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 ?

@Floisme

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

No we're not and I object to anyone trying to do that for me who is not a biological woman

@DrCoconut

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?

Only ever female issues.

This wording doesn't horrify me.

Actually, the study itself also doesn't completely horrify me. It's very wrong that the women in the study didn't consent to being rated this way. However, it does seem to be an attempt to test a hypothesis, borne of informal observation, that certain physical characteristics potentially associated with differences in development were associated with endometriosis. It would have been much better if the physical characteristics associated with conventional "attractiveness" had been broken down better and presented this way (symmetry/wth ratio, etc.?). But informally it was "attractiveness" that the clinicians noticed, so they crudely assessed this. A bit shit, but not worthy of retraction, perhaps?

It just makes the "other people" sound like such precious snowflakes and I don't like using the word snowflake. You have a uterus, you're a woman.

Personally I’m ok with
Women, transmen and non binary females (or however they wish to be defined)
And
Men, transwomen and non binary males (or however they wish to be defined)

That’s inclusive of everyone but will be disliked by anyone who doesn’t want to be included with others of the same sex. But when it comes to medical issues it’s tough I’m afraid.

There probably should be specific campaigns targeting trans people for treatment, if not enough trans people are accessing them. I don’t see a problem with campaigns for women and transmen/ men and transwomen (plus non binary people if needed- no idea if nb people access sex specific services or avoid them).

I know posters have spoken about campaigns that have focussed on “men who have sex with men”’as the NHS was conscious that some men would not identify as gay even if they were sleeping with other men. Because getting the right services and support is important and if the message turns off your audience it won’t work.

This is just my view and I know not everyone here agrees.

I would still compromise if it were possible to insert an inclusive phrase without altering the meaning in any way. But so far I've not seen a way of doing that, although I'd be happy to hear more suggestions.

Additions like 'women and trans men' or 'women and others with a uterus' imply that the word 'women' isn't enough on its own. But it is enough, especially in the context of a gynaecological condition.

It might seem like subtle, inconsequential difference but, if we concede this point then I think we're conceding that 'woman' is a subset of something else, and it will come back and bite us big time.

I'm torn about this. While I loathe the attacks on the word woman I am aware that this growing number of trans men come from the vulnerable group of girls who, as ROGD appeared, instead of being offered support, therapy and counselling while they were children and below the age of consent were thrown into the hands of these male orientated lobby groups and treated by medics in the thrall of these groups.
I see them as vulnerable and alone and believe that gc women should be holding out our hands in support. And if that means acknowledging clunky and at irritating language in order to stand alongside them, then I'd accept that as a price to pay for demonstrating solidarity and sisterhood. Because we know that if / when they encounter doubts about what they have done as children, the trans groups will literally throw them to the wolves - as evidenced by their treatment of the detransitioners.

These are our daughters, our nieces, our sisters, our friends and our granddaughters. They won't thank us for this and will reject our support defining it as patronising etc. But we all know that as they mature and finally understand the enormity of these decisions, many of them will encounter regret and despair. I'd hope that they know gc women are on their side and we have always had their backs. And maybe acknowledging phrases like "women and others with a uterus / cervix /womb/ breasts/ periods etc are a compromise worth paying?

Just a thought.

There's probably 247 non binary people in the UK. It's quite funny that they need a special mention.

What about the following definition:
women, people with body parts susceptible to endometriosis, people not included in any other categories already listed who suspect they might have relevant body parts.

That's nice and clear and inclusive...

My objection isn't just that it's just clunky and irritating though. It's that the additional words are subtly, imperceptibly changing the meaning of 'women' in a way that could turn out to be very damaging.

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?

As far as I can see, there are no aggressive campaigns to include TW and non binary people in to the language of men's health.

The slogan of the prostate campaign is "MEN-they're worth saving". So by TRAs own logic, this clearly means they want TW and non binary people to die.

Alpacin hair loss shampoo isn't aimed at anyone with 'prostate havers pattern hair loss', nor is Viagra aimed at 'penis owners'.

Funny isn't it? I wish I could put my finger on why...

I am fine with that wording. As long as ‘woman’ is used.

Non binary people?

Biological reality check. You are born either male or female. That is it. Those who identify as 'non binary'' still have a biological sex and and they have medical conditions specific to that sex they were born as. Only women have a uterus. And they are women because that is their biology.

