Plain English, Gender and compromise

[MouseyTheVampireSlayer]

Starting this thread because the Maya one is getting bogged down with linguistics.

There's an argument that we need to change our language to accommodate trans people. This would presumably result in things like:

Men and prostate Havers are invited to get their prostate checked by a doctor.

Menstruaters are encouraged to attend the seminar on the menopause.

There are obvious problems with this language that it's advocates are welcome to solve.

A) It ignores the plain English guidelines. Simple language is key for reaching target demographics
Semi literate
English as a foreign language
Learning difficulties
By adding endless gender identities it adds unnecessary complex language for people to wade through. This means that the most vulnerable are likely to miss key messages and so is discriminatory.

B) Language like menstruaters is dehumanising and many trans people as well as men and women don't support it.

C) Language like menstruaters doesn't apply to all people and all situations. For example it wouldn't call the right people to a menopause talk because they've stopped menstruations. This would lead to multiple words being used which would then obviously muddy the language. Leading to scenario a.

Those advocating for the use of this language need to come up with the solutions. Not the people advocating for simple language of men, women, boys and girls to be retained.

I think I’d also add something about the people to whom the language applies having a say in why terms are used.

Eg “birthing person” - do most of the people (I’ll use ‘people’ in this example only) who are pregnant and likely to be fixing birth want to be referred to this way in policies/publications etc or are there other terms they’d prefer.

My worry is language being adapted/changed at the insistence of people to whom the language doesn’t even apply.

My worry is language being adapted/changed at the insistence of people to whom the language doesn’t even apply.

This is exactly what is happening.

This is important: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk

"Including" a vanishingly small population of trans people will exclude a huge population of functionally illiterate people, people with learning disabilities, immigrants, people for whom English is their second language, Deaf BSL users who struggle with the English language etc.

But, we must also look not only at what terms are being proposed to replace "women" (and it's always "women" and never "men"), but why these terms are being proposed. To say it's for reasons of inclusion is naive.

"Women" will do. "Women and transmen" will do at a push, although I'm not convinced this will actually serve genuine transmen and I look forward to seeing how well that is received by the vast majority of the population who currently remain blissfully ignorant to the whole affair.

Thanks for starting this thread Mousey.

Yes, I think there’s a conversation to be had over the level of compromise we’re willing to give. I’m interested to see what others think is the middle ground between women’s rights and trans rights.

For me, I agree that you cannot change biological sex. I don’t think transwomen should be in say, women’s prisons.

But I do acknowledge that we share a planet with trans people. So I would be happy to have wording in marketing for period products, to use an example from another thread, to say something along the lines of ‘women and menstruators’ or ‘women and people with periods’. That’s my line is the sand. Happy to hear other thoughts.

I've been thinking about this after reading the other thread.

I looked in my cupboard to see what tampon brands I've currently got- I tend to switch between either boots own brand non applicator, Sainsbury's or lil-lets. I've attached photos of the leaflets.

Lil-lets- designed by women for women. I like this- nice and clear. I did see 'people who menstruate' on their website though. I don't like that term. But in the lil-lets leaflet they used the term 'menstruating females'. I don't mind this- it's accurate. And they've used 'by women for women'.

Boots also only refer to women and girls throughout their leaflet. Again, very happy to see this.

Women and menstruating females seems good to me. Accurate with regards to biological sex. Menstruating females applies to girls too.

I should note that menstruating females refers to TSS cases in this leaflet but having read the term, I think it could be used elsewhere. Accurate. Women and menstruating females. Arguably unnecessary. Just 'women' has worked just fine for god knows how long.

I wouldn’t mind “women and people who menstruate” or “women and pregnant people” but then if we must go down this road to make a tiny % of people feel validated, then I want it the other way too; “men and those with testicles” for testicular cancer info, or “men and those with a prostate” for anything relevant.
But one area that the true language really must go back to being used is with crime figures. I do not accept the crimes of trans women as belonging to women. There are others too, but this one seems incredibly important.

