Can you help me challenge this in my workplace

[doingmybitforwomen]

Hi all, we recently had a workshop where the language used was 'people have periods'.

I asked that they consider using different language going forward with the following which I took from the 'standingforwomen' site

'Only women have periods. We do not say that 'people produce sperm'. Throughout the legal framework of women's sex based rights and protections, we use the word woman. It is essential that this word is retained to mean 'adult human female' only. Without this word, all our rights and protections are lost.

Our rights were never created for our gender but our sex. Our sex being female, the sex that bears children, the sex that requires maternity rights; privacy rights' equality with the male sex in the work place; specific health issues; reproductive rights and so on. If our rights become dependent upon gender, then they are no longer women's rights.

They've come back with ' the language was appropriate, deliberately chosen to be inclusive'.

I want to respond back with something definitive that explains it's not about inclusivity. Can anyone help me craft something as I'm not an expert but feel strongly about this because if I don't keep on, they will continue to use that language until everyone else feels that it should be used without question and don't think about the wider impact for women.

Sorry for longwinded post. This is a new account for me as I can't seem to resurrect my previous one but I have been here a while.

*They've come back with ' the language was appropriate, deliberately chosen to be inclusive'."

Inclusive in that sentence now means that the author is happy about being insulting to women. It's an active decision. What was the purpose of the workshop?

I personally think this activism should be ignored as much as possible as it's all about power over language and simply ignoring the expectations of the workshop is the most effective rebuttal.

It is hard to be sure what you are saying, but you seem to be suggesting that trans-women who by definition do not have periods because they are not adult human females, are happier in life if we all pretend the sub-set of society who has periods is not the sub-set known as women.

My view is that inclusivity should not come at the expense of simple, straightforward and accurate use of language, nor at the expense of biological truth, and that I do not believe that any trans-woman suffers trauma due to not having periods that is lessened by pretending that women and people who have periods aren't to all intents and purposes the same group.

It excludes al women ( females) who reject gender as a harmful construct that has historically, and even today , is used to repress women

It belittles the experience of women who have experienced sex based violence .,.violence is not gender based it is sex based

It belittles women who had to work harder than men for the same rewards.

It asks that women agree to having the gender woman assigned to them. Many don't

It reduces women to bodily functions which is really dehumanising. You ca t address period shame while doing this

It isn’t inclusive of people with English as an additional language or learning difficulties

If they want to be inclusive they can talk about women and trans men, but there is no reason to refer to women by bodily functions or body parts

Inclusive of whom? Because they are choosing to use this wording after being told it offends you, so they're now deliberately excluding you.

Why are they setting out to exclude any women at an event nominally for women?

apologies, I'm so bad at expressing myself.

The workshop was on green products for periods. To advertise it, they used the language 'people have periods' and during the workshop, they showed a slide that said 'people have periods'

About reducing plastic for periods, the workshop was brilliant. It's the language that I want them the change but other than what I already shared, I don't know how to respond back to influence them to change because they believe they are being inclusive by using that language.

Ask them if they are happy with lower sales volumes in return for being exclusive of women

In that kind of workshop the best thing to do is ignore the crap and use the word ‘woman’ as much as possible. Beyond that you should escalate as high as possible. If the organisers are refusing to listen, take it to their boss/your boss. Periods are a women’s issue - denying this may be ‘inclusive’ but when periods/pregnancy/menopause become a ‘people’s’ issue, that means we can’t see the sexism associated with them any more. Given that the vast majority of women have periods, many women who don’t have periods will be affected by related sexism because people assume they do. Finally, in trying to be inclusive they have offended/othered you and probably others like you.

Ask them to confirm in writing that they will be omitting direct reference to holders of other protected characteristics in future presentations in the name of inclusivity.

fairplayforwomen.com/language2/
"Erasing the words woman and mother is not inclusive
The very words we use to describe ourselves as a sex class are being erased. In media reports, in health campaigns, in human rights organisations, we are seeing the replacement of “woman” or “women” with terms like “menstruator“, “uterus-haver” or “people with a vagina“. Women tell us that they find this dehumanising, not inclusive. Our concern is that it blurs legal issues such as sex discrimination. This can only set women’s equality back. There is no upside for women in losing the words we need to talk about our bodies, our needs and our rights."

