Plain English, Gender and compromise

There should be no compromise.

You cannot & should not change language to suit a minority.

Far more women on any given day are grieving after a miscarriage, but we don't hide all evidence of babies from the baby aisle in the supermarket just so that those women don't have to see the reality of other women buying nappies or baby milk & feel 'triggered'.

We don't ban all shows or films that include storylines of women getting raped because they may distress rape victims.

We don't ban computer games about war or re-enactment societies in case veterans find them traumatic.

If you take away EVERYTHING that someone finds upsetting we'll have to live sat in small boxes waiting to die because there would be nothing left in the world you could see or do.
Which wouldn't work for those who are claustrophobic of course.

It is NOT societies job to suit those with gender issues.
Like everyone else they just have to deal with living in a world where not everything is about them.

So no trans inclusion at all? Nothing?

[quote StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]@lazylinguist I think we're on the same page though? The people being offended I was referring to are the ones seemingly offended by tampons marketed for women. The people who would rather they be marketed to either 'women and trans men' or 'women and people who menstruate' or indeed just 'menstruating people'. These are products for women and girls and should be marketed as such. Just wanted to make sure I was clear! [/quote]
I think you might have missed the point a bit Strawberry. It’s not specifically about tampons etc, although if that’s your line in the sand, fair enough. It’s about the level of inclusion you’re happy with, and inclusion in tampons was just an example.

They main problem I have with this, particularly for charities and healthcare services, is that language is changed based on ideology with little or no consultation. It’s actually very paternalistic and the opposite of how health services should operate. When Brighton hospital changed the name of their maternity unit, how many of the women who use it did they consult?

@lazylinguist I think we're on the same page though? The people being offended I was referring to are the ones seemingly offended by tampons marketed for women. The people who would rather they be marketed to either 'women and trans men' or 'women and people who menstruate' or indeed just 'menstruating people'. These are products for women and girls and should be marketed as such. Just wanted to make sure I was clear!

I read on here the term "women +" to refer to women and relevant trans people, which I liked in its brevity, and in preference to other terms I've come across.

I have little headspace for this stuff- for people who want to get offended by what's written on a box of tampons when there is so much period poverty amongst women and girls in this country, never mind the situations faced by women and girls in developing countries because of menstruation and their biology.

It is possible to give headspace to lots of different things. Language is important. Also, 'offended' conjures up images of pearl-clutching and cat's-bum-faces. I'm not 'offended'. I just think it's very important for the words 'women' and 'girls' to continue to be used, and used accurately. As has often been pointed out, it's hard to talk about, report and document inequality or abuse of groups of people you can't actually name.

Honestly, I agree with all the arguments about plain English and the negative consequences that changing the language on other groups, including women whose first language is not English etc. And for many many years there have been trans men who have had no issues at all with tampons being labelled for 'women'- who have not taken offence or had their 'feelings' hurt by it. This is to appease a very loud minority.

I have little headspace for this stuff- for people who want to get offended by what's written on a box of tampons when there is so much period poverty amongst women and girls in this country, never mind the situations faced by women and girls in developing countries because of menstruation and their biology.

I think that private companies should be able to describe their target audience how they like, as long as it is within the law. Women can choose to boycott a company that chooses to market its period products to 'menstruaters' or avoids mentioning women.

When it comes to government organisations, public services, the NHS, the police, schools etc, the language used should be factual and based on scientific reality, not feelings. People who are biologically female should be referred to as women and girls. It is ridiculous and contemptible for the law to recognise the reality of biological sex in certain circumstances and pretend not to in others.

I suppose 'women and people who have periods' is sort of ok as a compromise. But deep down I find it difficult to accept the idea of governments and lawmakers basing official guidance and terminology on a desire to not hurt people's feepings, rather than on what they know to be factually true and accurate.

So makeup doesn’t have to say men or women, deodorant, clothes, shoes.....people can buy whatever they like so it’s not an issue.

It’s precisely because it relates to biology that this is an issue here.

Pumperthepumper - on the prostrate cancer UK website it is very clearly aimed at Men. (I didn't go into all the pages....) But references to stopping Men dying. Men we are with you. (No - and other prostrate havers....)

I think this is the key though isn't it. Women will be forced to accept things like 'women and menstruaters' yet men will be left at men. Not because the issues are different. But because we can't upset the men. The men will be alienated if we use that language so let's appeal to the majority and just say men.....

No I can't because so far, this only ever arises when we're talking about a biological function. I don't think it's particularly up to me to think of a non biological scenario but I concede one might be possible.

But condoms aren’t exclusively marketed to men in the same way prostate screening is. They’re marketed to couples, and they use second-person neutral language, generally, as a result.

Because some people don’t want to have the term ‘women’ associated with them. They’re still biologically women, agreed, but they’d rather be considered male.
I appreciate that but my view is that, when we're talking about a female biological function, accuracy trumps everything else. There might be other scenarios where I might concede conflating sex with gender identity but not this one.

Oh come on. Who is going to physically be putting the condom onto their body? Who is going to be taking viagra? They absolutely are marketed for men- it's just women will buy them too to make sure their partner has one to wear.

And reading through the tampons it's similar descriptive language for how to use the product- 'insert tip of tampon into vaginal opening'

It's disingenuous to pretend that this isn't affecting products for women in an unfair way.

Viagra was the other one suggested for ‘ejaculators’ but again, it tends to be similar to above - marketed for couples and written in the second-person.

I’d say a reason this is more prevalent in women’s products is because women have more products marketed to their biology (tampons etc) with a healthy dose of misogyny in the cutesy language reserved for women’s things.

Sorry I should have used to quote function, the above was in response to the suggestion of 'women and other people who menstruate'

I don't see how that's any more accurate? When we're talking about a biological function, where gender identity presumably has no bearing, who are the other people who menstruate? I don't think we should conflate sex and gender any more that it is already.