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

Implying that the meaning of the word woman has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with identity leaves me in a pickle, because I have therefore always been treated according to a gender with which I do not identify, and I strongly suspect that is because of my sex, which kind of make sex not gender identity the source of my discrimination,....

Most women on mumsnet would refuse and call him 'her' instead

I reckon thats not right at all

Who are most?

There are a lot of women on mumsnet

Its others who seek to redefine the word, into something that..means nothing and is simply another way to say 'human'.

Its quit sneaky to try and make out its women trying to change the meaning of words tbh. Similar to how its bloody annoying when people claim feminists are trying to 'roll back trans rights', when infact, feminists are asking for the current laws to be upheld, its not feminists wanting them changed. Nor has it anything to do with 'trans rights' either in reality. Its about sex. Not gender. Something both feminists and TRAs apparently agree on, that sex and gender are very different, and again, its not feminists who say they are different things, but then constantly try to conflate the two.

We don't need to put biological in front of women, because women are biological women. To add biological in front of women seeks to 'other' women in their own sex class by suggesting there are other different types of women who are not biological women. Which there are not.

I have no issues with this. Its the wholesale erasing of 'woman' that I find shitty tbh. Including transmen, ontop of women (though of course they are women anyway) is fine really, if it does help transmen somewhat then I don't see the problem. Aslong as we are not all lumped in as 'bleeders' or 'people with a cervix' etc.

I expect many others will disagree though, haven't actually read thread yet.

@TheGoogleMum I agree. Women and trans men and non-binary seems inclusive in a compromising way.

But it depends if you make a distinction between 'woman' and 'female' and that is a conceptual and legal rabbit hole I am currently going down for the umpteenth time in my mind!

Why can’t they just say biological women. Happy compromise all round.

I don’t think it’s necessary to state biological facts when discussing women’s health. But it is a term that is scientifically true and can not be surely be seen as offensive?.

Although I don't see language being change to accommodate trans men so....

It’s actually ridiculous language barrier either way. We all know the definition of women from a health perspective.

If we are talking about clothes, shoes, hair styles etc. Then be gender ambiguous all you want.

Health conditions related to Sex are very real, and can be observed the same throughout the world. Gender identity is fluid and different all over the world, because it’s a social/cultural.

I don’t normally read the Feminist board, so I apologise if this is missing the point of the conversation here, but I thought some might be interested to know that there are cases of endometriosis in males and some more recent research directions suggest that the prevalence of this may be far higher than currently known.

Endometriosis is a complex disease, which may actually be a group of diseases with different pathogenesis, but at least some proportion of endometriosis cases appear to be linked to Mullerianosis and this can affect those with a Y chromosome. (You can read a bit about this here if interested extrapelvicnotrare.org/endometriosis-in-males/).

Ultimately, endometriosis affects a lot of people, and is still poorly understood. We need more good quality research into it. Some people dismiss endometriosis because they think it is “just menstrual problems” (as if that would make it ok to dismiss it!). It’s important that people know that this is an often very severe disease related to tissue growing in the wrong locations (not unlike cancer in that respect).

person with a cervix” is fat clearer

I’m sure someone has said it - it’s not clearer for women with learning disabilities or women for whom English is a second language. Both groups will be bigger than transmen and both groups are underrepresented in turning up for smears.

It’s fine to say women, transmen and non-binary individuals. No need to deny women’s agency over owning and naming their bodies (as has happened throughout history) to ensure inclusivity.

Lots of women are saying clearly we don’t find ‘people’ inclusive.

I don't like it. I prefer the truth. I even prefer the truth to being kind. Once upon a time I would have been kind but now I see that truth matters more. And anyway, telling the truth is kinder in the long run.

Since women who have had a hysterectomy can still suffer from endometriosis afterwards they aren't even correct (it appears as many as 20-30% sufferers still have pain after)
The only words that work are women or females

Sorry to slightly continue a derail but I just wanted to say to Charlie--so true:

I can't help thinking that this idea that people can't tell is based on men's inability to tell. Because in my experience women can

More than once there were instances where my male friends and DH could not tell. They were looking at the boobs and the hair and the skirt, I guess. Women see sex as biological, they need to know. They look at the face primarily, and the stance and the gait. PP who said women might discover some woman was really a man and then choose to use different pronouns because they are horrible (or was it a man was really a woman? can't be bothered to go back and check)...just no. Wouldn't happen. Also a derail, so not on.

This was also a derail and I offer many abject apologies, but OMG, we know!

[quote BobbieDraper]@Floisme

Because these exclusion.

Women and girls menstruate.

Transmen and non-binary women also menstruate.

Now, I dont want to be defined as a menstruator. I am a woman who happens to menstruate.