This language excludes me and it is deliberate. Now that they know that their chosen language is excluding some women, will they change it? If not, they are making a deliberate choice to exclude you.

“Our laws and words must never treat people as non-human things,” said Baroness Claire Fox. “I am not a uterus holder, nor a person with a vagina nor a chest-feeder. These are linguistic abominations.”

filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/4/2/how-our-gender-neutral-culture-erases-girls-as-a-sex
"These issues are not “gender neutral”.

"The move to so-called ‘inclusive’ gender neutral language results in euphemisms such as ‘peer on peer abuse’ and serves to hide what is happening to girls and who the perpetrators are – boys. Girls are pressured to be inclusive and ‘kind’ while denying, suppressing and erasing their own unique life experiences as the female sex"

"‘Gender neutral’ language and public policy hides the difference between the sexes and covers up the unique disadvantages faced by the female sex compared to the male. If girls are to be visible they need to be empowered to see themselves and talk about themselves as the female sex, without feeling that this is ‘non-inclusive’ and may offend"

www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
"Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating."

Would this be classed as discrimination on the basis of sex as a protected characteristic?

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Ask them to confirm in writing that they will be omitting direct reference to holders of other protected characteristics in future presentations in the name of inclusivity.

This. Ask them how they plan to highlight the issues faced by people who experience racism, especially how we can support people who experience racism who have periods and are under 18 years old and are also same-sex attracted.

So are men not people? Because if people have periods and men don't then a logical deduction is men aren't people.

@countrygirl99

So are men not people? Because if people have periods and men don't then a logical deduction is men aren't people.

Elephant shrews must be people too, because they have menstrual periods. But men don’t, so they’re not people.

I’m picturing an uprising of elephant shrews, demanding the vote!

I'm sure there's a meme wanting to get out in the last 3 posts

I think you'll find it difficult to challenge that wording.

Picking up on a few PPs' comments:

It reduces women to bodily functions which is really dehumanising

No it doesn't. Saying "people who have periods" is no more dehumanising than "women who have periods". Terms like 'menstruators' or 'uterus-havers' are the ones that people consider dehumanising. Although I don't find them any different to common terms such as 'pensioners' (instead of people who are drawing a pension); 'school-leavers' (adolescents leaving school); football fans (people who like football) etc etc. There are lots of terms names we've taken the 'person' out of the term but we either don't realise/don't mind.

You could argue that "women and people who have periods" would actually be a more inclusive expression (ie women plus any women who don't identify as such) but strictly speaking the term "woman" is problematic because it's linked to age (adult human female) and doesn't include girls.

Yes, in context we know that "women who have periods" includes girls, but it we want the phrase to be accurate (and inclusive of non-female-identifying people's feelings) we'd have to say "women, girls and people who have periods". In which case we might as well shorten it to "people who have periods".

I agree with you OP. Only females have periods, and not even all of them. Pensioners includes both sexs. I say it's dehumanising and offensive as a woman that has periods, and no one else, male or female, can say otherwise. Only you get to say what you find dehumanising OP, and I agree with you.

It's not at all inclusive of women with English as a second language, or with SEN, or a low level of literacy.

Women is much more widely recognised, and therefore wins any inclusivity battle hands down.

That is, if they genuinely want to be inclusive of the widest possible range of people affected by periods (i.e. women!) and especially the most disadvantaged.

Not, however, if they just want to be inclusive to those who shout the loudest.

Periods used to be unmentionables. Now we can mention them only if we don't mention the women that have them.

Progressive, I think not.

Interesting that it's a green agenda. Women and girls cannot be mentioned in the green agenda.

Maybe ask them what their definition of inclusivity is, what are they trying to achieve exactly?