Is this what I think it is?

[MoonMutha]

Was browsing my news app last night and reading various articles. This one was about myths of contraception. 'Woman' seems to have been bizarrely replaced with 'person with vagina'. Is this some misguided attempt at inclusiveness? Surely it's more to do with ovaries and uterus anyway than vagina?! I just couldn't figure it out.

That is weird

As a [person with a vagina] I find that pretty bizarre.

Indeed - 'person with all the tackle required to conceive, gestate and give birth to a baby' might have been a more accurate bit of bollox to avoid using the incendiary word 'woman'.

For fucks sakes.

Christ.

That's myth busting?

Don't they know that male people have vaginas (according to some on here)?

So that's transphobic for a start.

Not to mention that the male person with a vagina won't ever be at risk of pregnancy.

It’s not even accurate. What if you are a transwomen with an artificial vagina? Do they need contraception?

Exactly! One can have a vagina but not be able to conceive... It's so bloody weird. I'm really tempted to contact the author. I wonder if the editor did it?

"Person with a vagina person"? Well that's nice and clear and doesn't at all sound fucking ridiculous.

It looks a bit like the unedited version went to press, before they had decided on whether to use woman/female?

I've marked papers before (on different subjects) when students had done this kind of thing and just forgotten to go back over it.

What about someone with a vagina who identifies as male?

I prefer to be referred to as a woman.

Transmen (those assigned female who now identify as male) are included in "person with a vagina"
www.westernjournal.com/ct/cancer-group-replaces-women-with-everyone-with-a-cervix-so-trans-people-feel-included/

'Female' and 'Male' are biological realities, however someone chooses to identify. Why not use those?

(Woman and Man have worked quite well up to now, too.)

That is fucking weird and creepy.

If you have to be weird and coy about it, why not just say "...prevents ovaries from releasing an egg".

Most of us ovary-havers could relate somehow. (Not the ill-educated ones but then health sites don't seem too concerned with them anymore.)

I'm curious to know which news app and who is being quoted. If it's Ruth Macklin (bioethicist, author of eg jme.bmj.com/content/42/3/155 on FGM) I wouldn't have thought she'd want the word 'woman' redacting?

If you have to be weird and coy about it, why not just say "...prevents ovaries from releasing an egg".

My guess is that the article is trying to use a direct quote which was written in a straightforward way using the most obvious and entirely well-understood terms, but misguidedly trying to edit it be 'trans inclusive'.

Women are no longer women. They are non-men they are not persons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonperson
Nonperson

Asserting that someone is a nonperson is implicitly a normative statement; by doing so, it is implied simultaneously that the person referred to is entitled to the rights that any person should have. Who is a person and what every person is entitled to depends on context and social norms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

That was my thought @MyAuntyBadger. The author perhaps hadn't decided what term to use and the unedited version went out.

This was the inbuilt news app on IPhone and I believe the article is from Bustle. I don't know this publication but I just tend to read whatever comes up in my feed. I have some interests set such as 'health' and 'technology'. This came up in health.

Now that some members of the male population have appropriated all the terms formerly used to describe the female half of the population it is necessary for obedient people to find new ways to describe the half of the population formerly referred to as female,, comprised of women and girls.

Do you think we should invent a new word that means woman or do you think we will get the woman word back in the end? A serious question.

Just thinking about that thread "are we arguing about the right thing" or something.

Has the time come just to try and communicate that we want to talk about biological females as a collective noun and please can we have a word to do that.

Ffs.
That is straight out of a nightmare.

"Woman or person who ovulates" I'd accept.
Or just say fucking woman or man who ovulates. Because that's what they mean isn't it. (Somehow I don't think the manosphere would take the use of that phrase seriously.)

Female woman or female man who ovulates.

Ovulators?

I'd like an ovulator. Something to stick up my fanjo to make me ovulate there and then. Would help TTC immensely.

Has the time come just to try and communicate that we want to talk about biological females as a collective noun and please can we have a word to do that.

We've got one. 'Women'. And - as discussed re the CRUK campaign, it's crucial to carry on using the word that everyone actually does understand perfectly clearly, especially in the context of public health/ethics information such as this.

Neologisms or obfuscatory language in such context harms women. In some (probably rare) cases, it may be appropriate to say 'women and transgendered men'.