Advice (and moral support) please re: changing women's language

[SybillTrelawney]

Recently someone at work posted a link to an article about "chestfeeding", and expressed surprise that "breastfeeding" might be considered transphobic. There followed a string of replies, some fairly benign, some pretty ridiculous (I would love to quote them, but I'm not sure it would be wise), and one pointing out that the removal of certain language can actually have safety implications, e.g. women who don't know what a cervix is may not realise they need to be screened if the word "women" isn't explicitly mentioned.

Then someone (a young woman) wrote a long post saying that they don't think it does any harm to women to refer to them as "people who ..." or similar, because it's more inclusive to minorities and moves us away from gender binaries. They also said we should be thinking about how resistance to changes in language could look to people who are trans or struggling with their identity, and that we should take any opportunity we can to make things less difficult for them.

Please will you help me construct a response that is safe for a mostly-reasonable-but-increasingly-woke workplace? I am feeling so frustrated, angry and helpless, and I am sick of this kind of nonsense being left unchallenged. I need to explain (in the "kindest" way possible), why in fact it can be harmful to women to have changes to their language imposed on them without their consent, and the hypocrisy in saying we need to be mindful of the language that trans people want us to use, but not the language that women want to be used about them.

Before Covid came along and our workplace coffee room was stripped of 75% of chairs so we have to sit in lonely isolation, one to a table, and no clutter allowed, I used to buy a couple of copies of the Times when they had these sorts of articles and leave them lying around strategically open at the relevant place. You might still be able to do that in your own work place if you are lucky.

Good thread. It's actually a good sign that anyone posted about this in the first place, and that some responses were sensible. Let us know how it goes down.

The way I think of it, when you make changes to help one group (in this case v small) you should think through unintended consequences for others, and ppl have shown some unintended consequences in the thread.

HCPs, breastfeeding supporters etc work with ppl where they are, try & understabd where they are coming from, & it can be beneficial to shift language to make the relationship with that individual work well as long as you don't lose accuracy, when working 1 to 1. There should also be communication for trans ppl imo that uses language that works for them, so they can access health services. But it shouldn't replace the most understandable, relatable language for the rest of us. There's a public health principal that you use language that's accessible to the most ppl, but also accurate, and that shouldn't be set aside.

For me the more philosophical point is important. We are not a rag bag of body parts. Lactating parents are discriminated against at work & in public and struggle to get support. Birthing parents are discriminated against, they also do most childcare, and end up earning less and having a crap pension. Individuals with a cervix need screening, ppl with a womb might suffer from endometriosis & have their pain dismissed. Ppl with a womb of childbearing age might be passed over for promotion. They also need secure access to contraception and their lives are a bit dominated by worrying about getting pregnant or not getting pregnant for a while. But these are all the same ppl, and if we can't name that, and see that this is completely tied to the position of women in society, and that we need healthcare for female ppl as whole ppl, full humans, not a series of unrelated body parts & functions, then we can't talk about it or fight for it.

So it turns out at least two colleagues I've spoken to about this in the last week think that people actually change sex when they have SRS. My mind is boggled. I work with people who are very academically smart, so I just can't believe that this is the baseline I'm starting from.

I've reached a whole new level of frustration and disillusionment now I'm realising first-hand the extent of the misinterpretation, straw-manning, and passive aggression that comes with trying to talk about sex-based oppression and support women's right to retain their own language.

Almost entirely from women, too.

[quote AnyOldPrion]Bea Jaspert wrote an article on this that I found oddly compelling. Obviously I am fully aware of the situation, but I think bringing it all together the way she does sends a powerful message about the end point of all this.

beajaspert.substack.com/p/lets-form-an-alliance[/quote]
This is brilliant, loved this!

Stay calm, stay polite and keep arguing in good faith.Other than that, use facts and reason, gently question assertions made and ask people why they think what they think, with facts to back up what they are asserting.
The idealogs will never change their minds but the audience will see who is spouting crazy and who is making sense.

All debate is good debate is this battle because reality is our trump card.

If it’s a public sector workplace they have to abide by the public sector equality duty (PSED)
If it’s private sector they should still be considering the impact of their actions on protected characteristics of employees and clients. Under the law sex and gender reassignment are both important and each must be balanced appropriately. It’s not a one way street.

@SybillTrelawney

So it turns out at least two colleagues I've spoken to about this in the last week think that people actually change sex when they have SRS. My mind is boggled. I work with people who are very academically smart, so I just can't believe that this is the baseline I'm starting from.

so do these colleagues think TW are able to give birth to children? or do they understand that would be physically impossible? and if it is physically impossible why would that be?

do they also know how few TW have SRS?

do they also know how few TW have SRS?

I think this is the important point. It doesn't sound like they do. It took my mum ages to grasp this, even when I was regularly ranting to her about this issue a few years ago!

I had an encouraging email from my MP however who stated that they were observing this change in language and conflation with growing concern. Considering their first response to my discussing the issues and disadvantages for women in this conflation of language and forced teaming, and the power imbalance this enables, was a kind of what...? yeah yeah.... this suggests that this is not going unseen, and increasingly being recognised as not in the interests of many women.