As long as they said "women, transmen and others who menstruate" then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if they remove women and just say "menstruators" then I would be annoyed.

Removing or silencing a group to include another isnt OK. But listing all the groups.. what is wrong with that?[/quote]
but listing all the groups. What is wrong with that?

Well, as lesbians, who had always been part of the LGBT umbrella found to their amazement, that as soon as the initials list got longer and more esoteric suddenly their L lost its validity and identity. The fact that they were women, with women's bodies and women's issues meant that they were suddenly both inferior and offensive to people who identified as women but who didn't , for obvious reasons ,have the issues that go with being a woman in a woman's body.

In years to come linguists will make special studies about how at the beginning of the 21 st century language was used so relentlessly by small vocal groups in an attempt to change biology. I can only hope they are also able to chart the successful fight back that rational people fought to halt the madness.

I think we should be encouraged by this. A couple of months ago it would have been "People with a uterus."

The fact that a national newspaper is now as worried about offending women as about offending TRAs is good.

human yes I have seen that article and I found it says things in a far more eloquently than I could say them.

I find pronouns to be a bit like sticking your hand in a blender. Something no one dies like ever because its automatic. But when you stop and think about what it is and what you are doing and overthomk the situation thats when you do a sorts if stupid things you wouldn't normally do.

The whole thing is just so controlling. I can't imagine ever asking people to talk about me in a specific way when I'm not even there. How self absorbed would one have to be to feel thet have the right to dictate that.

Medical articles should be factual. Endometriosis or hypernemesis etc diesnt give a shit how you identify. By all means mention transmen because that directly includes transmen.

But this "people" thing is nonsense..if a 16 year old girl hasnt started their period then that means a trip to the drs. Without the words female woman or girls they will just assume they are amongst the "people" who dont get periods.

How it can be ethical to remove the language that defines who its relevant to , i dont know. Facts are facts. Everyone needs to learn to deal with them.

I think that is fine. They haven’t tried to erase women but they have acknowledged that it is an issue that is relevant to some people who do not identify as women. I would not like to be described as a person with a uterus but some people prefer that term.

And I have found that many men do not have it. I was watching a program recently featuring a male transsexual presenting very convincingly as a woman. (Post-op, early transitioner, pretty, feminine but not over the top performative)

The fact that this is a male person is never referenced. And despite a slightly dodgy scene that made me feel uncomfortable for the female character that fact is also not relevant to the story.

It took me two scenes to realise this was not a female actor, but realise it I did. I had no emotional reaction to that fact because it didn't matter, but the longer the character was on screen the more obvious it became. I didn't feel tricked or annoyed. I just thought good for you, it's a great show.

Men I know on the other hand will look at even a late transitioning transsexual, look at an obviously male person, see boobs, long hair and make-up and despite hearing an obviously male voice conclude it's a woman. Once with my back to the TV, I asked "who's that dude talking", only to receive the reply "but that's a woman". I turned around and explained that it was someone who had transitioned late and was quite obviously male. "I just thought that was a very ugly woman" came the reply. Because boobs.

I can't help thinking that this idea that people can't tell is based on men's inability to tell. Because in my experience women can.

^inferior to

man
is a noun that denotes an adult human male

trans
is an adjective which refers to (among other things)
-traditionally a person who has undergone a medical treatment to present as the opposite sex and
-today it refers to a person who identifies as the opposite sex, without necessarily having undergone any medical treatment

The adjective modifies the noun. In this case this phrase tells us that this man is an adult human male who identifies as trans.

Transman on the other hand is a compound noun that takes the same noun and the same adjective but creates a new word whose meaning is different from the meaning of its composite parts (like seahorse or bookworm or buttercup).

That new meaning is an adult human female who identifies as a man.

It is precisely because the terminology is not clear that for comprehension purposes I consider women and... phrases to be inferior than the simple word women.

Having thought some more about this - because I do like to compromise if I can - I think I could live with 'Women (which includes transmen)'.

Sounds very sensible. However, as a poster on another thread has pointed out to me, compromise only works if the other part is also willing to compromise.

Dont expect people to call you thin if you dont try to change.

Try re-reading. My point is that I cannot expect people to call me thin just because I don't identify with the reality of being obese.

Most trans people take steps to change and fit the pronoun they prefer.

Some try to match a stereotype. How is that any different to me wedging myself into Spanx? Might go down a dress size - still obese.

And all this "I can always tell". No you cant. There are thousands of examples of "identify the trans" photo collages and people cant. A lot of them pass.

They may pass in carefully staged photos. But in real life, they don't. Particularly with transwomen. Women are programmed to be able to identify males whatever they are wearing. It's a safety mechanism. It's biological. Not possible to opt into that I'm afraid. You either have it. Or you don't.