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 ?

[quote BobbieDraper]@DialSquare

And what I typed was a continuation of what I had been asking before of all the posters saying they wouldn't use preferred pronouns. If the trans person passed successfully as their chosen gender, then those posters would be "tricked" into using the false pronoun. But if that person, wanting to be called her, looked male then these posters would not call them her.[/quote]
Well it wasn't how it read to me or others on this thread. You appear to be basing your argument on 'old school transsexuals". I think you need to do some reading on the stonewall trans umbrella. Many of us were like you until we looked deeper into this ideology.

@KarenKarendson

My point is, to all those posters, how do they manage day to day if you cant use pronouns until you know what someone's chromosomes are?

And all this "I can always tell". No you cant. There are thousands of examples of "identify the trans" photo collages and people cant. A lot of them pass.

If you refuse to use a pronoun being forced on you, then how do you use them everyday? Do you go around asking what sex someone was born? If you later find out someone was born a different sex, do you change what you call them?

@Roswellconspiracy

I am happy the word woman has still been used.

However I just cannot bring myself to be amongst those who are complicit in maintaining the false information regarding biological sex. I dont see how it helps anyone and I just can't do it.

Pronouns to me also make me hugely uncomfortable as I am.not a dishonest person.i find lying makes me feel absolutely awful and I would be so worried about messing up on top of feeling like shit for lying that I honestly don't know how anyone can say it doesn't hurt anyone or it doesn't affect me..
When you have to watch what you say akd not say whT you see thats incredibly difficult.

Have you seen that 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' piece by Fair Play For Women? fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

It sums up why it makes some uncomfortable. Mainly this:
"Forcing our brains to ignore the evidence of our eyes, to ignore a conflict between what we see and know to be true, and what we are expected to say, affects us.

USING preferred pronouns does the same. It alters your attention, your speed of processing, your automaticity. You may find it makes you anxious. You pay less heed to what you want to say, and more to what is expected of you. It slows you down, confuses you, makes you less reactive. That’s not a good thing."

I think if the language in these sorts of scenarios was "Women and trans men" it would be useful in so far as it helps educate those who haven't yet caught up with trans issues, and distilled in the mind that a trans man is female. Many people mistakenly believe a trans man is a man who has transitioned.

The more I think about it, the crosser I get here.

Endo is under diagnosed, with an often extremely delayed diagnosis. It is poorly treated, with the gold standard of excision surgery for moderate-severe endo being rarely/patchily available on the nhs. Women with the disease often have to push hard for treatment, pay out of pocket to see private specialists, travel long distances to centres of excellence. Pain is often dismissed and fobbed off, particularly in young women as “just period pain”.

Anything that encourages women away from understanding that regardless of how they identify, their female biology will expose them to certain diseases, is dangerous . Don’t let’s reshape the language - keep the language, hold the line that biology is what it is. Demand better for trans people, don’t perpetuate linguistic contortions that obfuscate an already fraught reality!

BobbieDraper
Pronouns are not relevant to this thread.
Internal organs are.

If HEALTH articles cannot give potential patients clear information
they are putting people (of all pronouns) at risk

[quote BobbieDraper]@DialSquare

Just read this thread, ir a number of others on here, which show the hundreds of mumsnetter who will refuse to use the pronoun chosen by the person in question because they werent born that way.
If they pass as the gender the choose, the people on herr have called it "being tricked". If they dont pass, then they wont use the chosen pronoun. And that's gender ideology?[/quote]
The position of Mumsnetters even here on FWR is far more nuanced that you present it as. We differentiate between traditional and newly coined pronouns, between general usage and hypothetical situations or people, between discussing actual situations or people and how we behave while being in specific situations or meeting specific people offline.

There's a wide spread of approaches to all three of scenarios, including at one end those who will never use anything other than chosen pronouns and at the other end people who will never use anything other than the pronoun accorded to the sex of the person discussed. Most of us are somewhere in between.

As for gender ideology:

Gender ideology is an ideology which elevates an individual's preference for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one or the other sex in importance above the individual's actual sex, especially for the purposes of organising society and writing and enforcing laws.

It is centred on the belief that we are all of us born with a preference for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one or the other sex.

This is typically explained by talking of a disembodied but sexed entity that is located inside an opposite sex body for individuals who identify as trans.

This entity is variously described as a female/male soul, a female/male brain or an inner feminine/masculine essence and a small number of other things.

Another tenet of the faith is that while the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with either sex are innate and material reality, sex itself is a social construct and that biological material reality does not, in fact, exist.

