Here it is...

1. an individual running a high-profile business in maternity services
2. the Birthrights organisation
3. the Scottish charity Amma
4. an inconclusive debate at Warwick District Council

= 2-3/4 (depending on how you count the last!) are "private individuals", although the first of these, in an extremely high-profile public context.

In any case, I think just dismissing it as "private individuals" is, again, not looking closely enough at what this, in itself, signifies. Some will, indeed, by posts by private individuals. But the (many!) others show the proliferation of institutional usage that explains why private individuals are taking this approach. I mean, the private individuals would look a bit weird and not be widely understood of this weren't the case - it certainly wouldn't do any favours to private individual #1, above, to use this language, if, for example, 2, 3 and 4 weren't aware of - and supporting it frequently enough - too.

OK. If your "difference" is purely the medical differences trans men introduce into their bodies that does make sense.it doesn't explain the "difference" you mentioned for non binary women though.

I do not, however, think this makes it reasonable or acceptable to play act through language or behaviour that trans men are not simply a subgroup of women, which is what is being done when we give headspace to concepts like "women and other people who"... have female biology.

Finally, just because someone disagrees with you and doesn't roll over when you try to "nice" yourself out of a conversation that is more challenging than you antipicated does not make them a troll. I assumed you are posting in good faith, albeit your position is badly thought out. Please do me the same courtesy.

Sorry - carelessly didn't quote you. My reply to this is above! Oops...

I'm probably feeding the troll here, but hey ho.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I would find it strange if I was assumed by a health service to be the same as a trans man because i would expect that a trans man may be taking hormones, and may have had surgery, both of which would need to be taken into account by a medical practitioner. I would also expect that in a female specific setting, a trans man might have some emotional/psychological needs (eg anxiety about attending) that I do not. I would expect that for some women, being in a female specific setting and someone who 'passed' as male being there could be frightening and that that would be taken into account as well.
None of that makes me feel any less of a woman, or makes me feel that I'm being diminished as a woman.

I find it weird that you would think that I should see myself as no different to a trans man.
And the idea that your posts are 'clear and simple' - well, we must have different definitions of those terms. I'm starting to wonder if you're a bot or AI in all honesty, and I'm not going to bother responding again. And the fact that I responded doesn't make your posts any less rude or aggressive.

Re: quantity

You just skimmed (I assume) post 84 or whatever it was of several years' record-keeping, and that with an acknowledged focus on finding the exact terms that are actually used in this thread to represent an offensive trend. I'm not too surprised that you didn't find what you were looking for.

Re: what I took from that is some women get upset by being referred to as people. Each to their own I guess.

I think this is either a deliberately cynical or surprisingly superficial interpretation of 5 pages of some quite nuanced discussion.

To try to kill all birds with one stone... I think what people sometimes find most offensive (note: I used the word "people" here, as a generic reference to all those concerned by these changes in our language) is what this language represents: the de-prioritisation of women's health (and here, I used "women", not "people" - or "menstruating/lactating/birthing people" - to refer to an entire demographic, the one which endured millennia of discrimination because of their collective reproductive capacity). Meanwhile, most people posting here seem to agree that proactively changing language so that certain minority groups within the demographic of women lose their previously easy and rapid access to important information is fundamentally wrong.

And yes, even putting all that aside, I do find "lactating people" etc. offensive. It reduces women globally, in all our glorious complexity - a complexity that infinitely transcends the single common denominator of our female bodies - right back down to body alone. As if there's no humanity to us, and instead we're just machines or animals. As if the 51% of human beings from whom every human in existence ever has come is no longer deserving of a word of our own with which to name their corresponding needs and facilitate access to these.

Beyond sad that women are not centred even for maternity care.

Women have had to fight to have safe medical procedures because they are woman they have a vagina that’s why and that we now have this we should absolutely protect this

I am not bothered by woman and non binary but I absolutely will not accept and feel offended when my sex, me being a woman - an adult female human and is dismissed. It is not inclusive it’s ignoring the very basis of being female

AIBU to think that terms such as "birthing person", "partner with eggs", "womb-carrier", "cervix haver", "people who menstruate", "chest-feeder" are not only insulting to women but downright hurtful to those who have any gynaecological and/or fertility issues, including DSDs?

I think it depends on context. For example, as a menopausal woman with no womb or cervix, I like the specificity of a medical pamphlet saying ‘x test or y health issue only affects womb having /cervix having /menstruating people rather than x test or y health issue affects women.

I don’t think it is insulting in a medical context as the particular biology of which body parts we have or don’t have can be relevant.

I think it would be in insulting in a social or legal context where there is no medical need for such specificity.

Thank you for your concern, but she replied to me so clearly that was not necessary.

And FWIW I don't consider replies that imply my very clear and simple question is somehow too complex and incomprehensible to answer to be polite. I actually found her reply quite dismissive and rude.

The thing is, I understand you exactly. I just think you are wrong.

My question is incredibly simple. So simple that I do not believe you don't understand it.

You yourself said "there are women and that there are people who are trans [and] non binary (I'm leaving DSDs out of this as that is a separate topic) ... I think it would be strange to pretend that there was no difference",

So all I am asking you to do is to explain a difference that you yourself are very clear exists between a "woman", a "trans man" and a female "non binary" person, in a way that does not requiring reducing the range of allowable forms of womanhood from "the half of humanity that is female in all our diversity" to some subset of that based on the idea that some personalities are not compatible with being "women".

I mean, you are the person saying reducing the definition of "women" to a subset of female people doesn't reduce or redefine women, so all I'm asking you to do is put your money where your mouth is and explain what the differences between these different groups of female people actually are.

Guven this is such a simple question, just asking you to describe a difference you yourself say you see very clearly, if you continue to swerve the question or come back with a circular non-answer like "a trans man is a female person who identifies as a man", all I can conclude is either you are self-censoring your own thoughts because someone has done a number on you such that you believe even acknowledging you understand me makes you a bad person, or you see exactly what my question means and that's why you can't answer it because if you do, it blows the underlying sexism of the construct of "women, trans men and female non binary are people" way open.

Birdsong has been very polite in her disagreement with you and has said she is not interested in debating further. There's no need to be so rude and keep poking.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I'm really not being facetious, I can't even follow your question. I can only assume it's because we're coming from very different viewpoints as I genuinely don't have any idea what you're going on about. I'm not asking you to keep explaining it as nothing you've posted in follow up has been any clearer (to me at least)

@Catiette what I took from that is some women get upset by being referred to as people. Each to their own I guess. I only clicked through a few as there's a lot of bile to get through before the actual examples, but I couldn't see any references to menstruaters, chest feeders etc as the OP had posted about, and quite a few appeared to be posts by private individuals rather than UK public bodies.

PS Just skimmed the latest edition, curious to see what any interested parties from here would see, and few items in... NHS poster.

I also found "lactating people" particularly delightful.

But hey, at least second-language speakers and those with learning difficulties understand that any potentially life-saving public information poster or leaflet they happen to pass should be followed up by a few minutes with the dictionary or queuing at front desk to request the material written for their own demographic just in case...

Er...