Men and women can get periods now?

I read it as

For men and for women, whose periods have stopped

Right or wrong and punctuation aside, I'm not the only one who read it that way. So it's not clear. And clarity is what matters in these messages.

Thats the title of a book about punctuation - ie Pandas eat shoots and leaves (not eats, shoots and leaves, which is the Tarantino version)

what about eats roots, shoots and leaves?

eats, shoots and leaves eh?

I think it's just missing a comma.
It should read

For men, and women whose periods have stopped.

Punctuation is all

The NHS periods section refers to women and girls.

An illustration of how the Oxford comma prevents confusion.

The fact that it clearly is ambiguous to some readers when it could be clearer is a problem though. I think.

I wonder if they will get any complaints about bit saying men, transwomen and non binary males for the first bit, and people who menstruate for the second.

I would guess not.

I think I was also taught not to put a comma before the word "and" but I think it might be one of those rules that has more subtle cases (that I never learned or retained). There are times when I feel using an extra comma would be more clear, but I tend to overuse them.

And I agree with what justawoman said much more succinctly than me, while I was laboriously typing!

Also, I’m sure I was taught that you never put a comma before the word “and”. So the grammar is correct. (I think) it was years ago I was taught!

For women with a coil that stops their period, they could be thought of as "women whose periods have stopped [for a long period of time, including the present, but not necessarily forever]." The important thing is that the blood loss of heavy periods is not going to make them deficient in iron (at the present time).

They addressed pregnant women's most frequent cause: "In pregnancy, iron deficiency anaemia is most often caused by a lack of iron in your diet."

They might just be trying to give some basic information for some of the most common causes, and hope that people will get an explanation for their own specific situation from their doctor.

And I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm arguing with anyone- I don't think the page is an example of the best, clearest information ever! I just don't think it is trying to be woke (as NiceGerbil says, it would then read something like "in people who have periods IDA is commonly caused by heavy periods. In people who don't have periods IDA is caused by [...]" which is quite the mouthful.

But it does show how important it is that medical information (which is often needed by people who feel ill, tired, or in pain) should be clear and easy to understand.

At a population level, that is. Not necessarily at the level of the individual woman.

It’s still correct. Gastrointestinal bleeding can be a cause of anaemia in women who have periods, it’s just not the main cause (which is having periods).

I read it as “men” one set of people and for women whose periods have stopped, which is another set of people. 2 sets of people, not men and women as one set.

"Heavy periods and pregnancy are very common causes of iron deficiency anaemia."
They don't say "In women who menstruate, anaemia is caused by heavy periods."

A woman could get her period every month but just average flow/ duration- not excessively heavy. She might get a stomach ulcer, then develop IDA. In her case, her IDA would be caused by blood loss from her stomach ulcer, not by heavy periods. She is still a woman who hasn't stopped having periods.

I wouldn't be surprised at this, but it could be that they have omitted to put a comma after 'men'. Punctuation doesn't seem important to most people nowadays, although one might think the person responsible for putting out this stuff would check, or have it proofread (still no guarantee though).

I mean similar wording not similar to penises!

Girls before puberty, women with some types of coil, Pg women etc don't have periods.

And even then it would be people who have periods and men who have penises or similar

This is a situation where "people with periods" type language makes everything clearer.

"For people who don't have periods, intestinal bleeding is the most common cause of IDA."

Never in my life have I agreed with a SPaG thread but I do with this one. Literacy and correct use of punctuation is really, really important.

The lack of it in that notice would have certain people hopping about in delight.

And it’s fine/better to put men first here because it applies to all men but only some women.

I think that with the second ‘for’ there, a comma is not needed, as the meaning is clear and relatively unambiguous (to me at least). For men (ie all men) and for women whose periods have stopped (ie only women whose periods have stopped).

But does it really not apply to any other women at all? Even if it's less common.

Commas!

Grammar pedantry time. Isn't a comma after men technically incorrect? You might pause there in speech, but nothing in the text requires it.

"For (noun) and for (noun phrase), statement."

Adding the comma would make "and for women whose..." a subordinate clause, an afterthought, making the women less important than men. Surely we wouldn't want that?

Or is this an Oxford comma-like thing? That avoids ambiguity with 3 or more items, so maybe it can be extended to cover this case when the second item is a noun phrase.

I'm from Cambridge though, so can't be having with Oxford anything.

I yield to the next grammar pedant.