Advice (and moral support) please re: changing women's language

I had an encouraging email from my MP however who stated that they were observing this change in language and conflation with growing concern. Considering their first response to my discussing the issues and disadvantages for women in this conflation of language and forced teaming, and the power imbalance this enables, was a kind of what...? yeah yeah.... this suggests that this is not going unseen, and increasingly being recognised as not in the interests of many women.

do they also know how few TW have SRS?

I think this is the important point. It doesn't sound like they do. It took my mum ages to grasp this, even when I was regularly ranting to her about this issue a few years ago!

do they also know how few TW have SRS?

If it’s a public sector workplace they have to abide by the public sector equality duty (PSED)
If it’s private sector they should still be considering the impact of their actions on protected characteristics of employees and clients. Under the law sex and gender reassignment are both important and each must be balanced appropriately. It’s not a one way street.

Stay calm, stay polite and keep arguing in good faith.Other than that, use facts and reason, gently question assertions made and ask people why they think what they think, with facts to back up what they are asserting.
The idealogs will never change their minds but the audience will see who is spouting crazy and who is making sense.

All debate is good debate is this battle because reality is our trump card.

[quote AnyOldPrion]Bea Jaspert wrote an article on this that I found oddly compelling. Obviously I am fully aware of the situation, but I think bringing it all together the way she does sends a powerful message about the end point of all this.

beajaspert.substack.com/p/lets-form-an-alliance[/quote]
This is brilliant, loved this!

Good thread. It's actually a good sign that anyone posted about this in the first place, and that some responses were sensible. Let us know how it goes down.

The way I think of it, when you make changes to help one group (in this case v small) you should think through unintended consequences for others, and ppl have shown some unintended consequences in the thread.

HCPs, breastfeeding supporters etc work with ppl where they are, try & understabd where they are coming from, & it can be beneficial to shift language to make the relationship with that individual work well as long as you don't lose accuracy, when working 1 to 1. There should also be communication for trans ppl imo that uses language that works for them, so they can access health services. But it shouldn't replace the most understandable, relatable language for the rest of us. There's a public health principal that you use language that's accessible to the most ppl, but also accurate, and that shouldn't be set aside.

For me the more philosophical point is important. We are not a rag bag of body parts. Lactating parents are discriminated against at work & in public and struggle to get support. Birthing parents are discriminated against, they also do most childcare, and end up earning less and having a crap pension. Individuals with a cervix need screening, ppl with a womb might suffer from endometriosis & have their pain dismissed. Ppl with a womb of childbearing age might be passed over for promotion. They also need secure access to contraception and their lives are a bit dominated by worrying about getting pregnant or not getting pregnant for a while. But these are all the same ppl, and if we can't name that, and see that this is completely tied to the position of women in society, and that we need healthcare for female ppl as whole ppl, full humans, not a series of unrelated body parts & functions, then we can't talk about it or fight for it.

Before Covid came along and our workplace coffee room was stripped of 75% of chairs so we have to sit in lonely isolation, one to a table, and no clutter allowed, I used to buy a couple of copies of the Times when they had these sorts of articles and leave them lying around strategically open at the relevant place. You might still be able to do that in your own work place if you are lucky.

There's a really good article from Lionel Shriver about this in the Times just now. You may find some useful quotes there. She's no fan of any of this shit.

Also I saw someone using the term "Stop Linguicide" today which I thought was a rather good word.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/breastfeeding-is-now-chestfeeding-why-are-the-language-police-trying-to-wipe-out-women-wfqmws0j0

There’s an epidemic of this bs in work places right now. Posting the link to a thread I started earlier in the week asking for similar help. Got some really useful responses. Will post a link to this thread there too.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4157028-dealing-with-wokie-BS-around-gender-at-work

I find it all so exhausting. To be facing this crap at the same time as when so many of us have been hit - surprise! - with the disproportionate burden of coping with school and nursery closures. Now, on top of juggling childcare, home schooling and day jobs, we also have the additional burden of having to take on stupid colleagues at work wanting to throw us under a bus to prove their woke credentials.

