I just came out as GC at work, to the big boss and I feel a bit sick

What Dontcallmewifey said. Bang on.

This is exclusionary language, demanded by privileged people, which dehumanises by reducing people, mainly women, to body parts.

The analogy with the Red Guards is well made. What happened to them?

Despite being met with resistance early on, the Red Guards received personal support from Mao, and the movement rapidly grew. The movement in Beijing culminated during the "Red August" of 1966, which later spread to other areas in mainland China.[3][4] Mao made use of the group as propaganda and to accomplish goals such as seizing power and destroying symbols of China's pre-communist past ("Four Olds"), including ancient artifacts and gravesites of notable Chinese figures. Moreover, the government was very permissive of the Red Guards, and even allowed the Red Guards to inflict bodily harm on people viewed as dissidents. The movement quickly grew out of control, frequently coming into conflict with authority and threatening public security until the government made efforts to rein the youths in, with even Mao himself finding the leftist students to have become too radical.[5] The Red Guard groups also suffered from in-fighting as factions developed among them. By the end of 1968, the group as a formal movement had dissolved.
Sending city students to the countryside was also used to defuse the student fanaticism set in motion by the Red Guards. On December 22, 1968, Chairman Mao directed the People's Daily to publish a piece entitled "We too have two hands, let us not laze about in the city", which quoted Mao as saying "The intellectual youth must go to the country, and be educated from living in rural poverty." In 1969 many youths were rusticated.[46] Many students could not cope with this harsh life and died in the process of reeducation.
(From Wikipedia)

The push back is now well underway.

Well done OP

@PotholeHellhole every time you reveal a little more of your life story I am inspired.
Little detour there but hey ho, when in the city formerly known as Rome.

Away to google gender critical

"We are not defined by our body parts...... people with a cervix".
That is literally defining someone by their body parts. How can you not see how hypocritical that is??

I think people are more than capable of working out whether they are a person with a cervix, and that choice of language protects men who still have a cervix. We are not defined by our body parts. Is a women any less of a woman after a double mastectomy? Or after a hysterectomy? No, of course not.

@SweetPetrichor

You say W e are not defined by our body parts.

But using the term 'person with a cervix' is literally defining people by their body parts

The term Woman does not rely on whether you have or have not had a mastectomy or hysterectomy. It's is your biological sex irrespective of which body parts are removed. It is an adult person of the female sex. Because it is immutable, it is not changed by having a mastectomy as you say, and it cannot be acquired by a man having breast implants either.

Don't you see the contradiction in your own statement?

in my professional view there is a reputational risk of our company being associated with exclusive gender neutral language such as cervix havers or chest feeders as well as the risk of confusing the people the material is aimed at

You're right. I would never use a company that used expressions like chest feeders of cervix havers. I find it utterly ridiculous, laughable and at worst, offensive as a woman.

Is a women any less of a woman after a double mastectomy? Or after a hysterectomy? No, of course not.

Just as a man is no less of a man for having surgeries and/or any hormonal medication he may take?

This is the point that many GC feminists would very much like to make without fear of being sent to gulags for re-education, removed from social media platforms or have their career threatened.

This just show your extraordinary small and privileged world and your lack of interest in learning about people who are different from you. People with poor literacy, poor English language skills (such as some people with English as a second language), people with a learning disability. These people are excluded by your 'inclusive' language. And they need to be included to access vital health care.

Well said, Dontcallmewifey

Excellent post Dontcallmewifey

You would have been such an asset to that venerable institution. Or to the Stasi in more recent times, come to that.

Never mind, enough people like you and we’ll all be living the authoritarian nightmare soon enough!

I think people are more than capable of working out whether they are a person with a cervix, and that choice of language protects men who still have a cervix. We are not defined by our body parts.

The word is woman. Do not reduce us to body parts.

Men do not have a cervix.

