Sick to the back teeth of “people with ovarian cancer” etc

So, ahem, 'interesting' that in all the stuff in the media currently about prostate cancer leads with the word "men" every single time. There are literally no people suffering from or being screened for prostate cancer, only men. So only women get erased then. As ever "inclusivity" excludes women.

😁Didn't notice the speech marks at first and was wondering what people with ovarian cancer had ever done to you!

I would use 'people' and 'women' interchangeably in speech without thinking, but I strongly object to any intentional avoidance of 'woman' when discussing cancers that are either sex specific or predominantly suffered by women.

Yes, I think that's the way forward Henrietta. Also, local charities tend to have lower overheads, fewer staff and smaller marketing budgets (if any) - so more of the money goes to the actual cause.

The charity sector needs to stop jumping on the bandwagon with this inaccurate language. I'm shocked to see Ovacome refer to 'people' with ovarian cancer, not women: "Every year in the UK over 7,000 people are diagnosed with ovarian cancer".

What's wrong with the word 'woman'? Seriously, what's wrong with it?
I might ask them.

The charity sector is completely captured. I've cancelled nearly all my donations to the national charities and instead give my money to local charities, where I can see how the money is spent on practical help not ideological nonsense.

Just listened to today’s Woman’s Hour on R4. Same shit. The CEO from Ovacome (Ovarian Cancer Charity) referred continually to people with ovarian cancer, not women. Took a quick look at their website and yes, it’s ‘people’ all the way. What was that about women’s erasure?!

If you want to be inclusive then you add you don’t take away, so they could say ‘women and trans men with ovarian cancer’ but they do not need to remove the use of ‘women’.

Or better still Women, Including 'Trans' IDing Women.
It's 'inclusive' and accurate. Win, Win.

BBC trolling women again, ironically on "woman 's hour", a speaker saying "people with ovarian cancer" No, ONLY WOMEN CAN GET OVARIAN CANCER. what is wrong with these women? Handmaids the lot of them.

Saw the report on the BBC news channel this morning, they also used the word women! Where are my smelling salts 😂

😂😂😂😂😂

you just piss off a load of women who are sick to the back teeth of all this bullshit.

I suspect that is entirely the point of it!

Isn't it tedious dealing with the equivalent of flat earthers who've taken up so much of the public space with all this?

But we mustn't give up, exhausting as it is. The BBC have been exposed and are having to reset and return to more objective accurate reporting. Only the most extreme activists support erasing the language of women for the miniscule % of those who think they're in the wrong body.

The NHS is a toxic mess with Fife & Darlington cases showcasing why. The SC judgment will force them into complying with the law and things are changing, slowly, but they are changing.

The word woman is being reclaimed. It was inevitable - lies can never be sustained.

I'm surprised we've got this far on the thread without someone chipping in "so you're saying women aren't people".

In anticipation of that inane comment - no, that isn't what's being said here.

It's like me saying I don't like drinking alcohol and then demanding that everyone else also stops drinking alcohol because of MY life.

The outrage would probably be higher for that than for the demands that no one be referred to as a woman anymore.

If you want to be inclusive then you add you don’t take away, so they could say ‘women and trans men with ovarian cancer’ but they do not need to remove the use of ‘women’. Overwhelmingly the people with ovarian cancer will identify with the word ‘women’ they will recognise that the message is for them, they will understand that the content of the conversation or text has relevance to them. When you remove the word that calls the right people to action then you dilute the message and make it unrecognisable. In attempting to be ‘inclusive’ to the teeny tiny number of trans men who will get ovarian cancer you take away a very commonly known word that is recognisable to women globally who may have a low level of understanding of the English language, you potentially prevent women who need to hear the message from understanding that it is for them, and you just piss off a load of women who are sick to the back teeth of all this bullshit.

That's interesting @Imdunfer, thanks

It started after the fallout about the Donald Trump misquote.

That bit took the headlines but the report was very critical about the bias in the Gaza coverage and went into great detail about the lack of balance in the trans issues coverage.

It was all round about the same timing as the Supreme Court judgement and the reporting began to be noticeably different.

I imagine that there are a lot of relieved people inside the BBC and another group gritting their teeth.

I just checked the BBC News website, prepared to be enraged at the usual linguistic gaslighting, and was profoundly gobsmacked. They actually used the word "woman"! At least three times! Has the new head actually told them to rip up that bloody style guide?!

Yes, it is. But it started for me with being irritated by double standards. It’s hard to unsee.

I agree, I hate the erasure of the word "woman" in these contexts.

My second objection is that it makes the figures wrong. It's not X% of people, it's X% of women. It's quite simply inaccurate.

I used to think that, then I noticed that men with prostate cancer are never called people with prostate cancer and it got on my nerves, it’s like we all need reminding that women are people too. Like men won’t take ovarian cancer seriously unless they are reminded, like it’s all ‘women’s issues’. It’s just very irritating every time you see it.

Only a misogynist could complain about genetic women asking to be called women.

Ask yourself why over 99% of people giving birth should give up the right be referred to as the child's mother, which is a very special thing to be.

People can live their lives how they want. What they shouldn't be doing is demanding to change everyone else's experience to suit their own.