I am really surprised by the negative reactions.
JellySaurus · Yesterday 23:14
Why waste the money? Is it really something that needs research? When sex is relevant, sexed language should be used. End of.
I would put this sort of research in the same category as the extremely useful research by Emma Hilton and others into sex-differences in performance in sport. There never needed to be research to prove that there are differences resulting in competitive disadvantage to women. It has been bleedingly obvious to anyone with half a brain for time immemorial.
The reason it was extremely useful is that it was needed politically. It was an essential, evidenced counterweight to the politically motivated batshittery of gender identity ideology, that resulted in women losing out to men in what were supposed to be women's sports. It made a difference at the highest levels of sport regulation nationally and internationally.
"I would sign a petition requiring sexed language to be used in women's health."
I hope you signed the one below last year.
It resulted in the Dept of Health and Social Care conceding on this point and committing to action:
"the government acknowledges that there have been instances when an attempt to be inclusive has resulted in muddled language, which moves away from the primary requirement to speak in plain accessible English. The government is committed to working with NHS England to ensure we continue to find the right balance."
PARLIAMENTARY PETITION
"Require the use of sexed language in government-funded health communications"
Require the terms woman, girl and mother be used in their sexed meanings of adult female person, female child and female parent in government-funded healthcare groups and communications including policy and guidance documents, legislation and public health communications.
The Women's Health Strategy for England says sex-specific language should be used 'to communicate matters that relate to women’s and men’s individual health issues, and their different biological needs. However, that increasingly communications of all kinds related to women's health in the UK are being desexed. We believe this goes against well-established principles of health communication and risks confusion, inappropriate inclusion, and miscommunication and so undermines women's health and rights.
This petition is closed
All petitions run for 6 months
12,139 signatures
Government responded
This response was given on 5 September 2025
(My bolding)
DHSC’s longstanding position is that health information should be as clear as possible and language should be used that appropriately reflects sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
The NHS is for the people. It is founded on a common set of principles and values that bind together the communities and people it serves.
Communication and use of language are important when meeting the needs and preferences of patients – and speaking in plain English is an important part of being inclusive for all patients. The government and the NHS know the importance of using accurate and factual language in relation to biological sex as part of health communications. The Department of Health and Social Care’s longstanding position is that health information should be as clear as possible and language should be used that appropriately reflects sex as defined as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.
The NHS is there for everyone and while speaking in plain English ensures clarity for patients, there will be occasions when NHS service providers want to specifically acknowledge patients with differing characteristics, including the transgender community. This may mean that Trusts and providers decide to use additive language (such as “women and trans men”) to ensure health communications reach the largest audience. However, the government acknowledges that there have been instances when an attempt to be inclusive has resulted in muddled language, which moves away from the primary requirement to speak in plain accessible English. The government is committed to working with NHS England to ensure we continue to find the right balance.
The government therefore welcomes the clarity the Supreme Court judgement on the 16 April 2025 in the For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers case brings. The government, along with the independent watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), are working through the implications of the judgement to implement the changes required. In particular, the EHRC is working to develop a new statutory Code of Practice in light of the judgement.
More generally, the government is committed to prioritising women’s health as it builds an NHS fit for the future.
Putting women’s voices at the heart of healthcare design is non-negotiable. For too long, their needs have been overlooked. The 10 Year Health Plan prioritises local, co-produced services, ensuring care is not only safer and more personalised but shaped by women themselves.
The government has made good progress turning the commitments in the Women's Health Strategy into tangible action, such as providing emergency hormonal contraception free of charge at pharmacies on the NHS from October 2025; setting out how it will eliminate cervical cancer by 2040 through the new cervical cancer plan; committing £11 million to a major AI breast cancer screening trial; and taking urgent action to tackle gynaecology waiting lists through the Elective Reform Plan.
Department of Health and Social Care
Date closed
1 October 2025
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/716553
I don't think that the current petition is worded perfectly by any means.
Each new Petition needs five "sponsor" signatures before it can get listed. I have "sponsored" three Petitions so far. None of them was worded exactly as I would have chosen but, hey ho!, it was not me who had the gumption to take the initiative and submit those Petitions.
It takes a massive amount of work by our side to get a Petition to the 10,000 mark let alone 100,000 signatures. We do not have the benefit of legions of captured statutory and non-statutory institutions and associations that we can ask to support Petitions plus use those Petitions as campaigning tools to directly influence their members and audiences.
However, Petitions do not even need to hit the 10,000 target if there are enough of them weighing in on the very broad range of topics touched by gender-identity ideology.
There continues to be a marked imbalance of Parliamentary Petitions that are pro-gender identity ideology vs those that are "gender critical/sex realist". It is very obvious which side is still more clued up about how to use any means possible to influence legislators and the media.
This imbalance sends a clear but inaccurate message to Parliamentarians and the media:
- lots of people (maybe the majority of people?) really, really care about stamping out all this dangerous, outdated sex-based nonsense while just a few people (probably old-fashioned, ill-informed bigots) are opposed.
For that reason I will support and promote gender critical/sex-realist Parliamentary Petitions whenever I get the opportunity.
IMHO perfect targeting, impeccable grammar and 10/10 for composition are irrelevant: good-enough will do for a Petition to serve its purpose.
GCAacademic: "No way would I sign this. We'd end up with some TRA social scientists conducting the "research".
Possibly.
Given your Username, might I suggest that a constructive alternative (I am a die-hard PCP Kellian) would be for a GC Academic to submit a funding bid to conduct research in the area?
I have already stated above why I think this sort of research would be useful.