Piers Morgan on Twitter

I'm not going to use the words man or male anymore. People with a penis and scrotum from now on, you know to be inclusive. Do you think scrotes will do, for short?

@Bupkis I do agree, but the way these things come along, it sounds as though the majority of the population don't understand. I think we need some solution because that 38% is very worrying.

This is where GP's need to be proactive. I do hope that if we move more to on line, that time can be given to explain these kind of things. Sometimes though I think medical staff take the easy route rather than have to confront difficult situations.

Whataver word was used, it would only be 'acceptable' for a very short period of time anyway, and then would have to include everyone who wants to be included and yet another word sought...and round again.

* Someone has tweeted We obviously need an acceptable word to use.*

Because women isn't an acceptable word now?

Makes me shake with rage!

@highame

Would someone like to tell me what our Biology Teachers are doing? Because they don't seem to be doing their f..king jobs

There are many reasons why people may struggle with language and/or understanding. It is not as simple to say it is all down to education.

For example, people with Learning Disabilities may well struggle to understand "individual with a cervix", but would understand "woman"

It is important that language around healthcare is kept clear and unambiguous.

"38% of people with a learning disability died from an avoidable cause"
"only 1 in 4 women with learning disabilitiesattend theircervical screeningappt"
(From NHS England)

Some man in one of the responses is complacently insisting that the Scottish Government, "recently clarified the Equality Act so everyone understood that women also means trans women". That would be a protected characteristic of sex, you muppet, where only those with a GRC qualify, and even then there remain exceptions. And the Scots don't have the power to unilaterally amend the Equality Act, either. They're devolved, not independent.

Problem is, they all hear this bullshit, assume it's true, and then parrot it on. Someone else clearly missed the above memo and is complacently asserting that nobody ever uses the single sex exceptions, ever, "and why do you think that is?" Oh, I don't know - perhaps the relentless bullying, doxxing, death threats, rape threats, fear of losing funding, fear of media pressure, the being expelled from political parties, and seeing women and orgs who do dare to hold the line get all of the above, perhaps? And even THEN, yes, they are being used by some overtly (and by many more covertly, I suspect). Ask Karen Ingala Smith.

First, women are expected to be nice, validating and inclusive. Men are not. So women who fail to be those things will be seen as quite violent, compared to what is expected from them.

Second, the validation of someone's gender identity appears to be the central goal in so many ways, as well as a never-ending one, and denying someone that validation always provokes an intense anger reaction. I would like to know more about why that is the case. I mean why not shrug off any invalidating comments if the inner gender identity is stable and strong?

Health messages need to be really clear

Individuals doesn’t mean anything.

Just use the word woman. That word that everybody understands

No rape or death threats for Morgan. Male privilege. I'm not saying I want him to get those types of threats, but if his name was Patricia Morgan he would be getting called all sorts. We all know that though.

Why do women who speak English as a second language, women with learning disabilities and women who just plain don't know what a cervix is for whatever reason get thrown under the bus for the case of 'inclusivity'?

I once accompanied a home-schooled acquaintance (quite religious Christian background, minimal sex education because religion but far from thick!) to antenatal screening. She saw an odd blob on the scan picture, and asked if it could be a stomach ulcer. Now obviously it couldn't be, because this was a scan of her uterus, but she'd been brought up with a lot of fuzziness around the subject and her automatic go-to was 'babies grow in a woman's stomach'.

I am well keen on inclusivity so I am happy to say something like 'women, transmen and others born female who identify outside the gender binary need cervic screening', but not 'individuals with cervixes'. That's useless.

On the other hand, it seems that trans men also detest the female sex but don't seem to mind the male sex remaining in our common parlance. I checked several Twitter activists who are trans men and their activism was focused at getting 'woman' erased, not at getting 'man' erased.

Though some of them do try to convince/persuade gay men to view them as acceptable romantic and sexual partners, I don't think they try to get Men's Health Magazine to change its name to something like The Ejaculators' Health Magazine.

The pressure, in short is almost completely on the erasure of the female body.

US reproductive rights organisations mostly caved in ten years ago. All the larger websites now provide services to only pregnant people (not to pregnant women) except for transitioning hormones, of course, which some also provide, to their patients, apparently very quickly.

It paints a sad picture about something. Hatred of the female body? The belief that biological women are door mats? Less worthy?

To those who wonder what teachers are doing so wrong that not every person knows what a cervix is, can I suggest you try teaching any subject to find out what the spread of ability there is in our society. The level of literacy on Mumsnet doesn't include the academically weaker people at all.

Interesting how we never see 'people with prostates' or 'people who have penises'..seems perfectly fine to just say MEN.

re. people not knowing if they have a cervix or not - I think there is also added confusion by the fact that people (may) have heard about cervical spine, cervical vertebrae - various other 'neck' issues use the word cervical as well. Add that to people talking about smear tests, or pap smears, etc rather than saying 'cervix', and I can understand why some people might not be familiar with the word in all its contexts.

I wonder what would happen if I put an "I ❤️ Piers Morgan" poster up at Edinburgh Waverley Station

They would assume it was a joke

@netflixismysidehustle thanks for the link. Very useful. The language we use everyday might contribute to this. For example, we may talk about cervical cancer and smear test but the only time I can think of the word cervix being used was during pregnancy and birth.

To clarify my comment above, the reason CNN reported on cervical cancer screening the way it did was because the stuff wasn't from them but from the American Cancer Society. So from a very high level.

Because they don't seem to be doing their f..king jobs

Would someone like to tell me what our Biology Teachers are doing?

Thanks,@netflixismysidehustle for that Jo's Trust link. It really illustrates the dangers of, as@DaisiesandButtercups said, Newspeak.

And many don't get that one's definition of one's own gender may be like an identity but depend on one's biological sex. This is not allowed in the trans dictionary so the fact that I , for example, am getting my gender identity (or something similar) invalidated doesn't even get noticed.

Look at the ratio though

God the number of men in the responses pontificating about why it’s not acceptable to use the word woman

FUCK OFF