@Ozgirl75

I wouldn’t mind “women and people who menstruate” or “women and pregnant people” but then if we must go down this road to make a tiny % of people feel validated, then I want it the other way too; “men and those with testicles” for testicular cancer info, or “men and those with a prostate” for anything relevant. But one area that the true language really must go back to being used is with crime figures. I do not accept the crimes of trans women as belonging to women. There are others too, but this one seems incredibly important.

Yes, this movement only has validity if they're pushing this on men too.

And I say, good luck with that. A quick jaunt over to gay talk forums will let you know what gay men really think of transmen in their spaces.

Yes I'd like to see a move to make male and female understood as "gender neutral", biologically accurate terms. Then we can use them when it is important that all people of that class are included or excluded.

I'm also uncomfortable with the focus on the importance of pronouns for everyone as I'm raising my kids to be as gender neutral as possible, and not to care about stereotypes. They are constantly mistaken for the opposite sex but don't mind because they place equal value on the sexes. I fear this insistence that we all care about pronouns totally undermines this. Ironically, my decision to treat my children this way was inspired by the experiences of some gay men I know. But Stonewall would most likely think me bigotted.

I agree Ozgirl. I look forward to seeing condoms being marketed to 'men and other ejaculators', or 'men and other penis havers/owners/holders' and if as one US company was proud of calling women 'bleeders' becomes even used by one more company, toilet companies should be calling everyone 'shitters'.

I am very sure that it will be acceptable.

I've said this before but I do mind 'women and people who menstruate.' If we're talking about a biological function such as menstruation then the 'and' is not only unnecessary, it's inaccurate, and I'm not prepared to concede accurate language because i think it will come back and and bite us if we do.

I think there are other ways of wording it e.g. 'women, including trans men' or 'women (no matter how they identify)'. Or a general statement at the beginning explaining that in this instance, the word 'woman' is used to apply to all females, regardless of gender identity'. It may be clunkier but I think it's better to be clunky and correct. That's my red line.

"Women and people who menstruate" implies that women do not get periods which is obviously incorrect. Instead "women and other people who menstruate" is clear that it encompasses both classes.

@Ozgirl75

I wouldn’t mind “women and people who menstruate” or “women and pregnant people” but then if we must go down this road to make a tiny % of people feel validated, then I want it the other way too; “men and those with testicles” for testicular cancer info, or “men and those with a prostate” for anything relevant. But one area that the true language really must go back to being used is with crime figures. I do not accept the crimes of trans women as belonging to women. There are others too, but this one seems incredibly important.

I think prostate cancer UK is already doing this.

I don't see how that's any more accurate? When we're talking about a biological function, where gender identity presumably has no bearing, who are the other people who menstruate? I don't think we should conflate sex and gender any more that it is already.

Sorry I should have used to quote function, the above was in response to the suggestion of 'women and other people who menstruate'

@Helleofabore

I agree Ozgirl. I look forward to seeing condoms being marketed to 'men and other ejaculators', or 'men and other penis havers/owners/holders' and if as one US company was proud of calling women 'bleeders' becomes even used by one more company, toilet companies should be calling everyone 'shitters'.

I am very sure that it will be acceptable.

This came up on one of the other threads but the issue with condoms is they’re not actually marketed to men specifically, they’re marketed to couples, and not specifically heterosexual couples. And they tend to be written in the second-person so they say things like ‘roll down shaft’ or ‘more pleasurable for your partner’ or similar. So they don’t have to use a sex-specific word because they’re not talking to one specific sex in the way cervical or prostate screening information is.

Viagra was the other one suggested for ‘ejaculators’ but again, it tends to be similar to above - marketed for couples and written in the second-person.

I’d say a reason this is more prevalent in women’s products is because women have more products marketed to their biology (tampons etc) with a healthy dose of misogyny in the cutesy language reserved for women’s things.

