Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Use of “inclusive” language in medical leaflets etc

82 replies

TimeandMotion · 18/03/2024 11:03

As I understand it, one of the pillars of GC thinking is to resist the creeping use of “inclusive” terms in the medical context such as “people with cervixes” or “pregnant people” or “anyone who has ovaries”. I’ve seen examples of this and find the erasure of the word “women” and “female” quite chilling.

What I don’t understand is this: every trans person knows they are trans. They are well aware of what organs they do and don’t possess because they have either been through a complex set of medical procedures, or they have chosen not to transition medically. They have probably been advised during that process (if they had surgery) that they are still at risk of cancers etc in those organs.

Surely a trans man can’t find it that difficult to read a leaflet and say to themselves “I know this says women and I live as a man now but I understand that this applies to me because I have these organs”. Or, conversely, a trans woman thinks “I know this says women but I can ignore it because I live as a woman but I am perfectly aware that I don’t have a uterus”. There is no medical need for each leaflet to remind a trans man that this could apply to him too.

On the other hand, there are women out there who don’t have a good handle of their own biology, whether due to youth or lack of education. It’s important for them to say things like “women are at risk of this disease”. By their very history of having struggled with identity vs sex, trans people do not lack this awareness. And don’t they have any empathy for other members of their chosen gender who need to be protected like this through the use of simple, understandable language?

I know that I am not saying anything new or insightful here, but I am really failing to understand why this medical language thing is a hill that trans people feel the need to die on…or why the NHS have taken this approach.

But I am also painfully aware that what I have just said may well look like a classic example of “look at the words on that leaflet, it’s political correctness gone mad I tell ya”. And I know I’d be the first to say that an official form should, for example, never assume that all married women have husbands, or men wives.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
RedToothBrush · 18/03/2024 13:08

They aren't inclusive terms though.

They exclude people who aren't educated or have limited English language skills.

It's total bullshit.

CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 18/03/2024 13:07

nothingcomestonothing · 18/03/2024 12:42

Because it's not about being inclusive, not really. As you say, the people affected already know what sex they are and what sexed healthcare does and doesn't apply to them (though I think you could argue that some of the unfortunate youngsters growing up on the crest of the gender wave might very well not have that understanding going forwards though).

It's about dominance. About dominating the language, about redefining what it means to be a woman. It's rarely men's healthcare messages which are compromised, but women's always are. It's just males, asserting their dominance.

Agreed. I was in the train station yesterday and there were two huge posters stating "1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer".

It's power. Power lies with men. Men say they are women and demand that language is changed to accommodate them. Women say they are men, but the language remains unaltered. Gee, I wonder why.

duc748 · 18/03/2024 13:06

Well that pic says it all, doesn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with the "MEN" one, far from it: of course, the women's one should be similar. Clarity should be the aim. Not least, as noted by pp, for people for whom English is not a first language.

nothingcomestonothing · 18/03/2024 13:00

Bugger just typed a long answer and lost it, stoopid phone.

Short answer - balancing risk and evidence based practice goes out of the window as soon as you invoke the TQ+. Sociologists will be studying it for years to come I'm sure. And the UK context is different to in countries where healthcare is privatised. NHS staff generally like to think of themselves as kind and inclusive and progressive and it was easy for activists to use that,it was cleverly done and very effective.

Original poster
TimeandMotion · 18/03/2024 12:46

@nothingcomestonothing but why do you think that the medical establishment panders to it? Especially when there is a potential risk that a larger section of the population might be put at increased risk as a result. Isn’t balancing risk a core tenet of medical decision-making?

OP posts:
nothingcomestonothing · 18/03/2024 12:42

Because it's not about being inclusive, not really. As you say, the people affected already know what sex they are and what sexed healthcare does and doesn't apply to them (though I think you could argue that some of the unfortunate youngsters growing up on the crest of the gender wave might very well not have that understanding going forwards though).

It's about dominance. About dominating the language, about redefining what it means to be a woman. It's rarely men's healthcare messages which are compromised, but women's always are. It's just males, asserting their dominance.

Use of “inclusive” language in medical leaflets etc
TathingScinsel · 18/03/2024 11:28

Absolutely!

Add in that there is not-insignificant number of women in the U.K. who have limited English language skills, many of whom rely on their children to translate health related pamphlets and help with appointment making.

If a 7-9 year old doesn’t know who a person with a cervix is then he/she isn’t going to be able to tell mum she needs to make a smear appointment.

I don’t think those women should be thrown under the bus in the rush to be inclusive to people with gender identities. Use an additional language where appropriate, but keep the majority of the comms as simple as possible.