Isn't this a good thing?

What's your point?

First I was establishing if you would answer a simple question about replacing the word "woman"

This was your question :
Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

My objective of getting an answer to my question was to establish a base line with regard to your observations.

From that I can begin to trying to explore your objective(s) posting your question.

You start off with a claim how removing the word "woman" is beneficial to women,
who "identify as male" to go and be treated for gynae problems whilst having their "gender identity" recognised and not being put off going for treatment regarding their female anatomy
and also
does everything to ensure females go for the treatment they need.

This is an extact from the linked article:

Dr Karleen Gribble, a nursing and midwifery expert from Western Sydney University in Australia, said: 'Who decided that women should have less easily understandable information about medical conditions impacting them than men?'

Which is not supporting your observation.

You then continue to say that this forced language is not beneficial to males who want to disassociate with being men. For me the second part of your observation has limited value without a base line on the on the word "woman".

Once again I ask that you remove the word "woman" in the text and replace it another word or a number of words.

I think I understand your point OP and there is so far as I'm concerned a really crucial difference between what you see as happening and what those objecting see as happening (do correct me if I'm wrong about your point)

"Allowing women who "identify as male" to go and be treated for gynae problems whilst having their "gender identity" recognised and not being put off going for treatment regarding their female anatomy."

I personally have absolutely no objection to nhs staff such as midwives being trained to be as considerate and kind as possible in their language choices when talking to service users. But think that that shouldn't extend to lying or giving inaccurate information as I don't agree that that is kind, helpful, supportive etc.

However, women's anatomy and bodies have historically been treated as obscene and unspeakable. You cannot assume all women have a firm and confident understanding of their own anatomy, even to the extent of knowing the principal structures let alone the proper names for them. SO in writing that is intended to talk to women about women's health and what they need to do, watch out for etc. Erasing the word woman is seriously detrimental to those messages being effectively communicated.

When I was a child I thought that the reason my mother didn't use certain words was a kind of squeamishness. In her 70s I had to come to term with the fact that it was way more than that and teach my mum the words for her own anatomy as doctors kept assuming she knew what they were taking about.

India Willoughby is far from the only person who is unable to figure out whether they belong in the group cervix havers. But its women whose lives are at risk from the kind of confusion this language causes.

Look how unclear non-sexed language is: ^people going
through a miscarriage like his
own^ . Quite apart from the fact that the miscarriage was not John's but his wife Chrissy's. A man can feel very invested in his wife's pregnancy and grieve if she loses it. So I'm not arguing about that. But that sentence is ridiculously confusing, firstly erasing a woman with non-sexed language and then assigning her pregnancy to a man with sexed language.

Hmmm… my husband (father of my children) may get ovarian cancer soon, that is so scary. Should I book him a consultation?

It's important that gendered language is used when referring to health. Reading the NHS page about menopause makes it sound like anyone can go through the menopause. I teach Year 4 and we now cover puberty and changes to bodies. Can't imagine teaching that without gendered language. Half the boys will come out thinking they'll be starting their periods in the next few years 🤣

Except the OP, seemingly .

If men are the only ones allowed to call themselves women, it creates a problem. Any fool can see that.

Hi OP.

This is quite a simple question that you might have missed.

If you are a child growing up to be an adult, how would you know whether you had a cervix or not?

Indirect discrimination, surely?

Can you remove the word woman in the text provided and replace it another word or a number of words?

If you can please provide the word(s)

How super to have observations

How about you, @rumplestiltskinp de-sex this bit of legislation?

Now
^The cervix referred to is not found in the spine of both female and male.
The cervix is only found in the female (thats half of the human population)

This is nice simple English and should be very very easy to de-sex the languge to include in your words women who "identify as male"

Definitions

2. In this Act—

“appropriate person” means—

(a) a relevant woman, or

(b) where a relevant woman has died, a dependant of the relevant woman concerned;

"relevant woman” means—

(a) a woman—

(i) identified as part of the Review of Cervical Screening as having CervicalCheck cytology review findings that were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned, or

