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

Would I identify out of the tortuous pain, physical and emotional, of endometriosis if I could? Damned right I would. Unfortunately this is my 'lived experience' and material, biological reality.

According to the trans ideology, this is your female privilege. Having unfettered access to this experience as a result of your body being female makes you privileged over transwomen, who can never experience this truly female experience.

How can coveting such pain, such pointless, all-encompassing, joy-sapping pain, be anything but a mental illness or a personality disorder?

Obesity is something you chose. Whether you like it or not, you chose to overeat or not do enough exercise.

This is a crock. No one actively chooses to live their lives feeling unhealthy and uncomfortable, or be overweight. An addiction to food (mainly sugar) encroaches gradually and usually has some underlying psychological cause, as does any other form of substance addiction. To suggest that this is owing to 'greed', or personal choice, or any of the other myriad objections usually trotted out in the face of addiction, is coming from a place of ignorance.

Obesity and substance addiction are no more the fault of the sufferer than bodily dysphoria. It's a disease. Don't quote me, quote the WHO.

Coming back to the disease that is the topic of this thread, endometriosis. I've suffered with this for years. It defies belief that male-bodied people are scrapping over the spoils of a painful disorder which has cost me 10 years' infertility, 5 miscarriages, and the possibility of my DC's ever having a sibling. I was the woman on the 'Bodyform' ad, doubled up in agony on her bathroom floor. It's sheer misery, and in more than the immediately obvious sense.

The people claiming to challenge 'exclusivity' over issues such as these must be barking mad. As for accusing those engaging in the 'cervix' argument (God, how sick and tired am I of that word) 'gatekeeping' cancer, of all the offensive misogynistic bilge I've seen permeating the net over the last two years, that one is right up there with 'weaponising trauma'.

Who actually WANTS to develop such conditions as these, or indeed 'gatekeep' them by redefining 'woman' and hence putting women at increased risk? Not too hard to find the answer to that. Women's experiences can, as ever, be sacrificed on the altar of Woke.

Would I identify out of the tortuous pain, physical and emotional, of endometriosis if I could? Damned right I would. Unfortunately this is my 'lived experience' and material, biological reality.

And here is ProstateCancer UK going about their business of discussing "men's" cancers.

twitter.com/ProstateUK

It's hard to know to expose the hypocrisy without drawing down the hounds of hell on blameless men's health charities. But it's also infuriating to see the blatant double standards.

The other day I was going through old books I had bought on second wave feminism from places which sell used books, to see what to recycle to get more space. While dusting one book it fell open on a page with the title Fighting For Women's Rights or something similar with 'women's rights' in it.

That made me sit for a while thinking about what 'women's rights' would mean now the word 'woman' has been repurposed or recycled to mean only an inner, abstract feeling of being a woman, with no basis on what someone's biological sex actually might be.

I find it quite hard to see why that newly defined group would deserve any special attention to its rights at all. The term referred to the rights of female-bodied people and those who looked female-bodied to others even if they were not. It is that group which is legally under a male guardianship all their lives in Saudi Arabia, and it is that group which the catholic church won't let into priesthood. It is that group which experiences sex-based discrimination at work and it is also mostly that group which is the victim of rapes (outside prisons) and also of sexual harassment etc.

So if we go with the new definition of womanhood (what IS that inner feeling of womanhood based on when it is not allowed to be based on being biologically female?) it is hard to see how to even address sexism or the plight of women (old definition) in so many countries still.

To me this is about the problem of being so kind that we just hand over all our rights. It's not only about the medical context but about all contexts where biological sex matters. I have been willing to be inclusive and to compromise, but now it looks like my rights are going to be compromised away altogether. Even 'female' is not allowed to refer to biology.

Women and transmen may be biologically the same, but they dont see themselves as the same group.

Bit late now, but I absolutely do see women and transmen as the same group. Adult females (women). I see men and transwomen as the same group. Adult males.

Like many people, my brain reads transwomen as just another man. And transmen as just another woman. Even if it were possible to alter that, what would be the benefit to me and the vast majority of women and girls in doing so?

Yep. What Emma Goldman said.

Taking me ages to get through this thread..

We've got another mumsnetter above you saying that I'm wrong and mumsnetters do extend that courtesy to transpeople by calling them their preferred pronouns, despite the majority of posters on this, and other threads, saying they will not be told which pronoun to use

Eh..you know that mumsnetters are just singular people with differing opinions, and there is no 'MN consensus' or anything on any topic!? I do find it odd, how people seem to think that if one, two, or many mumsetters think something, this means all of them do. NAMNALT. Each differing thread will bring out a differing range of opinions, based on whos online and who facies replying to it tbh..

