"Period experiencing humans"

What a load of nonsense.

Mangling language. Ridiculous

How ? Are women not period experiencing people?

The nonsense-speak unintentionally captures an assortment of males who could be said to experience periods in that they experience changes to their lives caused by the menstrual cycles of the women &/or girls in their lives. Moreover, we have all experienced multiple periods reading this thread if we think in US English 😉

Yet again doing a disservice to women & girls from some of the most deprived backgrounds: women & girls is clear recognisable English; they are words people with a low reading age [in English] will recognise/even young children translating for a parent know & understand. In this instance it’s a targeted marketing email - but this is the language they think it’s acceptable to use; & use of this sort of stuff spreads. But who wants to protect groups who actually are vulnerable & underserved when they don’t even have a flag?

This type of language makes my blood boil, chuffing fuck wits!! 🤬

I can’t decide whether this makes more or less sense than cervix or vagina owners. I’m going to plump for it having the same logic but actually being more offensive, because it’s patronising. Most people, even if their English isn’t strong, will be able to work out whether they have a period if they are a woman or trans man and therefore see something about women’s health and work out if it applies to them. I’m a young woman with cystic ovaries and anorexia, so I don’t menstruate. I’m also smart enough to work out that I’m still a woman and might not need feminine care related to periods from context.

I think there's a twee fashion on social media and among wanky "progressive" types for saying "humans" when you mean people. Not that that would be much better, but it would be a bit because it wouldn't sound so completely weird.

Don't forget the non binary people too

it's a sensitive way of including everyone

No.

It just excludes women.

@UsuallyJustLurk - can I make a suggestion that you send this to Milli Hill, who collects examples of dehumanising language and puts them in a free newsletter called the Word is Woman? She may well lurk on these boards already! (https://millihill.substack.com/s/the-word-is-woman )

This is one of the worst examples I've seen since, er, "womb-holders" the other day.

So in an attempt to include one group they're excluding another. I'm sure they could do better than this, if they wanted to but it seems women are easy pickings. If companies want to be inclusive and respect different identities then my identity as a woman should also be respected. Its how I identify and will continue to identify for the rest of my life. To not honour that shows how little respect they have for me as a woman and I worry about the impact of that with regard to things such as healthcare etc.

No chair transitions into a badger. No deer transitions into a chain saw. No male transitions into a female.

Someone of a fixed sex, fixed at conception, can make cosmetic and chemical alterations to their body and make dress choices. That's it. Their skeleton, their DNA, their chromosomes REMAIN the sex that they were at conception and will remain that sex for as long as their DNA remains retrievable.

I am not pretending otherwise. Have your beliefs. Stop trying to convert me, and I will not be forced to say to you that you are lying.

Well exactly. It excludes every woman and girl who does NOT identify as a ‘period experiencing human’. And let’s face it, that’s all of us.

Nearly all women experience themselves as being women. Nearly all girls experience themselves as being girls.

We are half the human population.

So why are we the only humans not allowed to be described by the words that reflect how we think and experience ourselves to be?

That phrase is also non-inclusive as it’s not plain English. In fact, I’ve only just realized it wasn’t a mid-type by the OP.

Garbled, confusing language is not inclusive.

Give me strength 😨

No one can transition to male that is impossible. It’s not inclusive language as it denies a female experience as being female.

Inclusive language would be ‘women and girls, including transmen and females who identify as non-binary’. Or something similar.

It is impossible to change sex. No female human can ever transition into a male.

Women, girls and transmen would be OK, not what was used.

It's almost like the aim is to make everyone so cross they finally go right, stop it. All of it. It's over.

They will keep going until someone does. There is no amount of craven grovelling that will satisfy narcissists.

Hopefully we’ll get a chance to get rid of it

Women will be so fed up they’ll just take it all down

I took the hump with ModiBodi's marketing a long time ago, unsubscribed and flatly refuse to have anything to do with that guff.

Yeah. I'm dumping that back on the delusionality-experiencing humans, who can take their differently batshit language experience and do the much fucking off with it.

It's almost like the aim is to make everyone so cross they finally go right, stop it. All of it. It's over.

But, but, but.... what about the non-binaries?

Women and transmen does nicely

It includes transmen whilst keeping them different to women and doesn't exclude most women through dehumanising biologically reductive language

😹😹😹 idiots.

However you 'transition', if you menstruate you are a woman. End of debate.