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.

That was my thought too! My last period was just over a year ago, so I am not a person who menstruates.

However I am definitely a female-bodied person!

@NoSoupForU "And it isn't entirely beyond the realms of possible for people to be able to coexist quite peacefully, just minding their own business."

How does that apply to nurses being told by their employer they have to strip off in front of a man with a fully operational penis and balls? He was trying to father a child with his female partner. There was no question he was a man, other than the fact that he wanted to be called "Rose". Twenty six of the nurses signed a formal letter of complaint to their employer and probably more would've but were scared of repercussions. The Equality Act of 2010 allows for female only spaces based on the expectation of privacy, dignity and safety. Despite this, their employer fought tooth and nail to uphold the rights of one individual, namely the man. Do you not see the problem here?

You weren't forced to take maternity leave or go part-time. If worked with someone who finished work on the Friday, CSection on the Monday, few days in hospital then a week at home followed by her annual summer holiday with husband and nanny. Back to work after four weeks which included two weeks annual leave.

Your husband didn't have the year off so why would it affect his pension? I know men who've given up work to look after baby and mum has gone back to work. I suppose it affected their pensions.

@BigBlueSocks I don't know how many times I have to post the same comment on the thread, but the NHS produces information aimed at women, simplified information for those who need accessible versions, and information specific to LGBTQ people. Unless you or any of the GC advocates on here are willing to post any evidence of when these terms are being used to discriminate or exclude, its starting to look like this is a problem that isn't borne out in reality.

Not even "Pregnant People"? <eurgh>

Birdsong are you living up to your name???

Yes I am well aware of information in various forms- as I said, I worked with women/womens' health so please don't patronise me. My point was much wider than thst.
You have no idea whether I am 'GC' or not! (Whatever that means!)
If that is all you have taken from my post (snd there was more to it than that) then perhaps you might be one of those "TRAs" that we hear people speak of?

I get sick and fed up of people using facial hair as a shorthand for “must be a man”.

As someone with PCOS - a condition only biological women get, for obvious reasons - facial hair is an unwanted side effect. Some women witn the condition can even grow full beards. It’s lazy stereotyping at best.

Biological women can also be extremely tall, so a bit weird to use height as a proxy as well.

Well that is sad to hear. I think the exemption should be because of her intersex condition rather than because she has a GRC (given that trans people can get a GRC).

Fair enough - apologies. My point was the reaction to deliberate name-calling as opposed to accidental misgendering.

Why would you think I'm angry and a TRA because I pointed out that you made a point that had already been shown to be unfounded? I think it's basic manners to read a thread before posting, especially one that's only a couple of pages, but maybe that's just me.

The outrage on the thread is about when these terms are being used to replace reference to women. I wanted to see if I was missing something so I looked up NHS info, and I can only see these terms on trans specific NHS articles, the main articles refer to women having periods, breastfeeding, pregnant women. I am wondering why no one is posting examples of what we're supposed to be outraged about.

I love inclusivity, but I think we also need to acknowledge that we don't have to re-write everything to account for a tiny group of people. Someone who speaks a different language to the majority of the country should be able to access documents in that language, but wouldn't expect them to be the default language. People who need documents written in specialised language should be able to request them as standard, but shouldn't require everyone to adopt their specialist language

I'm a person who menstruates. One day I will be a person who doesn't menstruate. The distinction is important in health care. I'm struggling to see the issue with it.

@ManukaMoneyMaker the approach you're suggesting is what the NHS does, as far as I can see. I'm open to being corrected if anyone has examples where the language is being replaced with trans terms in material for the general population.

Yeah, I'm sure that will make all the difference...

How, exactly, do you think renaming breastfeeding as chest feeding would increase uptake?

Clearly you cross posted with my post pointing out that if consideration for the many women who do not menstruate was the driving concern, the phrase would be "women who menstruate" not "people who menstruate".

The only reason to use the word "people" is to promote the neo-sexist belief that womanhood is a personality trait not a physical fact with physical consequences.

I agree, i just looked up NHS website for menstruation and it references women and girls throughout, and I couldn't see any links to find trans friendly alternatives which actually shocked me! I do want minority groups to have the choice to access things that make them more comfortable

Just shows the influence Stonewall managed to exert over so many major institutions - so many managers terrified of disobeying their edicts and - shock horror! - being seen as unwoke dinosaurs!

It’d be interesting to know what minute percentage of biological males have ever managed to ‘chest feed’ a baby - does anyone know?

It's still breastfeeding though as mammary tissue is required to breastfeed.

I've been through the huge gender critical frustration of all of this and have considered my daughters future and I've come through to the other side of 'Whatever'- each to their own.

I haven't seen those terms used other than on MN or rage baiting on Facebook. People will continue to use Man / Woman.

Yeah i must have. Sorry.

The NHS uses the term in relation to people who are born biologically female, ie trans men or people who are non binary, who have had breast tissue removed, and (depending on the surgery) may or may not be capable of producing milk still.

I've only ever seen the term used about biological men attempting to 'chestfeed' on Mumsnet. There was a video about it supposedly being celebrated, but that video only ever appeared in articles criticising trans people so I'm not sure it was real or made to be propaganda for those sites.

What's your problem? Its really easy to just accept people aa they are and when certain terms are used you arw well aware why and who they mean. Petty and mean

If you don't consider womanhood as a fact of the body, yet still believe some people are "women", you are saying "woman" is a type of mind, which means

1. you are implicitly saying there are some ways of thinking that are aligned to or correct for women and some ways that are not (because if the difference between men and women is mental not physical, how else could this difference exist?). And that takes society right back to the days of believing that there are some roles, jobs and education are fit for women and some that are not.
2. the other side of the same coin - you are disconnecting the position and challenges women face today from their causes in our biology, in society's framing of that biology, and in the history and experiences of the other people who share that biology. But disconnecting us socially, linguistically and legally doesn't actually switch any of those things off. We still face the same physical and social consequences. We have just lost the history and understanding of why and how they happen, and the rights and language to describe and challenge them.

So, while you think that to recognise your biological sex is to "limit" you to your reproductive organs, I think that to not recognise my biological sex and the social consequences that come with that it to reduce me to half a person.

My sex exists. It is not all I am, but it an intrinsic part of the complete human being I am and the experiences it brings, good and bad, are part of the story of me. To be female in a public and political society still largely shaped by and for men is not the same as to be male in that society, and if we give up the language and concepts to explain that believing that somehow not mentionjng our sex will free us from sexism we do ourselves a great disservice.

You believe that to recognise your sex reduces you. I believe that to not recognise our sex is to turn us into half people, to make parts of our lives invisible and unsayable. It reduces us from real flesh and blood human beings to cartoon characters

@TheChirpyReader

It is still happening.

NHS Blood and Transplant have rehashed the covering letter they send with the Donation Safety Check Questionnaire, the new version is from 22.12 25. It now refers to "sex assigned at birth".

I would say it's them that's very late, not the OP.

If you really want to understand, to me as a female person (the group who used to be called "women"), the phrase "women and other people with cervix" is as offensive as the phrase "Scousers and residents of Liverpool who aren't thieves" would be to someone from Liverpool.

"Women and other people with a cervix" splits up what should be a simple category "women" by some artibrary additional quality, and thereby is telling people like me who hitherto were quite happily assuming the category women included us that unless we also have this additional, unrelated quality that someone else has decided is also required to be a woman, we no longer belong in that category "woman".