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

Genuine question here as I haven't done much reading on the subject. Are conditions that only apply to biological males described in such odd and unclear ways? Or just female issues?

As far as I can see, there are no aggressive campaigns to include TW and non binary people in to the language of men's health.

The slogan of the prostate campaign is "MEN-they're worth saving". So by TRAs own logic, this clearly means they want TW and non binary people to die.

Alpacin hair loss shampoo isn't aimed at anyone with 'prostate havers pattern hair loss', nor is Viagra aimed at 'penis owners'.

Funny isn't it? I wish I could put my finger on why...

My objection isn't just that it's just clunky and irritating though. It's that the additional words are subtly, imperceptibly changing the meaning of 'women' in a way that could turn out to be very damaging.

There's probably 247 non binary people in the UK. It's quite funny that they need a special mention.

What about the following definition:
women, people with body parts susceptible to endometriosis, people not included in any other categories already listed who suspect they might have relevant body parts.

That's nice and clear and inclusive...

I'm torn about this. While I loathe the attacks on the word woman I am aware that this growing number of trans men come from the vulnerable group of girls who, as ROGD appeared, instead of being offered support, therapy and counselling while they were children and below the age of consent were thrown into the hands of these male orientated lobby groups and treated by medics in the thrall of these groups.
I see them as vulnerable and alone and believe that gc women should be holding out our hands in support. And if that means acknowledging clunky and at irritating language in order to stand alongside them, then I'd accept that as a price to pay for demonstrating solidarity and sisterhood. Because we know that if / when they encounter doubts about what they have done as children, the trans groups will literally throw them to the wolves - as evidenced by their treatment of the detransitioners.

These are our daughters, our nieces, our sisters, our friends and our granddaughters. They won't thank us for this and will reject our support defining it as patronising etc. But we all know that as they mature and finally understand the enormity of these decisions, many of them will encounter regret and despair. I'd hope that they know gc women are on their side and we have always had their backs. And maybe acknowledging phrases like "women and others with a uterus / cervix /womb/ breasts/ periods etc are a compromise worth paying?

Just a thought.

I would still compromise if it were possible to insert an inclusive phrase without altering the meaning in any way. But so far I've not seen a way of doing that, although I'd be happy to hear more suggestions.

Additions like 'women and trans men' or 'women and others with a uterus' imply that the word 'women' isn't enough on its own. But it is enough, especially in the context of a gynaecological condition.

It might seem like subtle, inconsequential difference but, if we concede this point then I think we're conceding that 'woman' is a subset of something else, and it will come back and bite us big time.

Personally I’m ok with
Women, transmen and non binary females (or however they wish to be defined)
And
Men, transwomen and non binary males (or however they wish to be defined)

That’s inclusive of everyone but will be disliked by anyone who doesn’t want to be included with others of the same sex. But when it comes to medical issues it’s tough I’m afraid.

There probably should be specific campaigns targeting trans people for treatment, if not enough trans people are accessing them. I don’t see a problem with campaigns for women and transmen/ men and transwomen (plus non binary people if needed- no idea if nb people access sex specific services or avoid them).

I know posters have spoken about campaigns that have focussed on “men who have sex with men”’as the NHS was conscious that some men would not identify as gay even if they were sleeping with other men. Because getting the right services and support is important and if the message turns off your audience it won’t work.

This is just my view and I know not everyone here agrees.

It just makes the "other people" sound like such precious snowflakes and I don't like using the word snowflake. You have a uterus, you're a woman.

This wording doesn't horrify me.

Actually, the study itself also doesn't completely horrify me. It's very wrong that the women in the study didn't consent to being rated this way. However, it does seem to be an attempt to test a hypothesis, borne of informal observation, that certain physical characteristics potentially associated with differences in development were associated with endometriosis. It would have been much better if the physical characteristics associated with conventional "attractiveness" had been broken down better and presented this way (symmetry/wth ratio, etc.?). But informally it was "attractiveness" that the clinicians noticed, so they crudely assessed this. A bit shit, but not worthy of retraction, perhaps?

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree.

I'm aware that in recent years some people have tried to change the definition of 'woman' from that which has been used throughout the world for millennia. The universally understood, strict biological definition. Disagree if you must. The onus is on you to persuade that this definition is wrong.

Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

To somebody with a fluent grasp of English. And somebody with a basic education in reproductive biology. Don't be silly. 'Woman' is far clearer.

Genuine question here as I haven't done much reading on the subject. Are conditions that only apply to biological males described in such odd and unclear ways? Or just female issues?

'other people'? looks round for the other categories of human..

The word used should be female if woman is deemed to difficult for some. (not that I am prepared to give up the word woman)

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. We can see your very obvious DARVO milady

^definition

And that results in more women dying.

As for me seeking to redefine the word woman, that's incorrect. In every language in the world there is a sex designating word for female people. In English that word is woman. That's why in national laws and in international human rights law, the word woman has been used to describe female people and only female people for more than 70 years.

That society expects women qua females to conform to particular sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the word woman is a sex designator and not a collective noun for those who conform to their societies notion of how a stereotypical female person is expected to look and behave.

The idea that the concept of woman self-evidently also necessitates accepting harmful, regressive and oppressive sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes as an indelible part of the deginition of the word woman and therefore of being a woman is the opposite of progressive.

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

To me that reads as one in ten women have the disease and other people have the disease and that in order for these other people to have the disease they must have a uterus of reproductive age. Gobbledegook.

I think you will find that we're not the people trying redefine the word 'woman'.

Far clearer...

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree. Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

This is a paper about a medical issue affecting the body. There is no such thing as a non-binary human body. Women have endometriosis. W-O-M-E-N. Women.

The word woman is a sex designator, not a gender description.

Medical conditions do not give two hoots about how a person identifies. If it's a gynaecological condition it only ever affects female people. Women and girls.

Keep religion and quasi-religious beliefs out of medical practice. But then I'm an atheist who understands how badly served women and girls are by and in this male-dominated field.

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.

Agree. Identity isn't the issue here.

It's a change in the Guardian's language isn't it? Maybe they are listening after the pounding they got on Twitter.

That study though gives me feel sick. It took the researchers 7 years to withdraw the article and not even an apology.

Non binary people?

Everyone is non binary. These people are female.

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.