Menstruators!!! - What's Up, Docs? on Radio 4

[IdaGlossop]

This is an interesting programme on Radio 4. I have learnt that 1/3 of menstruators suffer period poverty. Interesting. I have learnt that the plastic in a packet of sanitary towels is the equivalent of eight plastic bags. Interesting. I have learnt that it is possible to make a 30-minute programme about the defining physical process of the female body without once using a female pronoun. Ludicrous and infuriating.

YABU = menstruators is an inclusive word to use to describe male and female people losing the lining of their womb each month

YANBU = menstruators is an absurd word that panders to the deluded fantasists who have persuaded themselves that a human being born male can lose his womb lining once a month for 40 years.

The Van Tulleken twins appear to be totally captured. Winds me right up as they're not thick and should know better.

Loosely related to the OP…

I (Female) am undergoing IVF with my husband (Male).

We had an admin task to complete consent forms for our embryo transfer this week. He had to sign to confirm that he as patient 2 is consenting for the embryo to be transferred to me as patient 1.

I can see that he needs to give consent, the embryos are also his.
I can see in scenarios of same sex couples with a donor it is important the consents are correct.
I can also see in scenarios with a heterosexual couple using donors for egg and or sperm the consents must be in place.

But….Patient 1 must ALWAYS be a woman. Objectively the donor, spouse or partner in a same sex couple is never a patient in this context. So a different form would be used in all instances except female recipient with male partner, no donors.

So I can only conclude this is the Data Governance PC team protecting against hypothetically upsetting individuals who would never be involved in this process ahead of reality.

I am yet to be called female on any paperwork btw, almost a year in :)

I love the Van Tulleken twins and Chris especially has opened my eyes considerably about UPFs.
They are however totally captured. If you watch the royal institution xmas lectures, Chris is very very careful to never use a pronoun, e.g. when talking about and to children in the audience. At one point, he brings a large snake out and the snake is called “they”. It is so weird 😂 The only thing that salvages it is that the snake handler at the end of the snake clip clearly forgets that the snake is meant to be “they” and slips up, calling him “him”
I always wonder how the snake felt about being identified as non binary…

I'm a biological female who doesn't menstruate, had many breaks from mensturation, so not surprisingly never felt defined by it when I did menstruate.

Definitely learning towards YABU.

Why not "women who menstruate"

5 syllables vs 3 for "menstruators". 3 is better.

'Bodies with vaginas' sounds as though the vagina is glued onto the outside of the body.

It does make sense not to just use the word "women" (or "women and girls") in some contexts, though - e.g. the opening of the OP "This is an interesting programme on Radio 4. I have learnt that 1/3 of menstruators suffer period poverty".

Only around half of females in the UK menstruate (due to age, health, etc) so "1/3 menstruators" would be equal to about "1/6 of females". Can't say I like the word much but I actually think the usage here adds a degree of clarity.

Also just opening themselves up to an own goal there!

What about women who have undergone surgery for whatever health reason and have a vulva and breasts but no uterus/vagina/ovaries/cervix or currently have the one ovary. Referring to them as ‘person with vagina’ could be incorrect!

Women or person who identifies as a women is clear enough comms in reality. Anyone who wants to be included is included and no-one is offended by being excluded with this ridiculous wokeness.

I’ve always considered myself a pretty liberal/ left leaning individual. But this latest era is not for me!

Farage-like (and I am not a supporter) I think with dismay of the £££s of public money spent on creating contorted sentences such as these.

This is a very, very important point.

Health topics should be discussed in clear language precisely because not everyone understands information important to them otherwise.

I wonder what happened to the Plain English Campaign that was around in the 1990s/ 2000s?

'1/3 of women and trans men who menstruate...' would be equally clear.

But only women menstruate. So pointless saying ‘people’.

