NHS - 8 out of 10 people under 40 will get pregnant within a year...

What is the point of the page anyway? They seem to assume that anyone who would want to read it already knows all the information?

How many times are they rewriting this sodding page?

Its getting embarrassing now...

They have a lot of work to do. Searching women returns 16 pages of results

Best do that and then run out of energy and so leave the men's stuff alone I'd say.

How many times are they rewriting this sodding page?

The reply said they removed the 8 out of ten stat.

It's still there though and they've changed it from 'people' to 'you'.

Of course men never Google trying to get pregnant.

And it's ok to say man man man all over the sperm page.

You'd think someone would say hold on We're not allowed to say woman, we shouldn't be saying man either...

Gosh NiceGerbil

So do I. all these years never realising!

There should be a support group.

Be really interested to know what they say about that page.

Their reply was predictable but has pissed me off a lot.

How is it using plain language, to assume the sex of the reader of a page and that they will understand people to mean women, which the page can't say because women is a dirty word.

'A low sperm count, also called oligozoospermia, is where a man has fewer than 15 million sperm per millilitre of semen.'

Surely where a PERSON has fewer than..

I have a low sperm count :(

I got the same reply, I’ve replied referring to the low sperm count page and saying they use the words men and dad there so should be consistent.
Clearly we need to keep complaining

But then they never struggle to say men do they, just women.

But it's only when you say 'women' that men get cross, and men getting cross get taken seriously. Unlike female people, who can get as cross as they like and that's quite funny. Because gynephobia.

It used to be considered the embarrassing mark of an incompetent and poorly managed department to turn out public statements that weren't in plain English. The whole point of public statements is that the general public can all access them. Inclusion. Which is supposed to mean something and involve considering other groups as well as trans.

Go on, report it and see what they come back with.

Almost tempted to report that page for its wording but I know it's not a race to the bottom.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/low-sperm-count/

Just so we're clear though, it's MEN and MALES who produce sperm and become DADs.
Generic people and disembodied vaginas get pregnant though....

Has anyone complained about the word scramble they’ve replaced it with?

I got the same 'sorry not sorry' reply to my complaint. The reworded page is no better than the one I complained about

I came back to post the pathetic nonsensical reply I had to my polite, sensible complaint but see I’m late to the party. I’m beyond fucked off.

Has anyone written to their MP or Matt Hancock about this sort of bullshit? I didn’t vote for mine and don’t rate him but he’s an old school ex-military Tory type with a passable track record so I’m tempted to contact him.

I was reminded of Hancock laughing about that stupid tweet about some genders being more or less adversely affected by Covid last spring and saying “men, yes, it’s men” and that he’d a word with their right on social team.

But then they never struggle to say men do they, just women.

What do they mean by "knows they can get pregnant?"
I had primary infertility, was the information not for me then??

There was one on Twitter recently. An autistic charity alerting ‘autistics with a cervix’ to the fact that they may need regular screening for cervical cancer. But how would they know if they have a cervix?

How do they understand whether they are of the female body type that has a cervix or the ‘female’ body type that doesn’t??

Yep.
It's not just poor. It's shitty.

Their plain and simple language only works because it makes all these assumptions.

And the over-riding assumption is that although we all know that only women can become pregnant, this fact is distasteful and not to be spoken.

It's not 'inclusive', it's offensive.

Their reply is as I suspected, they are assuming the sex of the reader and assuming that the female reader of the page already understands all about human reproduction.
Their plain and simple language only works because it makes all these assumptions. It therefore is misleading for anyone outside of their (imagined but not explicitly defined) category of expected reader.
Personally I think that's really poor.

Note to author of stupid web page:

When you are in a hole, and already 3/4 of the way to Australia, STOP DIGGING!

This page is written to be directed at the person who is trying to get pregnant and knows they can get pregnant.

But a person who is also a bit vague about what one might do with sperm?

Dear service-manual nhs, 'woman' is not a dirty word, and it is not nice to imply to your female users that their existence has become some kind of nasty secret they shouldn't talk about. It is possible to add additional language for those who need it without erasing and confusing everyone else, with that everyone else forming 99% of your user base.

Directions to the grip shop can be found below.