I am not a "person who menstruates"

I love inclusivity, but I think we also need to acknowledge that we don't have to re-write everything to account for a tiny group of people. Someone who speaks a different language to the majority of the country should be able to access documents in that language, but wouldn't expect them to be the default language. People who need documents written in specialised language should be able to request them as standard, but shouldn't require everyone to adopt their specialist language

Why would you think I'm angry and a TRA because I pointed out that you made a point that had already been shown to be unfounded? I think it's basic manners to read a thread before posting, especially one that's only a couple of pages, but maybe that's just me.

The outrage on the thread is about when these terms are being used to replace reference to women. I wanted to see if I was missing something so I looked up NHS info, and I can only see these terms on trans specific NHS articles, the main articles refer to women having periods, breastfeeding, pregnant women. I am wondering why no one is posting examples of what we're supposed to be outraged about.

I get sick and fed up of people using facial hair as a shorthand for “must be a man”.

As someone with PCOS - a condition only biological women get, for obvious reasons - facial hair is an unwanted side effect. Some women witn the condition can even grow full beards. It’s lazy stereotyping at best.

Biological women can also be extremely tall, so a bit weird to use height as a proxy as well.

Birdsong are you living up to your name???

Yes I am well aware of information in various forms- as I said, I worked with women/womens' health so please don't patronise me. My point was much wider than thst.
You have no idea whether I am 'GC' or not! (Whatever that means!)
If that is all you have taken from my post (snd there was more to it than that) then perhaps you might be one of those "TRAs" that we hear people speak of?

Not even "Pregnant People"? <eurgh>

@BigBlueSocks I don't know how many times I have to post the same comment on the thread, but the NHS produces information aimed at women, simplified information for those who need accessible versions, and information specific to LGBTQ people. Unless you or any of the GC advocates on here are willing to post any evidence of when these terms are being used to discriminate or exclude, its starting to look like this is a problem that isn't borne out in reality.

You weren't forced to take maternity leave or go part-time. If worked with someone who finished work on the Friday, CSection on the Monday, few days in hospital then a week at home followed by her annual summer holiday with husband and nanny. Back to work after four weeks which included two weeks annual leave.

Your husband didn't have the year off so why would it affect his pension? I know men who've given up work to look after baby and mum has gone back to work. I suppose it affected their pensions.

@NoSoupForU "And it isn't entirely beyond the realms of possible for people to be able to coexist quite peacefully, just minding their own business."

How does that apply to nurses being told by their employer they have to strip off in front of a man with a fully operational penis and balls? He was trying to father a child with his female partner. There was no question he was a man, other than the fact that he wanted to be called "Rose". Twenty six of the nurses signed a formal letter of complaint to their employer and probably more would've but were scared of repercussions. The Equality Act of 2010 allows for female only spaces based on the expectation of privacy, dignity and safety. Despite this, their employer fought tooth and nail to uphold the rights of one individual, namely the man. Do you not see the problem here?

That was my thought too! My last period was just over a year ago, so I am not a person who menstruates.

However I am definitely a female-bodied person!

Transwomen are men and men commit the majority of sexual offences (and violent crimes) This does not change, even when men identify as women.

I don't understand what you mean about "sensationalist stories on social media" and "gutter press" because we have seen that the media often hide the biological sex of offenders and have referred to transwomen without the trans prefix. This is misleading as the general public may be confused; they might think a "transwoman" is a woman identifying as a man; which is exactly why language should be clear and unambiguous.

As for the terms 'chest feeding' 'cervix-havers', 'menstruators' etc etc- these terms have been used in NHS literature. What is most concerning is that this does not help women whose first language isn't English, or have learning difficulties or simply do not understand biological terms. Therefore, inclusive language is potentially excluding a number of women. I have worked in Womens health and have experienced women being unfamilar with their biology.

Interestingly, you do not see posters, information leaflets about mens' health aimed at 'prostate-havers'. I wonder why that is?

To be concerned about this does not mean you are reading in the wrong place, or 'hanging around' in the wrong places- it is showing concern for women. I cannot see why that is a bad thing.

@Birdsongisangry - a woman having had a hysterectomy may well be recommended to have a smear, depending on the type of surgery that se has had. Her gynaecologist would advise accordingly.The menopausal woman knows that period advice may not be needed- although her cycle may be erratic pre menopausal before stopping completely, so may need advice and support.
A woman isn't just someone who ' makes babies' - the definition is the sex that produces large gametes, whether or not they've been fertilised.

Women are defined by biology and it should never be offensive to say so

Yes. I've had that as well, poor you it must be awful to not feel like a real woman anymore. I honestly never felt my being a woman depended on me having a cervix. It didn't feature much in my daily life.

What does boil my piss is when a transwoman who did the hormone-moob-secretion thing was lauded for BREAST feeding when plain old regular women get told they are CHEST feeding, cos to tell the TW he is CHEST feeding would be invalidating (cos its true)

I feel that about the cervix. So often someone is criticising trans women and say something on the lines of if you haven't got a cervix you're not a woman. Well I haven't and I am.

@FlirtsWithRhinos What's wrong with saying that a service for cervical screening is for anyone who has one? I don't understand why that's an attack on womanhood. If anything, if rather not think about my womanhood as being limited to my reproductive organs, that starts to feel a bit handmaids tale to me.

I agree on the body parts thing but as a 'person who no longer menstruates' I dont get offended at being excluded from, say, an advert for period products, why would I.

Yes I can be offended on behalf of the younger female generation but I feel no more excluded as an older non menstruating woman than I would if I saw an advert for a car and I didn't drive.

The NHS have easy read versions and picture based for those who need it

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-easy-read-guide

Partner with eggs 🤢 WTF

I hate the way when trying to argue for this trans/women excluding language, they fail to acknowledge that it's doesn't cover the millions of women who do not menstruate. It implies almost that women who don't must be men.

But why not say "woman who menstruates" or "mother who gave birth" then? The people who do these things are not subsets of "people" in general, they are subsets of the specific half of people who are female, aka "women".

If the only reason to say "person who menstruates" were truly to be more precise because not all women menstruate, it seems very odd to drop "women" altogether in favour of the less accurate, less specific word "person".

And for that reason, I think we can pretty clearly see that the aim of such language is not to be sensitive to the women (female people) who do not menstruate, but to disconnect the word woman from any physical meaning, making womanhood, and with that the rights and protections and even history and language that previously applied to the female half of humanity, entirely a matter of mental factors and alignment.

I've mentioned her on a thread previously around the time of the European ruling, quite a few GC women said that it was sad for her but that her rights didn't trump the right of women to have single sex spaces. No sympathy and certainly no suggestion that there should be any exemptions for anyone with a GRC.

Of course men can’t become women imo. If that makes me a ‘bigot’ then so be it