This is usually explained by referencing specific non-human flora and fauna where the sexes are organised slightly differently from humans, such as species where individuals can change from producing the gametes of the female sex to producing the gametes of the male sex (or vice versa, or both) usually in response to environmental or population pressures. Or by reference to the complicated medical issues suffered by the small number of people born with a Difference in Sex Development.

That reproduction even in those species and in people with DSDs still only happens via the combination of male and female gametes is typically not remarked upon.

Another tenet of gender ideology is that the expression of any disagreement with any of its aspects is an act of hostility. That is because questioning the tenets of this faith is framed not as questioning the belief of its adherents but their very existence.

HTH

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?

Endometriosis (like many female conditions) is extremely under-researched despite affecting 10% of the population. On average it takes 7 years to get a formal diagnosis which is only possible with a laparoscopy. Removal of deep endometriosis is one of the most complex surgeries performed on the NHS, it needs a surgeon with many years of training to adequately treat.

As someone with Stage 4 endometriosis, I think this study is pretty shit. What good has been done by figuring out that some endometriosis sufferers are attractive? Does it help the diagnosis and treatment of sufferers? At worst, it means that a GP will look at a tearful 21yo doubled over in pain and think she can’t have it because she’s not conventionally pretty.

There is so much that needs to be researched. The prevailing theory on why endometriosis happens dates back to 1922, they still don’t know why it happens. It’s insulting AF to find out that precious research dollars were spent figuring out that white Italian female sufferers were considered attractive by men, rather than a topic with the potential to actually help women.

Having thought some more about this - because I do like to compromise if I can - I think I could live with 'Women (which includes transmen)'.

Yes it's clunky and would probably annoy everyone but it's the best I can do. I think that, unlike 'women and transmen' it avoids the implication that women and transmen are biologically different.

It may seem like a lot of fuss over the word 'and' but I think we need to be vigilant and precise in our language. Not being so is arguably what got us into this shit.

Exactly, jcurve!

I’m still stewing on this, apologies for the multi posts.

In that article, when it explores general endo topics, stats etc, it goes for the “inclusive” language, so women+. But when it’s talking about the shitty attractiveness study, it only refers to women who were part of it.

So endo can affect all genders, but a shitty study that looked at attractiveness somehow managed only to evaluate women?

Huh.

And all this "I can always tell". No you cant. There are thousands of examples of "identify the trans" photo collages and people cant. A lot of them pass.

They may pass in carefully staged photos. But in real life, they don't. Particularly with transwomen. Women are programmed to be able to identify males whatever they are wearing. It's a safety mechanism. It's biological. Not possible to opt into that I'm afraid. You either have it. Or you don't.

Dont expect people to call you thin if you dont try to change.

Try re-reading. My point is that I cannot expect people to call me thin just because I don't identify with the reality of being obese.

Most trans people take steps to change and fit the pronoun they prefer.

Some try to match a stereotype. How is that any different to me wedging myself into Spanx? Might go down a dress size - still obese.

Having thought some more about this - because I do like to compromise if I can - I think I could live with 'Women (which includes transmen)'.

Sounds very sensible. However, as a poster on another thread has pointed out to me, compromise only works if the other part is also willing to compromise.

@FannyCann

I think if the language in these sorts of scenarios was "Women and trans men" it would be useful in so far as it helps educate those who haven't yet caught up with trans issues, and distilled in the mind that a trans man is female. Many people mistakenly believe a trans man is a man who has transitioned.

That's because linguistically and logically speaking they are correct.

man
is a noun that denotes an adult human male

trans
is an adjective which refers to (among other things)
-traditionally a person who has undergone a medical treatment to present as the opposite sex and
-today it refers to a person who identifies as the opposite sex, without necessarily having undergone any medical treatment

The adjective modifies the noun. In this case this phrase tells us that this man is an adult human male who identifies as trans.

Transman on the other hand is a compound noun that takes the same noun and the same adjective but creates a new word whose meaning is different from the meaning of its composite parts (like seahorse or bookworm or buttercup).

That new meaning is an adult human female who identifies as a man.

It is precisely because the terminology is not clear that for comprehension purposes I consider women and... phrases to be inferior than the simple word women.

^inferior to

Please do not let the pronoun squirrel distract you

this is about a serious healthcare issue that
only affects XX women
and articles about HEALTH
need to be clear and precise

clothes and identity will not alter the excruciating pain and long term damage on endometriosis

WOMEN need good, prompt treatment
articles should focus on that

@KarenKarendson

And all this "I can always tell". No you cant. There are thousands of examples of "identify the trans" photo collages and people cant. A lot of them pass.

