Plain English, Gender and compromise

I don't know why we can't have a single word that means female. It used to be woman and that seems to have gone. I thought female would still retain its meaning but that's gone too. It would just make sense for there to be one simple word. Without resorting to bodily functions. We don't call cows large animals that go moo. Perhaps we should just embrace AFAB?

[quote GromblesOfGrimbledon]@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic. [/quote]
I could really do without the hostile tone, it’s unnecessary.

I’m not accusing anyone, I’m clarifying what they meant by ‘women only, no additions’. I’ve offered absolutely no opinion on that, other than I think it’s unlikely.

My only question has been ‘what level of compromise are you personally happy with. The example given was sanitary products, if you want to choose a different one to discuss, please do.

[quote GromblesOfGrimbledon]@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic. [/quote]
@GromblesOfGrimbledon 👏 you've said this much better than I could have. Agree completely.

@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic.

@CharlieParley

I am confident that female transgender individuals have the ability to learn to manage their unwanted female biology without forcing this language change on all of us. And many of those I know and know of say that the language change doesn't help with their dysphoria, so I would honestly question who really benefits from uncoupling the word woman from female biology.

Oh god this a million times over.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!

This agenda is not being driven by transmen.

I'm sure there was a South Park episode like this...

Mr Garrison's penis was growing on the back of a mouse I think.

@cheeseismydownfall 😁 it does sound absolutely absurd doesn't it. Like something lost in translation.

The NHS website says ‘people with a penis’ here:

I don't know why, but this conjures up a mental image of people who keep a little pet penis in a box with airholes and take it out and play with it every so often. It is just so absurd.

Fair enough @Pumperthepumper

I feel equally the same for language around men's health/products aimed at men as I do with women. It should be 'men' and 'women' respectively. Just typically it's usually language around women that is targeted.

So there's my line in the sand anyway!

[quote StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]@Pumperthepumper so now show me where viagra is being marketed to 'men and people who struggle to maintain an erection'. Or is it only women who need to 'compromise' on language for period products.

Viagra is marketed to men. The screenshot mentions 'being intimate with their partner'- basically explaining why viagra is needed and how it's going to help. That doesn't read as being marketed at couples- the purpose of the product is to enable a man to have sex with a partner but it's marketed to men. Like I said, I expect lots of men may not even tell a partner if they are using it. [/quote]
I think you’re missing my point though - again, I’m not denying it’s more prevalent in women’s products. I’m saying it’s less prevalent that you might think in things like viagra or condoms because they tend to use ‘you’. So the wording would have to say ‘you (a man or person who struggles to maintain an erection) might want viagra’.

The NHS website says ‘people with a penis’ here:

www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/mens-health/why-can-i-not-get-and-keep-an-erection/

@Pumperthepumper so now show me where viagra is being marketed to 'men and people who struggle to maintain an erection'. Or is it only women who need to 'compromise' on language for period products.

Viagra is marketed to men. The screenshot mentions 'being intimate with their partner'- basically explaining why viagra is needed and how it's going to help. That doesn't read as being marketed at couples- the purpose of the product is to enable a man to have sex with a partner but it's marketed to men. Like I said, I expect lots of men may not even tell a partner if they are using it.

I can appreciate language must be hurtful around your son. My friend lost a baby and was really hurt every time she went to baby group with her second and had to answer a chirpy ‘first or second baby?’ with a really complex and sad answer. It’s awful.

Apologies cheeseismydownfall that was an assumption on my part. Of course there may be several reasons why you haven’t/ don’t get screening letters. No offence intended.

But what about in a medical context, such as an invitation for a screening exam relating to women's health? It may very well not be obvious from the context.

Ok but then the letter would say Dear ... (you) I am inviting you for nhs cervical screening etc. As I’m sure you’ve seen on your smear in invite letters.

I still think you're being disingenuous to suggest that viagra is not marketed mainly to men. It is not even similar to condoms tbh. For one, I'd imagine there are a fair number of men who might not even tell their partner they are using viagra.

I like the terms women / woman, and girl / girls.

It's really clear.

I just don't think that there should be mass efforts to qualify or further-define these obvious, long-standing and well-understood terms to make a very very few people feel validated in their clear suffering.

What we should have is an awareness of trans issues for people who may come across them in their lives (e.g. teachers, healthcare professionals, service providers). They should know what they can do in terms of trans people as a class, and for them as individuals. Any adjustments should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis confidentially, and as agreed (like reasonable adjustments for disabilities). We don't get rid of stairs everywhere because wheelchair users can't use them. We make general accommodations, and specific ones too if needed. So should it be in terms of this trans issues.

Women and girls should not have to blow out their own fire to keep someone else warm.

But what about in a medical context, such as an invitation for a screening exam relating to women's health? It may very well not be obvious from the context.

Sorry, that’s clumsy wording, they do say man. But not as often as you might think because it’s mainly couples they speak at.

Was JKR incorrect when she said that women have periods?

No she was absolutely correct. Most women do have periods.
Some trans men also have periods and they do not identify as nor wish to be referred to as women.

What do women have to do to include them other than expect for trans people to have the same rights, freedom and respect as everyone else?

Was JKR incorrect when she said that women have periods? Why is biology so upsetting to some people? Yet for stating that women have periods, she suffered a barrage of vile abuse, threats, she's been falsely accused of being prejudiced against trans people.

Why is it always about women? What should men be doing to be inclusive? Should marketing for viagra be for 'men and those who struggle to maintain an erection'? As after all, transwomen may choose to take viagra. Funny how that's never mentioned much and it's always about tampons 🤨