Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To actually be concerned that my DC will be learning this absolute nonsense

153 replies

ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 14:43

I've been noticing a lot lately on social media, people in the comments referring to 'penis holders', 'chest feeders', 'people with a cervix' etc...

Just reading a thread now on a group I'm in and not a single person is saying the word man or woman (it's a discussion about circumcision and whether it should be banned).

The world has gone fucking mad and I can't stand it. I'm genuinely concerned that my DC are going to grow up thinking this utter nonsense is right.

I feel like the only person who's thinking 'MEN, YOU MEAN FUCKING MEN FOR CHRIST SAKE' as literally everyone on it seems to be buying into this crap.

It's utterly insane.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:13

And how long will it be before woman is removed entirely and only cervix haver remains I wonder.

OP posts:
aliloandabanana · 13/05/2021 16:13

@Sunflowers095 - or should I just say "poster who referred to me upthread"? Perhaps we should just use really vague descriptors for everything because language isn't important?

I'm a woman and cervical smears are only needed by women. We need to stop pandering to people who are offended by everything, even normal, every day language.

PineappleCakes · 13/05/2021 16:14

Sunflowers095
Transgender men (biologically women), who have transitioned, don't want to be referred to as females/women. But they have a cervix.

They are a person with a cervix. Why is it so hard to be inclusive?

Why does a transgender man's wish to not be referred to as a "woman" override my, and many other people's, wish to maintain the definition of woman?

Sure, language and its uses change over time and maybe this will be the way we go, but given the importance in many areas for a clear definition of "woman" - why are we being encouraged to forgo the current, clear definition? Woman: adult human female.

Is it to #beKind? To me, it seems that by breaking down this particular language barrier, we are allowing sex categories to be blurred and that seems to only be to men's advantage. Call me a cynic.

AlmostSummer21 · 13/05/2021 16:15

Young children don't understand the concept of sex permanence. They don't understand that a person who is a man today has always been a man and always will be a man. I'm not sure how they are supposed to begin to understand sex permanence when they're being expected to believe that their teacher was a man yesterday but is a woman today.

Sadly it's not only children that don't understand - otherwise we wouldn't have this bollocks!! Men would still be men & women would still be women!

Sunflowers095 · 13/05/2021 16:15

[quote aliloandabanana]@Sunflowers095 - or should I just say "poster who referred to me upthread"? Perhaps we should just use really vague descriptors for everything because language isn't important?

I'm a woman and cervical smears are only needed by women. We need to stop pandering to people who are offended by everything, even normal, every day language.[/quote]
You're a woman but you're also a person. Therefore "person with cervix" is a term that includes you!

But if a description as simple as "person with cervix" is too much to handle maybe the wider population needs better education in place if we can't handle language evolving & one word descriptions.

Merchymor · 13/05/2021 16:15

@ParkItRay

And how long will it be before woman is removed entirely and only cervix haver remains I wonder.
But that's just speculation isn't it? It hasn't happened, woman is still default. Yes I'd object if the word woman was erased and I known it has been elsewhere, but in the case you mention it hasn't.
Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:17

And the word woman includes all biological females...

OP posts:
Proudboomer · 13/05/2021 16:17

But a woman doesn’t cease to be a woman if she has a total hysterectomy. We are more than a body part.

Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:18

But that's just speculation isn't it? It hasn't happened, woman is still default.
Yes I'd object if the word woman was erased and I known it has been elsewhere, but in the case you mention it hasn't

It's not speculation without merit though. I wouldn't have thought cervix haver/person with a cervix would have been on there at all, yet it is.

The other voice in this argument is very loud, from what I'm seeing online, and would definitely be happy to see the word woman erased completely.

OP posts:
Blossomtoes · 13/05/2021 16:19

I'd object if the word woman was erased and I known it has been elsewhere, but in the case you mention it hasn't

Exactly that.

Merchymor · 13/05/2021 16:19

@ParkItRay

And the word woman includes all biological females...
I don't see the problem with inclusive language as long as it A) Doesn't erase or alienate women as a group B) isn't too complicated
Devlesko · 13/05/2021 16:19

You just teach your kids differently as to what you think is acceptable.
If you don't agree with something, teach them what you do believe.

Sunflowers095 · 13/05/2021 16:20

@PineappleCakes

Sunflowers095 Transgender men (biologically women), who have transitioned, don't want to be referred to as females/women. But they have a cervix.

They are a person with a cervix. Why is it so hard to be inclusive?

Why does a transgender man's wish to not be referred to as a "woman" override my, and many other people's, wish to maintain the definition of woman?

Sure, language and its uses change over time and maybe this will be the way we go, but given the importance in many areas for a clear definition of "woman" - why are we being encouraged to forgo the current, clear definition? Woman: adult human female.

Is it to #beKind? To me, it seems that by breaking down this particular language barrier, we are allowing sex categories to be blurred and that seems to only be to men's advantage. Call me a cynic.

