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.

cross posted with Catiette

Ditto! But the two posts show, it's really quite clear and easy to understand. I've found the "Rhinos' arguments are too complex to address" posts surprising in that respect - it's a new one on me. I mean, I know the overlaps with queer theory mean it can all get "a bit academic", but describing the real-life impacts on women, step-by-step, isn't at all.

I wonder if, just like the current difficulty distinguishing between "hatred" and "disagreement" in other people, there's a similar difficulty in distinguishing between "I find it too difficult conceptually" and "I find it too difficult emotionally" in yourself. This sounds patronising, but I've experienced it too. There are many pieces supporting this ideology that I just haven't been able to face, telling myself it's just too in-depth or tiring, when, actually, what would be tiring would be engaging with arguments I find upsetting and threatening.

I do try to overcome this, though (see my earlier post re. spending 3-hours in a manky café seeing whether I could counter every single point in a whole treatise "explaining" why TERFs are bigots).

I think that's what we all should do. (Not the rather sad station café pitstop part. Not recommended 😂).

Not wanting to take anything away from @Catiette and @Helleofabore 's great and thoughtful posts, but I personally don't use the shorthand "men in dresses" because I don't mind men in dresses at all.

I like men in dresses! I think men should feel free to wear all the dresses they want! The world would be better for it.

My issue is purely and simply with men, regardless of what they are wearing, who claim, truthfully or otherwise, to be women. (And also women who claim to be men, but to a lesser extent and, outside the common underlying sexism of genderist beliefs and practices, for different reasons).

It's the difference between a man wearing a fabulous woman's dress because why should only women get fabulous dresses, and a man wearing a fabulous woman's dress because he claims he is a fabulous woman.

AKA The Izzard Differential, to be a bit Big Bang Theory. Agree.

I agree Flirts. I don’t use the term men in dresses either. And I think that some men rock dresses.

As you would know though, I only used the term because it was used to belittle and demean women’s discussion points through the statement that some posters were ‘obsessed’ about those men.

Dr Emma Hilton wrote this about the language around cervical screening a while back. It is still relevant.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1289253876907089920.html

Some of these make sense in context - I prefer birthing mother, but I can see birthing person makes sense in some situations such as when the person giving birth doesn't intend to continue as the active mother afterwards

People who menstruate can make sense over just using women, particularly if your target market includes girls and/or discussing something specific to do with menstruation which won't involve all women or girls. It has been used in some spaces to avoid saying women, which helps no one but those who want to feel smug about it.

Calling anyone womb carrier or cervix haver is dehumanizing, and can be worded far better for situations where the need only impacts those with a uterus and/or cervix. I struggle to think of any situation where partner with eggs is relevant. These all come across as ways to avoid saying women.

But why not say "woman who menstruates" or "mother who gave birth" then? The people who do these things are not subsets of "people" in general, they are subsets of the specific half of people who are female, aka "women".

Girls are also female, some of them menstruate, and girls who are mothers are the group of mothers who are significantly at the highest risk across the board. I wouldn't use women who menstruate unless I was only talking about adults - the idea that menstruation or birth makes a girl a woman, makes them adults, is something I actively avoid in my language.

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.

Or because people is shorter than saying girls and women. The narratives in many cultures that menstruating or giving birth as something only women do, and makes girls into women regardless of their age is something I think causes significant harm, far more than saying people.

I've also used it when working with young people who are very uncomfortable with the physical facts of their bodies and meeting them where they are at. While language is important, I don't think all the fights around language need to happen all the time with all audiences - sure, with the organisations people have discussed, have at them, but when talking to a girl who has been through things many of us have and hates being seen as a girl as a consequence, neutralising the language to their comfort level can often be the first step in getting them to discuss those physical facts, consequences, and health information they need. Pushing the sex-based language at all times can create barriers and entrench them against the realities of their bodies.

While I see the treating sex as a personality trait in older adult rhetoric (usually the older men), I don't see a lot of the young people who push against discussing their sex view it as a personality trait, at least IME. It's more part of reality that has caused harm to them that they don't yet have tools to deal with and often hide away in fantasies where they can make it go away. Neutral language within appropriate context, like person who menstruates as part of discussing the issues they are facing with menstruation, can be part of developing those tools and starting to develop at least a tolerance towards that part of reality that they don't like.

“person who menstruates” depersonalises the information or discussion. Use of girls and women who menstruate is more personal and increases the chance the information is more carefully read and/or retained. Or if the girl or women doesn’t understand what menstruation is, may be encouraged to ask about it as it is directly associated with being a girl or a woman.

Thank you for a thoughtful and nuanced post. I hadn't thought about the slippery slope of moving girls into womanhood and I see why that matters.

I do, however, think that is something of a recon. The terminology "people who..." has only arisen in the last couple of decades in tandem with the belief that to be a woman (or girl) is an aspect of the mind rather than the body. Before then, "Women and girls...." was a very common phrasing to talk about, well, women and girls.

And with respect, while I also take your point about the right language to connect with distressd people, I think you may ne applying an unconscious value judgement that some people's language matters and some people's doesn't.

As a thought experiment, if you were supporting a young person whose genuinely traumatic treatment by a person of a particular social group lead her to use offsensive and dehumanising language for anyone of that group, would you follow her lead and use the language she prefers then?

You don't have to answer that, but please consider it.

Part of the reason women's language has turned out to be so easy to throw away is that women are so everyday, so normal that it was very easy to just see us as a neutral background for more interesting identies. Kind of like the environment, it's hard to see that small individual acts of selfish damage eventually add up to make the whole thing unstable.

Just to add to this,

Part of the reason that simple and everyday language aids and improves understanding and retention is via the cognitive load of the message we read.

By even tweaking a message to be more depersonalised and adding an extra interpretative step can be enough to cause a person to not take in the message. Because they might not immediately understand it is for them.

It's because it is used instead of woman. I no longer menstruate but I am still a woman and I still need healthcare aimed at women. I actually don't think the distinction between women who have periods and those who no longer do is that significant. Even contraception is still needed for the early years of menopause and equally many women who are still having periods have HRT.

When it comes to healthcare, women are women and men are men.

And accessible information usually is clear and simple, it doesn't tie itself in knots.

Women is an easily understandable expression and trans men know they have female bodies.

Also some trans men presumably stop themselves from menstruating (I would get the injection if I thought I was in the wrong body!) so they aren't people who menstruate anyway!