I think people are more than capable of working out whether they are a person with a cervix

No. This just show your extraordinary small and privileged world and your lack of interest in learning about people who are different from you. People with poor literacy, poor English language skills (such as some people with English as a second language), people with a learning disability. These people are excluded by your 'inclusive' language. And they need to be included to access vital health care.

On the other hand, absolutely everyone who is trans knows what their sex is. They would not be trans if they did not. Everyone who is trans reads ' woman' in health literature and knows if it pertains to their sex.
They don't need 'individuals with a cervix' to understand. The people who are arguing this just want to be validated, by everyone, all the time.. And that validation matters more to them than other people understanding health communications and getting the healthcare they need.

They used to have camps in Siberia for just that very thing.

Ah yes but I think you'll find they were really quite bucolic and pleasant!

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/lgbt-society-gulags-199146

I think people are more than capable of working out whether they are a person with a cervix, and that choice of language protects men who still have a cervix.

Jo's Trust
"almost half of women don’t know what the cervix is and one in six unable to name a single function of the cervix"
www.jostrust.org.uk/about-us/news-and-blog/blog/things-you-didnt-know-about-your-cervix

Eve Appeal
"For Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month 2016, we undertook research that revealed a shockingly low understanding of the female genitalia, with 44% of women unable to identify the vagina on an anatomical diagram; with 60% also unable to identify a vulva on the same diagram."
eveappeal.org.uk/news-awareness/know-your-body/

Professor Clare McKenzie, RCOG Vice President
"A new survey by The Eve Appeal now reveals a shocking number of women know little about their own anatomy; with nearly half of those surveyed unable to identify the vagina on an anatomical diagram, and 45% of women couldn’t point out the cervix.

Awareness of female cancers was also low; the survey found that 14% of women could not name a single gynaecological cancer, and 8% thought breast cancer was a type of gynaecological cancer. This survey highlights a growing need for better sex education. If women are better informed about what is normal or not when it comes to their gynaecological health, there is a higher chance they will seek help. This knowledge will equip young women for the future, and work to remove the stigma associated with gynaecological cancer...

It is vital that we raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of all types of gynaecological cancers. It’s time to change the mentality of these being a taboo subject, and get women talking about their bodies. Only then can we start reducing the number of women who died from the disease."
www.rcog.org.uk/en/blog/gynaecological-cancer-awareness-month-know-your-body/

Well done OP

And I like this definition
Gender critical
Recognising that a woman is an adult human female, that women and girls are discriminated against because of their biology, and that gender is primarily a tool of the patriarchy used to oppress women.

Men dont have a cervix.

I think people are more than capable of working out whether they are a person with a cervix, and that choice of language protects men who still have a cervix. We are not defined by our body parts.

How is “person with a cervix” NOT defining people by their body parts? Pure nonsense.

Can someone be sacked for saying this?

Yes. Maya Forstater was.

It's sometimes wrongly claimed that feminists stand against gender neutral language. This is, I think, a misunderstanding. I'm sure most feminists, for example, would support the use of 'children' as a collective noun in school when addressing the whole class, for example. Feminists would also have no problem with the word people being used in a context where sex was largely irrelevant, for example, attendees at a concert.
However, what feminists on the whole are standing against is using gender neutral language when this obfuscates the meaning when sex is important. For example, when reporting crimes, dealing with safeguarding and in legal matters, sex based words like women and men have clear definitions and are needed for clarity and safety. If these words are dropped in favour of body part naming language, the meaning is too often lost, confused or escapes the vulnerable or those of whom English is a second language.
By using the term menstruaters for example, you risk alienating those who don't have this bodily event due to age or medical conditions.

I recall many were in favour of re educating JK Rowling with a baseball bat. Disgusting people.

If my child asks me if they have a uterus, how do I know? Do I have to take them for a scan?

Excellent point. Especially if they get called "uterus haver" or person with a vagina" in their sex education class as per the recent trending thread. How would anyone know?