I am not a "person who menstruates"

[auserna]

AIBU to think that terms such as "birthing person", "partner with eggs", "womb-carrier", "cervix haver", "people who menstruate", "chest-feeder" are not only insulting to women but downright hurtful to those who have any gynaecological and/or fertility issues, including DSDs?

Those terms may be considered inclusive to/by people whose gender identity doesn't match their sex (c.0.5% in the UK) but are exclusive to those with DSDs or gynaecological issues (c.12% in the UK).

NB My figures are rough, partly because the statistics relating to people with DSDs are very contentious and because "gynaecological issues" is a broad term, but they are clearly significantly higher for the latter group.

Just a Facebook short. The woman was just making the point that she hadn't come across that particular term before (and neither had I). Obviously a lot of the others have been around for a while.

But do they? Or are people making assumptions based on the voices of a tiny minority and the probably well intended approach some organisations have taken to try to avoid inadvertently discriminating against protected groups?

Where are these TRAs who "get away" with it?

Well the impression I get is that a lot of people (granted a minority, but a very vocal one) do expect people to concede in all sorts of ways such as giving up single-sex spaces and changing aspects of language. Some of those are trans people themselves but others are "allies" who can be just as militant and vociferous.

You see it all the time in articles and on videos and I rarely see any push-back.

I suppose it depends on the articles and videos you choose to read and watch then.

Chest feeding makes absolutely no sense. Men also have breasts, as is evidenced by the fact they can get breast cancer. I would expect a healthcare organisation to at least be familiar with basic biology.

That is a fair point. I do try to look at things from a range of perspectives but I'm aware that this is likely skewed by algorithms.

Right, so a minority. In the UK there are about a quarter of a million trans people. You hear the sensationalist stories on social media and in the gutter press about a handful of them. So called trans activists are campaigning primarily for inclusiveness are they not? And it isn't entirely beyond the realms of possible for people to be able to coexist quite peacefully, just minding their own business.

Very very few sex crimes are committed by trans people. They are predominantly committed by men, as we know. But some sex crimes are committed by women, yet I don't hear all the hysteria of how a female pervert could be lurking in the toilets or changing rooms. It's like people have lost all ability to assess a situation and risk for themselves now.

Right, so someone said it on Facebook?

But where were they saying it came from?

UK Government? the NHS? UK Councils?

People say all kinds of shit on SM. Usually about other things they've seen on SM.

If it's on an official document the fine, address it. But if it's just 'someone said on Facebook they saw it somewhere else' then you'll just have to accept people say all kinds of shit on an unregulated internet, much of it designed to inflame and get clicks and likes and people frothing about something.

I could easily say 'just saw a post on MN saying experts have said WW3 has started' and it'd be true that the post exists but not true that it's official evidence that we all need to worry about.

I can't see a problem with that. I'm a person, I no longer have a cervix, I'm still a woman and I'm still a person. The sign seems perfectly clear to me.

I also do. A husband in fact. Got back from taking ds swimming and there he was - poaching them so we could have them for our lunch!

Or, the more likely scenario is that they're trying to improve the uptake of it so they're trying different approaches to appeal to as many people as possible.

Yes it makes no sense.

No, not that context, but it is just a poor attempt at a euphemism for women - that's the problem.

You're no longer a "person who menstruates", but you're not no longer a woman. And if you were female but didn't have a uterus so had never menstruated you'd still be a woman.

Yeah, once upon a time when a trans identifying male popped up on a zoom call or in a meeting I would genuinely have thought "wow, it's great that people born in the wrong body are starting to feel they can be themselves".

These days I have the same reaction I would to someone turning up wearing a t shirt with a sexist slogan or sexist joke on - it's someone making a public display of their reductive beliefs about women.

I get that lot of the young ones are just not that aware of the basic sexism underpinning the concept of gender identities and are probably lovely if naive people, but as a women it's still depressing and demoralising that my employer considers it acceptable to have such sexist views openly performed in the workplace.

I knew you'd say that. I'm not trying to use it as proof in a court of law or an academic article, but the person making a video showed a copy of the document to camera - and it's hardly unbelievable, is it? We know such terms have been used in an official context, such as by the NHS.

Are you saying you think all these terms are a good thing?

So do you think a trans woman wouldn’t expect you to address them as a woman?

In my experience, it's pieces written by trans identifying people themselves and in the comments to them.

If you've not seen this, Medium is a good place to start. Thoughtful, long form and self published.

Something isn't automatically rendered acceptable just because it only affects, or is only carried out by, a minority.

I don't want to be called a bigot by anyone just because I don't happen to believe that men can become women, thank you.

Let's say you live to be 80, which is probably about the average life expectancy for a woman of 18. Now do the maths- of the 62 years, on average at least the last 30 are without menstruation, then add an average of those with gynaecological issues, those not having periods because of their contraceptive choices.

So what of the 51% of the population does that leave?

Its all so a few men who want to wear dresses and pretend to be women don't get offended.

I don't think you're making sense OP.
If a poster for smear tests said all women should have them, it isn't particularly inclusive of women who have gynae issues, eg those who have had hysterectomies, and the same if it were referring to periods and those who were most menopausal. It isn't implying those people aren't women. If anything, you suggesting the word woman should be used in those contexts implies that some women aren't women if they aren't capable of making babies.
Referring to the person who gave birth makes sense for lesbian couples, as they're both mothers, but the advice would be to one but not both.
The other terms I've honestly never seen or heard outside of Mumsnet. I do wonder where some of you hang out that it's so common.

I must go around with my head in the clouds cos never heard of them.

Yes I get fed up with being told women menstruate, have a cervix, have a womb because I'm a woman without them, I also dont have ovaries so don't have eggs. I am still a woman.

I don't think it is trans people that say these things.