All this unnecessary fuss because a tiny percentage of people are uncomfortable with their DNA and the sexual/physical ramifications thereof. Women menstruate. Not all women do, but everyone who menstruates is a woman, as far as I'm aware. That may make some people unhappy, but that's life, I'm afraid. I'd rather a tiny percentage be made uncomfortable than try to relabel women as 'menstruators', 'chestfeeders', 'cervix-havers', and so on.

While I'm no longer a menstruator myself I'm f**king furious on behalf of all women and probably most men that this ludicrous term is being used. Screw "inclusion" if you have periods you're a woman.

The Van Tulleken twins are self aggrandising twats IMO. They’ve drunk their own kool aid

Your 17 year old is female, then. A woman, a girl, whichever. Surely you know this?

But they don't use this, because "transwomen are women". This is what gives the lie to any optimistic claims that it's all about protecting the feelings of transmen (females identifying as male). I don't believe this for a second. Just look at the backlash against the Supreme Court decision that "woman" means "female": it ensured that transmen retain maternity protections which they otherwise would have lost - a huge win for human rights. Yet does anyone ever hear about this? No, the focus is on the loss of access to female-only spaces for transwomen, and the rhetoric is that, largely on this basis, the judgment is shameful and backwards.

The difference in priorities (as reflected in men retaining their sexed language, as others have pointed out) is stark - and sex-based.

No. "person who identifies as a women" is not who menstruates. People who identify as women are men, they don't menstruate. They don't need to be included in discussion of menstruation, because it's not about them. Some people who identify as men however do, because they're actually women. See how ridiculous this is?

Menstruation is not about identity, it's about bodies. Women have female bodies, and not all of them menstruate, but no man has ever menstruated or ever will.

And to all posters suggesting that the word "woman" shouldn't be used, on the basis that not all women menstruate, this is utterly absurd - when is there NOT an exception to a rule? I don't like strawman hyperbole, but really, the only logical extension of this is that we also ban:

Walking offers humans a multitude of health benefits (after all, not all humans can walk, and for some - the clinically obese - it could even be dangerous: it may be upsetting to such people to hear this bland generalisation!)

The English speak a common language, also known as "English" (such thoughtless, cruel exclusion of pre-verbal babies and children - not to mention some naturalised immigrants!)

The point being that we use language to organise our society and I, for one, think the class of humans from whom all other humans come need a word of their own to describe them. Those who don't think this quite genuinely frighten me - their naivety / complacency is astonishing, and dangerous.

No, it's dehumanising and objectifying. Women is perfectly fine to use, we're all aware that we don't have periods our whole lives, how incredibly patronising to suggest we don't.

How about girls?

And, if you're so minded, female non-binary people, too.

(And are female transgender people who aren't adults "transmen" or is there another term? I've enuinely no idea)

"Females who menstruate" or "menstruators" are the clearest, to me.

I really think it depends on context. When using stats, like the aforementioned "1 in 3 [insert noun] suffer period poverty", the stat becomes inaccurate if you use "women" or "females" instead of "menstruators". "Females who menstruate" would work.

It's important for statisticians/economists to make the distinction between "women" and "women who menstruate" when talking about period poverty because if they said "1/3 of women...." that would be from a total that includes millions of women past menopause, and not tell us anything specific about the sub-set of woman who both require sanitary products and can't afford them. The minuscule subset of biological females who identify as men and have not had gender reassignment and are in period poverty is not statistically relevant to any headline number on the topic, so I prefer to focus on the main problem, which is that millions of citizens of the UK can't afford the sanitary products they require.

One of the reasons why I never listen to ridiculous, smug, idiotic group think Radio 4.

If everyone who has posted here could spare a few minutes to email a complaint to BBC Radio 4 (easy to do via their website, copy and paste from here if you want) they might, just might, start to pay attention. Women are licence payers and we shouldn’t put up with being insulted- menstruators, my arse.

I agree with your original post, but not with this one

I'm a woman but I don't menstruate. I went through the menopause last year so no more periods for me (yay!). I'm still a woman though