(ii) whose cytology slides were sought, by the Review of Cervical Screening, to be re-examined as part of its review but where one or more of those slides could not be re-examined as part of that review by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the woman concerned,

or

(b) a woman who received a diagnosis of cervical cancer—

(i) who had a screening history through CervicalCheck,

(ii) whose diagnosis of cervical cancer was notified to CervicalCheck,

(iii) whose cytology slides were re-examined as part of the retrospective CervicalCheck cytology clinical audit, and

(iv) whose cytology review findings, following the re-examination in accordance with subparagraph (iii), were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned;

“restoration of trust meeting” has the meaning assigned to it by section 32 ;

“retrospective CervicalCheck cytology clinical audit” means the lookback clinical audit of cytology slides in relation to 1,482 women carried out by CervicalCheck between 2008 and prior to 5 May 2018;

“Review of Cervical Screening” means the review commissioned by the Minister and conducted by a Clinical Expert Review Panel under the auspices of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the results of screening tests of all women who have developed cervical cancer since 2008 who participated in CervicalCheck;

You didn't say it was inclusive, but that is the excuse given for using de-sexed language in situations where sex is relevant.

What is the relevance of validating people in a belief? The purpose of the information is medical. It is not there for validation. No mention of belief systems is made, because they are not relevant.

Every single transman knows that they is female. They know that medical information referring to women is aimed at them. Whether it is relevant to them also depends on physiological situations, such as whether they are pregnant or have passed the menopause, not on whether they have rejected certain stereotypes or want to be called something else.

As for whether transwomen are validated, thats not my problem. I, and all other women, are not service humans. We do not have to give up our language and our healthcare and our spaces in order to make a person feel validated in their belief.

Response Hi President Biden! Thank you so much for doing this. I'm wondering if you could adjust your wording from "women's healthcare" to "healthcare for people who get pregnant and bleed". I am a (trans) woman but dont need these services. Thank you for your work!

I have very little tolerance for this shit. It's an admission they know that they are not a woman.

I do not need "reproductive healthcare" either because I no longer "bleed" and therefore can't get pregnant but because I am as much a woman as I was when I did bleed and could get pregnant I do not need to have language changed to reflect my current reproductive potential.

Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

No, as others have said, it's about removing biology from the word 'woman', and making women's health a series of conditions that happen to some random people. Cervical cancer doesn't happen to women, just people with a cervix, pregnancy doesn't happen to women just fertile people with a uterus.

Its to stop women being able to see themselves as a class who are different from men. Not every women will become pregnant, or have periods, but we all have the same reproductive system, just in some of us it's immature, others it's not working too well, some of us are old enough to have gone through the menopause. But instead of us all being called women, we have been divided into menstruaters, menopausal people, cervix havers.

It also helps avoid having to admit that it's women who are used in the surrogacy industry. Instead of women we become surrogate, women havers, egg donors.

'The old, now deleted version, of the overview page said: 'Ovarian cancer, or cancer of the ovaries, is one of the most common types of cancer in women.'
It also said: 'Ovarian cancer mainly affects women who have been through the menopause (usually over the age of 50), but it can sometimes affect younger women.'
But these paragraphs were deleted, and all mention of the female sex removed in the January update.
The new gender-neutral description on the page now reads: 'Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer, but it mostly affects those over 50'.'

Who the hell thinks that new version is better? Why?

Who the hell is it inclusive of when illogical, inaccurate nonsense is presented as medical information?

How is it inclusive or supportive of any demographic to provide them with substandard medical care?

Chestfeeding is feeding your baby with milk from your chest.

OP, it would look like in some US states, where the segregation is maintained, but by gender identity, not sex - see the thread about 80-yr old who was almost arrested when she questioned what a male (who identified as a woman since this March) was doing in women's changing room whilst little girls were getting undressed.

I believe it has since been reported it was a transwoman (male) member of stuff who was given a job of supervising these little girls to get changed.

What a wonderful world it would be if we were just more progressive and kind, like in LA or Washington State, huh?

I don't think it's female transitioners pushing for this, either.

Witness this exchange on Twitter.

the official twitter account of the President of the United States Today, I issued a Presidential Memorandum to protect and expand access to reproductive health care. I am fully committed to protecting women’s health here at home and around the world.

Response Hi President Biden! Thank you so much for doing this. I'm wondering if you could adjust your wording from "women's healthcare" to "healthcare for people who get pregnant and bleed". I am a (trans) woman but dont need these services. Thank you for your work!