One in 10 women and other people with a uterus of reproductive age have the disease.

[ListeningQuietly]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/05/disgusting-study-rating-attractiveness-of-women-with-endometriosis-retracted-by-medical-journal

Should that sentence be in the article ?

I can live with that.

"other people with a uterus"
which people other than women have a uterus?

At least they use the word woman, rather than 'people with cervixes'.

As much as it is female sex only I don't mind conceding "and other people" for the sake of inclusivity when they have still used the word "women" instead of pretending just anyone can get it

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Trans men? Or do you want to erase them?

Trans men? Or do you want to erase them?

Why doesn't it say "women and trans men" then? Less dehumanising?

Non binary people?

I actually don't mind this phrasing, it's much better than most. But I'd like to know how "people with a uterus" rather than "trans men" is respectful to FTM trans people.

@Floisme

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Same here.

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.

Non binary people?

Everyone is non binary. These people are female.

It's a change in the Guardian's language isn't it? Maybe they are listening after the pounding they got on Twitter.

That study though gives me feel sick. It took the researchers 7 years to withdraw the article and not even an apology.

In a different context then gender might be relevant but I don't think it is here. I think that, in a medical context, it should be biology, and therefore sex, that matters.

Agree. Identity isn't the issue here.

@MiladyRenata

Non binary people?

Who are they in this context?

This is a paper about a medical issue affecting the body. There is no such thing as a non-binary human body. Women have endometriosis. W-O-M-E-N. Women.

The word woman is a sex designator, not a gender description.

Medical conditions do not give two hoots about how a person identifies. If it's a gynaecological condition it only ever affects female people. Women and girls.

Keep religion and quasi-religious beliefs out of medical practice. But then I'm an atheist who understands how badly served women and girls are by and in this male-dominated field.

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree. Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

Far clearer...

I think you will find that we're not the people trying redefine the word 'woman'.

One in 10 women and other people with a uterus of reproductive age have the disease.

To me that reads as one in ten women have the disease and other people have the disease and that in order for these other people to have the disease they must have a uterus of reproductive age. Gobbledegook.

@MiladyRenata

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree. Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

When just under half of all women do not know what a cervix is and that they have one, it is less clear to use the word person with a cervix than the word woman.

And that results in more women dying.

As for me seeking to redefine the word woman, that's incorrect. In every language in the world there is a sex designating word for female people. In English that word is woman. That's why in national laws and in international human rights law, the word woman has been used to describe female people and only female people for more than 70 years.

That society expects women qua females to conform to particular sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the word woman is a sex designator and not a collective noun for those who conform to their societies notion of how a stereotypical female person is expected to look and behave.

The idea that the concept of woman self-evidently also necessitates accepting harmful, regressive and oppressive sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes as an indelible part of the deginition of the word woman and therefore of being a woman is the opposite of progressive.

^definition

@Floisme

There was a time when I would probably have compromised on that, but the implication is that there are people, other than women, who have a uterus. So no.

Me too.

'other people'? looks round for the other categories of human..

The word used should be female if woman is deemed to difficult for some. (not that I am prepared to give up the word woman)

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. We can see your very obvious DARVO milady

Genuine question here as I haven't done much reading on the subject. Are conditions that only apply to biological males described in such odd and unclear ways? Or just female issues?

Yes, I’m perfectly aware that you want to redefine the term “woman” in strictly biological terms. Others disagree.

I'm aware that in recent years some people have tried to change the definition of 'woman' from that which has been used throughout the world for millennia. The universally understood, strict biological definition. Disagree if you must. The onus is on you to persuade that this definition is wrong.

Where’s the term “person with a cervix” is fat clearer and less ambiguous.

To somebody with a fluent grasp of English. And somebody with a basic education in reproductive biology. Don't be silly. 'Woman' is far clearer.