@truthisarevolutionaryact

I'm torn about this. While I loathe the attacks on the word woman I am aware that this growing number of trans men come from the vulnerable group of girls who, as ROGD appeared, instead of being offered support, therapy and counselling while they were children and below the age of consent were thrown into the hands of these male orientated lobby groups and treated by medics in the thrall of these groups. I see them as vulnerable and alone and believe that gc women should be holding out our hands in support. And if that means acknowledging clunky and at irritating language in order to stand alongside them, then I'd accept that as a price to pay for demonstrating solidarity and sisterhood. Because we know that if / when they encounter doubts about what they have done as children, the trans groups will literally throw them to the wolves - as evidenced by their treatment of the detransitioners.

These are our daughters, our nieces, our sisters, our friends and our granddaughters. They won't thank us for this and will reject our support defining it as patronising etc. But we all know that as they mature and finally understand the enormity of these decisions, many of them will encounter regret and despair. I'd hope that they know gc women are on their side and we have always had their backs. And maybe acknowledging phrases like "women and others with a uterus / cervix /womb/ breasts/ periods etc are a compromise worth paying?

Just a thought.

I think we will be helping these vulnerable girls more by pushing back and showing them that their bodies aren't wrong. They can be who they want without going down the gender ideology route. They need to see there is support for them to accept their bodies.

I think we will be helping these vulnerable girls more by pushing back and showing them that their bodies aren't wrong. They can be who they want without going down the gender ideology route. They need to see there is support for them to accept their bodies.

This. 💯

I appreciate, accept and respect that other GC women can make peace with conceding that the word woman no longer means all adult human females and therefore agree with alternate phrasings like women and ... to encompass all females being targeted.

However, I am no longer willing to do so. Compromise is how we got here in the first place. Any further compromise is unacceptable. And accepting that the word woman no longer encompasses all adult females because some of those females wish they were male or both male and female or neither, is a step too far for me.

Words have power.

That's why the word woman is under such sustained attack.

But that's not actually the fight that brought me to this conclusion. I was willing to compromise on this until I saw the emerging attack on the meaning of the word female.

Clue, a period app I really liked had a premium version I decided to buy because for the first time in years I knew when to expect my period thanks to its predictive algorithm.

So I went to their website and found they had removed the word woman from their content. Which led to entirely inaccurate articles (such as the one claiming that 80% of people suffer from PMS), which annoyed me first on a professional level - as a business writer I would have advised my clients against this approach for a number of reasons, not least the customer profile of those women willing and able to pay for their premium version.

And then I came across a passage where they apologised for using the phrase female biology when writing about menstruation and promised to find a solution that didn't present female biology as female (I am paraphrasing the promise, but it was a promise to erase the word female after already having erased the word woman).

That was the point where I realised that conceding the word woman is not the end point but the start of female erasure.

And decided no more compromise. The unjust man has moved me far enough. It's time for him to shift position.

There just looks like a lack of punctuation in that phrase... how do you know if your uterus is of reproductive age?

That sentence shouldn't be in any article; my inner copy editor is appalled by it. It's horribly clunky and difficult to parse.

What's a uterus-of-reproductive-age supposed to be?

What percentage of reproductive-age-uterus owners have the disease?

Are they familiar with the purpose of punctuation?

Does 'women' include transwomen do you think? If not, then maybe this is a step forward!

What's wrong with "and other people with". Who does that hurt?

If they use the word woman, and then also "other people" to include transmen, non binary, new made up gender... then what's wrong with that?

They are acknowledging biological women who identify as women as well as those biological women who do not identify as women. Everyone is included. Why are you so offended by that?

I am woman. I was born a woman. I have a uterus. Other female born people dont call themselves women. That has nothing to do with you.

If someone wants to say "women and other with a uterus" then everyone is included. You're being called a woman. They're not. Why would you be against that?

Huh, the BBC is running a piece right now about sonography on 'expectant parents '. Do fathers get pregnancy scans too?Sounds odd. Everyone is toeing the line though.

To anyone who thinks this can't hurt anyone and that objections are pedantic / uncompromising / hard hearted, may I refer you to the Julia Hartley Brewer thread.
JHB was investigated by Ofcom for saying on live radio that only women and girls menstruate.

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

Quite! DARVO alert.

I don't identify as a woman. I am one. And so is every other human born female.

@Floisme

Because these exclusion.

Women and girls menstruate.

Transmen and non-binary women also menstruate.

Now, I dont want to be defined as a menstruator. I am a woman who happens to menstruate.

As long as they said "women, transmen and others who menstruate" then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if they remove women and just say "menstruators" then I would be annoyed.

Removing or silencing a group to include another isnt OK. But listing all the groups.. what is wrong with that?

@DialSquare

I don't identify as a woman. I am one. And so is every other human born female.

Who reaches Adulthood I should add.