Oh come on New Scientist...!

The 'self identify as asian' is interesting as well since 'asian' means something different in the US than it does in the UK. Race or ethnicity descriptors have always been problematic though. Now people are mangling the language about sex so that becomes problematic as well. Menstrating women is the clearest term to use here.

This nonsense used to irritate me. But this week I've come across forums of males on HRT/E who believe they are menstruating...

Most were simply glorifying in mood swings, meh. But some have physical cramps and at least one had some irregular fluid expulsion of some sort. These are youngsters! They don't know what they are doing! N.B if you are male with any involuntary fluid discharge, especially in nether regions, see a doctor ASAP! Abdominal pain can be treated at home but if it persists, see a doctor. There's no chance you are menstruating or having "feminine" 🤔 reactions to E.

this has officially entered the territory of causing harm by fostering misunderstanding.

The cause and effect are so separated... and yet so damaging. it's infuriating.

It’s not just inaccurate it’s hypocritical too.

With a previous poster on this about the way this is presented. Surely if you want to be inclusive you should ensure the imagery reflects a diversity of “people who menstruate” as well as mangling the language avoiding the word “woman”?

If it said "women who menstruate" that wording itself would not be clear

"People who menstruate" is concise and clear

The only people who menstruate are women though? Sex = female, gender irrelevant.

And the apple health app collects sex, not gender (specifically uses the words sex, male, and female)

So 'people' is nothing but pandering, political language.

Mind you I stopped reading NS a few years ago when they first started with this nonsense, after being a subscriber for years.

If it said "women who menstruate" that wording itself would not be clear whether it involved non-adult females ie girls who are under the age of adulthood and therefore not yet women.

I have a straw you can clutch.

I would like to self identify as Elle MacPherson.

This is the study

"Variation in menstrual cycle length by age, race/ethnicity, and body mass index in a large digital cohort of women in the US"

europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr553165

There's a link to an open access source for the paper under Full text links on that page.^^

Which is to say, it only tells us about women who menstruate.

The source for this is a paper analysing data from the Apple women’s health study. all the participants were adults.

The accepted terminology for girls
tends to be ‘young women’ these days anyway. I don’t think anyone is imagining ‘women who menstruate’ only means adults.

That said, i bet the research did only include adults though. How many 9 year old (self identified) respondents did they have?

Quite. What a waste of paper.

If they can't even say the word woman, they're not getting this one's money any more.

it also avoids the question of did they/ didn't they include female people who believe they are not women

Why is a science magazine pandering to people who have a problem with accepting reality?

Wow - some women? (hope not) passively accepting the removal of the word woman / women / girls from our language about our bodies - and why? No good reason other than to pander to a tiny minority of the population alongside the powerful misogynist tendency.

What can't be named, classified or identified, can't be researched, protected or fought for.

You're a man aren't you

If it said "women who menstruate" that wording itself would not be clear whether it involved non-adult females ie girls who are under the age of adulthood and therefore not yet women.

Again it seems obvious to me that girls would be included. But if this doesn't seem obvious to you, just say 'women and girls'.

If it said "women who menstruate" that wording itself would not be clear whether it involved non-adult females ie girls who are under the age of adulthood and therefore not yet women.

"People who menstruate" is concise and clear, it does not suggest male people are included, unlike other mangled language we have seen, and it also avoids the question of did they/ didn't they include female people who believe they are not women, because the word "women" is played fast and loose with by publications so as to effectively become meaningless. As we have seen from the many people talking about "being a woman" who can't define it.

As I said, I know I'm against the grain here but I don't have an issue with its clarity.

So the reason I haven't menstrusted for 2 years is nothing to do with menopause and more likely to be related to my immense spice cupboard, then?

Women who menstruate would have given the clarity required (for people who decided that there needed clarification that a study of menstrual cycles featured women
who have actual menstrual cycles).

Self-identify here is basically an
admission that they’ve no idea who actually filled in the survey. So the people
who reported they were Asian also tended to report longer cycles. But, the responses could have come entirely from a group of bored sixth formers at a boys school for all they know.

Which is to say… don’t bet anything important on the results being that representative of reality. 😁

Apparently buying into it, that should say....

If a child is bleeding from the genitals, how do you know whether to give them a pad, or call an ambulance? Being that we cannot say 'boy' or 'girl' any more. Is it the one with the pink bow in their hair or is there some other way of knowing?

Well on the one hand, I agree, it’s so idiotic as to be laughable.

But on the other, the fact that it’s such evident nonsense-on-stilts to anybody whose IQ rises above 75, yet there’s a large body of utter eejits buying into it, makes it really sinister.

Also, LOL at an ideology that can accept menstruation may have some correlation with ethnicity but can't possibly countenance the possibility it has anything to do with sex 😂

You are supposed to be a bastion of scientific rigour!

It isn’t really. It’s an entertaining science-newsy magazine, not a primary research journal.