@Floisme

Sorry I should have used to quote function, the above was in response to the suggestion of 'women and other people who menstruate'

Because some people don’t want to have the term ‘women’ associated with them. They’re still biologically women, agreed, but they’d rather be considered male.

Oh come on. Who is going to physically be putting the condom onto their body? Who is going to be taking viagra? They absolutely are marketed for men- it's just women will buy them too to make sure their partner has one to wear.

And reading through the tampons it's similar descriptive language for how to use the product- 'insert tip of tampon into vaginal opening'

It's disingenuous to pretend that this isn't affecting products for women in an unfair way.

Because some people don’t want to have the term ‘women’ associated with them. They’re still biologically women, agreed, but they’d rather be considered male.
I appreciate that but my view is that, when we're talking about a female biological function, accuracy trumps everything else. There might be other scenarios where I might concede conflating sex with gender identity but not this one.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

Oh come on. Who is going to physically be putting the condom onto their body? Who is going to be taking viagra? They absolutely are marketed for men- it's just women will buy them too to make sure their partner has one to wear.

And reading through the tampons it's similar descriptive language for how to use the product- 'insert tip of tampon into vaginal opening'

It's disingenuous to pretend that this isn't affecting products for women in an unfair way.

I’m not denying it’s more prevalent in women’s products, I said so.

But condoms aren’t exclusively marketed to men in the same way prostate screening is. They’re marketed to couples, and they use second-person neutral language, generally, as a result.

@Floisme

Because some people don’t want to have the term ‘women’ associated with them. They’re still biologically women, agreed, but they’d rather be considered male. I appreciate that but my view is that, when we're talking about a female biological function, accuracy trumps everything else. There might be other scenarios where I might concede conflating sex with gender identity but not this one.

Can you think of one?

No I can't because so far, this only ever arises when we're talking about a biological function. I don't think it's particularly up to me to think of a non biological scenario but I concede one might be possible.

Pumperthepumper - on the prostrate cancer UK website it is very clearly aimed at Men. (I didn't go into all the pages....) But references to stopping Men dying. Men we are with you. (No - and other prostrate havers....)

I think this is the key though isn't it. Women will be forced to accept things like 'women and menstruaters' yet men will be left at men. Not because the issues are different. But because we can't upset the men. The men will be alienated if we use that language so let's appeal to the majority and just say men.....

@Floisme

No I can't because so far, this only ever arises when we're talking about a biological function. I don't think it's particularly up to me to think of a non biological scenario but I concede one might be possible.

I can’t think of one either because outside of prostate and cervix screening, everything else is marketed by gender.

So makeup doesn’t have to say men or women, deodorant, clothes, shoes.....people can buy whatever they like so it’s not an issue.

It’s precisely because it relates to biology that this is an issue here.

I think that private companies should be able to describe their target audience how they like, as long as it is within the law. Women can choose to boycott a company that chooses to market its period products to 'menstruaters' or avoids mentioning women.

When it comes to government organisations, public services, the NHS, the police, schools etc, the language used should be factual and based on scientific reality, not feelings. People who are biologically female should be referred to as women and girls. It is ridiculous and contemptible for the law to recognise the reality of biological sex in certain circumstances and pretend not to in others.

I suppose 'women and people who have periods' is sort of ok as a compromise. But deep down I find it difficult to accept the idea of governments and lawmakers basing official guidance and terminology on a desire to not hurt people's feepings, rather than on what they know to be factually true and accurate.

Honestly, I agree with all the arguments about plain English and the negative consequences that changing the language on other groups, including women whose first language is not English etc. And for many many years there have been trans men who have had no issues at all with tampons being labelled for 'women'- who have not taken offence or had their 'feelings' hurt by it. This is to appease a very loud minority.

I have little headspace for this stuff- for people who want to get offended by what's written on a box of tampons when there is so much period poverty amongst women and girls in this country, never mind the situations faced by women and girls in developing countries because of menstruation and their biology.