Good luck sisters. We’re going to need each other. I think of this board as my outsourced brain extension, as the one i come with frankly cannot handle all this crap at the same time.

AnyOldPrion Thanks for that article, I've saved it.

Some of these great responses should be stickied at the top of this board.

Great thread

Menstruators, people with a cervix - referring to people by bodily function or body part is dehumanising. Health care professionals know this - they now know not to talk about 'the broken leg' in bed 4. This same dignity and respect must also apply to women.

Also, i would like healthcare providers to be respectful of the language I prefer: inclusive language must also consider the needs of women.

Everyone's said it far better than me, but this stuff really gets on my nerves. Women are not kindly support units and there is no moral righteousness in creating a real risk to women's health - to women's lives frankly - so she can feel woke and display how much better she is than all those other boring women. Because she isn't and women will die from this dangerous and dehumanising erasure of correct, accessible language in relation to health campaigns. If she's really bothered, she can do something about the biological essentialism of men's health campaigns although she won't thankfully.

srh.bmj.com/content/41/4/248

Barriers to ethnic minority groups taking up screening include using language and that some women "did not recognise the terms ‘cervical screening’ or ‘smear test"

Another example was that of SANDS charity describing bereaved mothers as "birthing parents". In order to be inclusive to trans-men/non binary females they denied women the language of mother and motherhood to describe themselves, when surely they know how much those terms mean to those who have lost a baby?

Why are some identies more important to validate than others?

Ultimately the argument works both ways, if it's important to use the language and preferred pronouns of some people then that consideration should apply to everyone. I want to be referred to as a woman when I access healthcare and support, not a dissociated set of body parts.

The use of cervix havers is a particularly egregious example given that cancer charities have in previous years done many studies and awareness campaigns to say that using such specific medical language alienates a lot of women, and you should use plain language to reach every woman:

E.g.
metro.co.uk/2020/11/09/almost-50-of-women-dont-know-where-their-cervix-is-finds-study-13561743/amp/

And
WHEN YOU SAY – "vagina"
EXPLAIN IT WITH – "a woman’s intimate area / where a baby comes from"
www.jostrust.org.uk/professionals/cervical-screening/language

It's just so disheartening when the charities then discard their own advice in the pursuit of "inclusivity" and throw vulnerable women under the bus.

Which is better, remove female specific language to abate the gender dysphoria of less than 1% of the population, or use clear language to ensure the up to 50% of women (who due to education, disability or language barriers can't comprehend these terms) get the healthcare they need and save their lives?

Also point out that men have breasts and can get breast cancer so in what way is breastfeeding not an inclusive word?

That I would love to live in a world where gender never needed to be given a thought but because of the inequalities that women experience based on their sex then women’s language like their experiences must remain defined. Breastfeeding is a woman’s issue and to separate it from women is offensive when already so many women are excluded from support. Breastfeeding women and people who breastfeed (or chest feed erm if they want inaccurate terms) can be referred to together. There is nothing kind in reducing me to a person who breastfeeds when it was one of the first moments that connected me to my breasts, to women through time and where I realised the freedom in being in a room with just other women.

I do think the points about clear language are important ones. This approach excludes groups who don't have English as their mother tongue (is even that now forbidden?)

Does anyone remember the plain English campaign? And when the public sector was getting whacked for using impenetrable terms? Have we all moved - collectively - so much that we can now play about with English like this?

I also think that there is a serious point in that: if you can't describe or be told about the subject of a sentence or an issue, you don't know what it is. So things don't get addressed?

What's next? Shall we hide disability because it's "more inclusive"? Eg:

"Some people found the entrance cumbersome"
"Disabled people who use wheel chairs could not open the door"

Which sentence describes what is meant? Who is impacted by the crappy doors? In the first sentence, you don't know.

If women are allowed to be hidden and subsumed then seriously, who's next?

Excellent replies here. I need to keep this thread for reference.