The insidious creep of language

[JellySlice]

Compare the language used to describe the link with TSS and tampons in this BBC article and in the articles it links to. The BBC article manages not to mention women in connection with tampons. The links in the article use 'women' and 'female'.

Dh, a GC scientist, did not even see the omission until I pointed it out.

Subtle...normalising...outrageous.

Yes, I have noticed that the BBC often sins by omission.

WEll given the article was talking about the fact that TTS is not primarily caused by tampons these days, keeping the language sex neutral might ensure men also engage with the article

And I have been pondering how much using sex based language in day to day life reenforces and support sex based sterotypes. By always indicating the sex of person you imply the sex is important in day to day life. An important part of the interaction. And you have quick access to the sterotype even if you have never met the person

Women still needs to mean AHF and is needed in some circs...from surveys to health to mating. Just perhaps sometimes it’s not relevant

To me the important question is whether the language is sexed or gendered. For example, tampon use follows from sex and sexed language is correct. But if there was a push to e.g. do away with gendered titles (mr mrs miss etc) I would support it on the grounds that these titles conjure gender stereotypes but have no relation with sex that isn't mediated by gender.

Citizen Smith was ahead of his time.

I think you're overreacting. The article is saying that anyone can get TSS as it's not restricted to tampon use.

"Today non-menstrual related TSS is actually more common in the UK than menstrual-related, which means it can also affect men and even children."

The first example is horrific: a man had all four limbs and half his face amputated.

It is the sub heading that fails.
TSS can kill but it doesn't just affect people who menstruate - as these people found out
Deliberate ommision of the word women in the opening paragraphs as well.

Subtle and deliberate.

The artlcle is about toxic shock syndrome caused by tampons. A subject relevant to biological women.

Further down thown the page, the context moves to Strep A infections affecting men as well.

Then men, of course are explicitly mentioned.

TSS can kill but it doesn't just affect people who menstruate - as these people found out

How about this instead.
TSS can kill but it doesn't just affect women who menstruate - as these people found out.

Changing ONE WORD to make the meaning clearer.

One word.
WOMEN.

The artlcle is about toxic shock syndrome caused by tampons. A subject relevant to biological women.

No, the article isn't about tampon use causing TSS, that's the whole point of the article:

"Here three people - none of whom contracted it via tampons - share their experiences of this incredibly rare infection."

I agree that the phrase "doesn't just affect people who menstruate" can be construed as women-erasing but I can't think of a better way to word a byline. "... doesn't just affect women who menstruate" is ambiguous as it could be interpreted to mean it affects only women, menstruating or not. Whereas the point of the article is that anyone can develop TSS - man, woman or child.

Why not 'doesnt only affect women'.
Or 'isn't only a women's issue'?

Seeing as some women who menstruate don't use tampons anyway, there is no way to be entirely clear whichever you say it because it's not menstruation that causes TSS, but tampons.

I think "TSS can kill but it doesn't just affect women who menstruate - as these people found out" makes perfect sense.

..so not just menstruating women (as one might assume), but people.. ah, people means men and women, both sexes.. interesting, didn't realise that.

The contrast of 'women' with 'people' is the intriguing hook.

Without the contrast it just sounds odd and uneducated. If 'people who menstruate' translated actually means women, then people who get TSS can also mean just women. Its weird.

I tend to skip things that seem dumbed down or misogynist. Most of the BBC then. I certainly wouldn't trust their science articles any more.

Meant to add that I think that BBC3 is deliberately doing the woman erasing.

Without the contrast it just sounds odd and uneducated. If 'people who menstruate' translated actually means women, then people who get TSS can also mean just women

Exactly. Not only does it erase women, it makes the article less clear.

TSS can kill but it doesn't just affect menstruating women - as these people found out

Immediately clear that this is relevant to people who aren't women and to people who don't menstruate, as well as to the group most commonly connected to TSS: menstruating women.

The artlcle is about toxic shock syndrome caused by tampons. A subject relevant to biological women

No it wasn't. Quite the opposite that TSS can affect men and children.

I felt like a complete fool the other day, when I read the word ‘menstruators’ and thought nothing of it. As a woman who menstruates I was horrified about how easily these changes can become normalised.

Missing the point of the thread but there is a really lovely documentary about Alex and his wife, Lucy, who I think is an absolutely amazing woman:

The artlcle is about toxic shock syndrome caused by tampons. A subject relevant to biological women
Point taken.

The article states TSS is caused by strep A which can affect anyone.

However, menstruating people is a peculiar description for menstruating women.

Isn't TSS the same thing as sepsis?

Like blood poisoning and septicaemia etc etc.. now all called sepsis as basically the same thing? Or am I terribly wrong