The issue with this approach is that by saying it's only to men's advantage puts forward the idea that all trans people have some secret agenda to take away women's rights. The hostile approach seen on these threads & mumsnet overall assumes that trans people are dangerous freaks. Like the bathroom debate, where the assumption is that all transgender women just want to sexually assault women in bathrooms.

And if we really care about women so much and want to create safe spaces for women, why is it that we can't use inclusive language for women who transition and are transgender men?

Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:20

So women are supposed to just accept 'person with a cervix' because it includes them but it's far too upsetting to accept that the word woman is also an inclusive word for all biologically female people.

OP posts:
Whatwouldscullydo · 13/05/2021 16:21

What's not inclusive about adult human female. Women is a sex class. That's it. You can have any or no gender identity you want.

disconnected101 · 13/05/2021 16:22

@ParkItRay

I feel like we'll just end up being seen as the phobic older generation who just doesn't 'get it'.
Us 'older generation' (I'm 42 btw - just at the tail end of generation X though I don't identify as a gen Xer but definitely NOT gen Y/millennial & yes, I know how wanky all that is too) mostly see through it but it seems as though the younger generation encroaching on the coattails of the current 'woke' generation know it's all a load of wank too. There's a growing backlash against it from them. It'll come full circle. OP, google Graham Linehan/Glinner/ the Mess We're In & you'll see that there are plenty of sane people standing up to this bullshit. But be prepared to feel absolutely horrified and infuriated. Sometimes I find myself going down a rabbit hole of reading, then I come up for air and look around and go about my day and realise that actually, MOST people do not buy into it. BUT THEN, I remember that there is a small group of bullies pushing their own agenda and making a lot of noise and a lot of trouble, who are actually affecting changes to legislation, and policy in schools/universities etc.!! it's fucking terrifying.
disconnected101 · 13/05/2021 16:22

As for the language, penis-holder, cervix-haver etc. it's like Newspeak. Very Orwellian. It sends a shiver down my spine. It's so ridiculous yet so insidious and I just can't believe people have bought into it rather than laughed it into a sewer.

Blossomtoes · 13/05/2021 16:23

@ParkItRay

So women are supposed to just accept 'person with a cervix' because it includes them but it's far too upsetting to accept that the word woman is also an inclusive word for all biologically female people.
Why not when that NHS website also says women? I can’t see what your beef is.
Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:24

Like the bathroom debate, where the assumption is that all transgender women just want to sexually assault women in bathrooms

I have never seen anyone assume that all transgender women want to sexually assault women in bathrooms. I have seen it said that the risk of it happening even once is reason not to allow it which is entirely fair.

So because not all transgender women sexually assault women in bathrooms I'm supposed to just accept the risk and keep quiet about it like a good nice girl.

OP posts:
pepsicolagirl · 13/05/2021 16:29

Why can't the phrasing be "Women, and people with a cervix". Why does the term Woman have to be lost or denied?

Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:30

@pepsicolagirl

Why can't the phrasing be "Women, and people with a cervix". Why does the term Woman have to be lost or denied?
It is that on the NHS Website (for now). But there are clearly people who'd happily have just 'people with a cervix' because it's 'inclusive' anyway so why does it matter.
OP posts:
Blossomtoes · 13/05/2021 16:31

@pepsicolagirl

Why can't the phrasing be "Women, and people with a cervix". Why does the term Woman have to be lost or denied?
That is what the phrasing is. It still says women.
Original poster
ParkItRay · 13/05/2021 16:32

Funnily the NHS page for prostate cancer refers to just men and not men or people with a prostate. Funny that.

OP posts:
NotReallyFeelingIt · 13/05/2021 16:32

YANBU. I despair for my kids growing up with this absolute bullshit all in the name of being inclusive, when it is anything but. Misogyny through and through and so many people falling for it hook, line and sinker and giving themselves a pat on the back at how terrifically inclusive they are. I am just hopeful that as mine are little a lot of the worst of this will have passed by the time they're teens/adults.

The other night my 5yo DS was learning about a kind of fish that is male and then becomes female and he said that for humans if you're born male you're male forever and if you're born female you're female forever. I said yes that's right, but that doesn't mean you have to wear certain clothes or act in a certain way (in 5yo-friendly language) and that made sense to him.

I want him to be 5 forever.

ClarrieGrundy · 13/05/2021 16:32

Women with English as a second language, women with complex mental needs, women refugees, women who have been forced out of education, women who are vulnerable; these women may not understand that they are 'people with a cervix' but they will know that they are women. And they deserve communication that is clear and understandable.

The 'inclusive' language of cervix havers is a luxury belief.

We need to protect vulnerable women. Not wankers who complain on Twitter that they are traumatised because the train driver addressed the passengers as "Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls". (The wankers were non-binary, and therefore exlcuded).