They may pass in carefully staged photos. But in real life, they don't. Particularly with transwomen. Women are programmed to be able to identify males whatever they are wearing. It's a safety mechanism. It's biological. Not possible to opt into that I'm afraid. You either have it. Or you don't.

I agree. Photoshop especially does some very heavy lifting, but moving pictures or real life?

And I have found that many men do not have it. I was watching a program recently featuring a male transsexual presenting very convincingly as a woman. (Post-op, early transitioner, pretty, feminine but not over the top performative)

The fact that this is a male person is never referenced. And despite a slightly dodgy scene that made me feel uncomfortable for the female character that fact is also not relevant to the story.

It took me two scenes to realise this was not a female actor, but realise it I did. I had no emotional reaction to that fact because it didn't matter, but the longer the character was on screen the more obvious it became. I didn't feel tricked or annoyed. I just thought good for you, it's a great show.

Men I know on the other hand will look at even a late transitioning transsexual, look at an obviously male person, see boobs, long hair and make-up and despite hearing an obviously male voice conclude it's a woman. Once with my back to the TV, I asked "who's that dude talking", only to receive the reply "but that's a woman". I turned around and explained that it was someone who had transitioned late and was quite obviously male. "I just thought that was a very ugly woman" came the reply. Because boobs.

I can't help thinking that this idea that people can't tell is based on men's inability to tell. Because in my experience women can.

@ListeningQuietly

Please do not let the pronoun squirrel distract you

this is about a serious healthcare issue that
only affects XX women
and articles about HEALTH
need to be clear and precise

clothes and identity will not alter the excruciating pain and long term damage on endometriosis

WOMEN need good, prompt treatment
articles should focus on that

Sorry. I do apologise for contributing to the derail.

I think that is fine. They haven’t tried to erase women but they have acknowledged that it is an issue that is relevant to some people who do not identify as women. I would not like to be described as a person with a uterus but some people prefer that term.

human yes I have seen that article and I found it says things in a far more eloquently than I could say them.

I find pronouns to be a bit like sticking your hand in a blender. Something no one dies like ever because its automatic. But when you stop and think about what it is and what you are doing and overthomk the situation thats when you do a sorts if stupid things you wouldn't normally do.

The whole thing is just so controlling. I can't imagine ever asking people to talk about me in a specific way when I'm not even there. How self absorbed would one have to be to feel thet have the right to dictate that.

Medical articles should be factual. Endometriosis or hypernemesis etc diesnt give a shit how you identify. By all means mention transmen because that directly includes transmen.

But this "people" thing is nonsense..if a 16 year old girl hasnt started their period then that means a trip to the drs. Without the words female woman or girls they will just assume they are amongst the "people" who dont get periods.

How it can be ethical to remove the language that defines who its relevant to , i dont know. Facts are facts. Everyone needs to learn to deal with them.

I think we should be encouraged by this. A couple of months ago it would have been "People with a uterus."

The fact that a national newspaper is now as worried about offending women as about offending TRAs is good.

[quote BobbieDraper]@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?[/quote]
but listing all the groups. What is wrong with that?

Well, as lesbians, who had always been part of the LGBT umbrella found to their amazement, that as soon as the initials list got longer and more esoteric suddenly their L lost its validity and identity. The fact that they were women, with women's bodies and women's issues meant that they were suddenly both inferior and offensive to people who identified as women but who didn't , for obvious reasons ,have the issues that go with being a woman in a woman's body.

In years to come linguists will make special studies about how at the beginning of the 21 st century language was used so relentlessly by small vocal groups in an attempt to change biology. I can only hope they are also able to chart the successful fight back that rational people fought to halt the madness.

Sorry to slightly continue a derail but I just wanted to say to Charlie--so true:

I can't help thinking that this idea that people can't tell is based on men's inability to tell. Because in my experience women can

More than once there were instances where my male friends and DH could not tell. They were looking at the boobs and the hair and the skirt, I guess. Women see sex as biological, they need to know. They look at the face primarily, and the stance and the gait. PP who said women might discover some woman was really a man and then choose to use different pronouns because they are horrible (or was it a man was really a woman? can't be bothered to go back and check)...just no. Wouldn't happen. Also a derail, so not on.

This was also a derail and I offer many abject apologies, but OMG, we know!

Since women who have had a hysterectomy can still suffer from endometriosis afterwards they aren't even correct (it appears as many as 20-30% sufferers still have pain after)
The only words that work are women or females

I don't like it. I prefer the truth. I even prefer the truth to being kind. Once upon a time I would have been kind but now I see that truth matters more. And anyway, telling the truth is kinder in the long run.