But I think, from years of talking about this topic, its still the majority who will use the wrong pronouns in order to make trans people feel more comfortable. I do, however I simply cannot bring myself to use her for the likes of rapists (which seems a bit hypocritical, as thats basically me saying 'I am willing to lie to make you feel better but only if you are a good person). Many of those who will no longer lie..did lie about it for a long time, its only the demands of transactivists, and learning more about 'queer theory'..and talking to trassexual people in some cases, that have made them stop. Though I will lie, I do understand where those who will not are coming from, especially with how much every piece of language relating to female people is being butchered these days. Never see tranactivists kicking off with men/mens charities about using the word man for some reason..odd really. As usual, only women are targetted. Similar to how when MEN physically attack transwomen, its blamed on feminists, as those nasty feminists have influenced these violent men into being violent. Because of course, violent men always listen to what feminists have to say and act how feminists would want them to, thats why so much male violence is a part of so many womens daily lives

Transactivists claim you cannot know someones sex by looking at them. Odd how they always seem to know which people to abuse, ad they also know which tras people to shove to the bottom of the pile (ie. its always about centreing transwomen). The obsession with genitals thing is bonkers btw, theres so much more to sex than genitals, and accusing feminists of being focussed on genitals is, again, more DARVO. They seem to think its some huge 'gotchya' when talking about sex segregated areas, if they strawman this imaginary want of feminists, of people on changing room doors who check genitals on the way in. Weird fantasy, in the huge majority of cases, sex is massively obvious, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying to themselves for whatever reason. Wome might be able to tell sex from a glance easier than men, it does seem that way anecdotally. This is possibly evolution in action, women need to know who is male for their own safety.

YES. Thank you DanceLikeEmmaGoldman.

Great post EmmaGoldsmith

So fuck right off with your “people with cervixes”, or “chest feeders”, or “birthing parents”. They’re women.

Absolutely this 💯

Nope. I’m not interested in some spurious version of inclusion over material reality.

Not every woman has a cervix, but everyone who has ever had a cervix is a woman.

In a world full of lies and conspiracy theories and deliberate campaigns to promulgate false information, it is important that we not give away material reality.

If you have a female body, and the word woman triggers you, you have mental health issue which needs care, not a reason for the world to bend to your delusion. Your delusion has its roots in the brutality with which the world treats women and girls; we must fix the world, not pretend women out of existence.

It is not a kindness to adults, to pretend that the Tooth Fairy is real or that humans can change sex.

Women exist. We are half the world’s population of human mammals. We are the ones with the reproductive systems developed through millions of years of evolution, to birth children. Countless women through human history have suffered and died because of this capacity.

Attempting to redefine women as men, or someone who likes lame handbags, or some amorphous collection of feminine stereotypes, spits on the grave of every woman who died in childbirth. Every woman who has been raped or killed because she was a woman. Every girl baby abandoned to die. Every girl dying of exposure in a menstrual hut. Every girl child held down while her genitals are mutilated. Every girl forced into marriage or trafficked for sex.

Everyone denying the existence of women because “kindness” is doing harm to all of us.

So fuck right off with your “people with cervixes”, or “chest feeders”, or “birthing parents”. They’re women.

I wouldn't call any male "her". Because they're not female. But I don't "misgender". I simply avoid using pronouns. If I have to I'll use "they", we're all supposed to believe it's perfectly normal to use it as a singular pronoun, after all.

Same here. I just avoid using 'she' unless someone actually is a she.

Nope. Tired of having my sex class redefined and obfuscated.

The compromise I'd reluctantly live with is women and transmen.

Enbies can shift for themselves. If they choose to take their 'not like other girls' sexist nonsense to the extent of repressing knowledge of having a female body, that's their look out. There is zero morally obligation to cater to fashion.

Transwomen, being male, have zero to do with this. They shout butt out. They don't matter when it comes to women's (and transmen's) business.

I'm talking about transwomen who dont pass as women. Everyone on here is saying they would not call that person "her".

I wouldn't call any male "her". Because they're not female. But I don't "misgender". I simply avoid using pronouns. If I have to I'll use "they", we're all supposed to believe it's perfectly normal to use it as a singular pronoun, after all.

Other people with a uterus?
Where did they get that from then??

Great point, Blackcurrant

For me theres another issue. How do we know that ‘people with a uterus’ who have been on testosterone for example have the same incidence of endometriosis as people who haven’t? There’s been no research into this so it’s actually wrong to seek to include this group in the analysis. The group were not part of the original research.

It’s not just about language it’s about trying to extrapolate something from the research that simply isn’t there in order to fit with a political agenda.

*dependency on estrogen.

@Throwaway583727 there’s only 17 cases recorded in scientific literature of men with endometriosis, and the vast majority had taken estrogen hormone treatment.

This is compared to around 180 MILLION affected women worldwide. Endometriosis is very much a disease affecting women due to its dependency. Let’s not confuse the issue.

I'm a woman which means I'm living as a woman

It is therefore entirely justified to treat endometriosis as a gynaecological condition, especially since the term is shorthand for endometriosis of the lining of the womb whose Latin name is the endometrium.

Researchers studying cases of cells growing where they shouldn't in males borrowed the term endometriosis because medical professionals and researchers at first assumed (mostly wrongly) that these male patients had vestigial wombs left over from foetal development which then grew out of place. As explained in the article you linked to, the researchers later rejected that theory but kept using the name, even though the errant tissue in one case was of the bladder and in another testicular.

Thus, in somewhat ungrammatical construction, the article rightfully questions in conclusion:

Review of factors, urinary and reproductive system development and case reports, does it appear that endometriosis among males is a different disease than that among women?

So, just to recap for those who are too time poor to read the article:

The article does not show males suffer from endo. They do not have a womb whose lining may grow elsewhere in the body. It's a gynaecological condition only suffered by females.

And given that it is so badly understood, inadequately researched and that research barely funded it is entirely inappropriate to recast endo as a condition that "many people" suffer.

No.

It's a condition that many women suffer. And only women.

Please do not let the pronoun squirrel distract you

Sorry...will do