Lennie Pennie: Gender neutral language matters in the Herald

To quote ”Women don’t need every aspect of menstruation to be steeped in the pungent pink sludge of stereotypical femininity, replete with garish floral wrappers, cloying floral scents and condescending girlboss marketing.”

gosh her misogyny is showing, isn’t it? I hate the kind of person who thinks pink/floral=feminine=lesser. It’s the root of the issue really isn’t it? Stereotypical femininity is only valid and aspirational when a man is doing it as a drag routine. On a woman? No chance she should shame herself with that “garish, cloying, stereotypical” femininity.

the rest of her writing is turgid and school essay-like. How do these mediocre writers get promoted and paid?

There was important work progressing in areas where non-sexed/gendered language would be helpful. Firefighter rather than fireman, police officer etc. This matters because the language bolsters assumptions about who can and cannot do certain roles. This work is not complete as far as everyday usage is concerned.

The kind of twaddle that the likes of LP and groups ‘advising’ the NHS come out with undermines that because it all gets lumped under the same ‘woke’ umbrella and the misogynists can carry on misogyning.

Not all people are women, but all women are people, and as such in one fell swoop I can both cover women such as myself, while also broadening the scope of those I am able to include in my discussions.

Oh I am so looking forward to her future articles when some people stop identifying as people. Will she change her language again or say "don't be daft!"

Out if context seems to be as accurate as it needs to be.

I used to follow her on Twitter but stopped a long time ago (can't remember why). Just had a look... I'm blocked (if her name is LentilPentil) is it?

Quoted out of context:

"I have friends who don’t identify with womanhood, yet still have the requisite hardware, capacity or desire to experience menstruation and pregnancy [...] they are no less women as a result of this fact."

Where a person's sex doesn't matter, use "gender neutral" language if you want to and can.

Where a person's sex is relevant, use "gendered", in actual fact sexed, language.

Only women can get pregnant, so the correct description is "pregnant woman", not "pregnant person".

I agree with that, but I think that means womanhood is the enabler and not the cause.

Say I wanted to have a child tomorrow. I would be getting pregnant, giving birth, and breastfeeding because I wanted a child, not because I'm a woman. The thought process is "I want a child, therefore I have to get pregnant etc", not "I am a woman, therefore I have to get pregnant etc".

Maybe I'm not explaining this correctly, but I do see where she's coming from on this point, even if I disagree with her overarching ethos.

I'm using it in the sense that they can only do those things because they are women. Not that those things are what defines being a woman.

• of course in many women, womanhood will be the cause of menstruation but not other things like breastfeeding or giving birth.

”I didn't consciously omit gendered language”

Ah yes. Avoiding using common words and standard phraseology just happened without thought…

I think I understand where she's coming from here. We know not all women will breastfeed or give birth or menstruate, that goes without saying. Doing those is not a condition of being a woman. They do those because they choose to and are able to and in the right age range, rather than because it is an innate part of womanhood.

So they are able to do those things because they are women but they don't do those things because they are women. I.e. womanhood is the enabler, not the cause.

People who give birth, menstruate, breastfeed, get cervical screenings and go through other experiences do not do so because they are women.

LOL.

People who give birth, menstruate, breastfeed, get cervical screenings and go through other experiences do not do so because they are women.

Yes, they do. Men cannot and do not do these things.

I understand and I disagree.

Womanhood is under attack by people, predominantly men, who want to claim it and colonise it. Gender neutral language is no longer neutral in its political project. Its desire to be inclusive has been warped to reflect the wants of a small group over the majority.

Whilst I agree that we should not be limited by our bodies, we are all defined by our bodies and to pretend otherwise is not helpful to anyone.

I think she's quite clear. She wants to use gender neutral language because she feels it's more inclusive and more convenient. To which I say she can fill her boots as far as I'm concerned, it's not going to change how I approach my own language.