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.

@Mumdiva99

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.....

The prostate cancer uk site has a bit on trans, see attached. And so does the NHS page and cancer research UK for cervical cancer, attached, while still using ‘women’ everywhere else.

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.

It is possible to give headspace to lots of different things. Language is important. Also, 'offended' conjures up images of pearl-clutching and cat's-bum-faces. I'm not 'offended'. I just think it's very important for the words 'women' and 'girls' to continue to be used, and used accurately. As has often been pointed out, it's hard to talk about, report and document inequality or abuse of groups of people you can't actually name.

I read on here the term "women +" to refer to women and relevant trans people, which I liked in its brevity, and in preference to other terms I've come across.

@lazylinguist I think we're on the same page though? The people being offended I was referring to are the ones seemingly offended by tampons marketed for women. The people who would rather they be marketed to either 'women and trans men' or 'women and people who menstruate' or indeed just 'menstruating people'. These are products for women and girls and should be marketed as such. Just wanted to make sure I was clear!

They main problem I have with this, particularly for charities and healthcare services, is that language is changed based on ideology with little or no consultation. It’s actually very paternalistic and the opposite of how health services should operate. When Brighton hospital changed the name of their maternity unit, how many of the women who use it did they consult?

[quote StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]@lazylinguist I think we're on the same page though? The people being offended I was referring to are the ones seemingly offended by tampons marketed for women. The people who would rather they be marketed to either 'women and trans men' or 'women and people who menstruate' or indeed just 'menstruating people'. These are products for women and girls and should be marketed as such. Just wanted to make sure I was clear! [/quote]
I think you might have missed the point a bit Strawberry. It’s not specifically about tampons etc, although if that’s your line in the sand, fair enough. It’s about the level of inclusion you’re happy with, and inclusion in tampons was just an example.

@Fromage

I read on here the term "women +" to refer to women and relevant trans people, which I liked in its brevity, and in preference to other terms I've come across.

This is the only solution that tackles problem a. Any and compromises don't address problem a and so are not acceptable.

So no trans inclusion at all? Nothing?

Sorry, I am mistaken. The other solution that addresses problem a is using the word women to refer to sex not gender.

There should be no compromise.

You cannot & should not change language to suit a minority.

Far more women on any given day are grieving after a miscarriage, but we don't hide all evidence of babies from the baby aisle in the supermarket just so that those women don't have to see the reality of other women buying nappies or baby milk & feel 'triggered'.

We don't ban all shows or films that include storylines of women getting raped because they may distress rape victims.

We don't ban computer games about war or re-enactment societies in case veterans find them traumatic.

If you take away EVERYTHING that someone finds upsetting we'll have to live sat in small boxes waiting to die because there would be nothing left in the world you could see or do.
Which wouldn't work for those who are claustrophobic of course.

It is NOT societies job to suit those with gender issues.
Like everyone else they just have to deal with living in a world where not everything is about them.

Pumper, I have yet to see a solution proposed for problem a. That's my line in the sand and it should be everyone's as it protects the most vulnerable.

As stated above + with small print elsewhere would be a solution to problem a.
If you want a 'compromise' it needs to meet all three criteria. Otherwise it's not fit for purpose.

@Pumperthepumper

So no trans inclusion at all? Nothing?

I have suggested some compromises, just no 'and' when what we're discussing is biology.

@Pumperthepumper I was replying to lazylinguist as thought she may have misinterpreted my post.

As for trans inclusion? No I wouldn't include anything specifically. These are products aimed at biological women- females- which includes a very very small number of trans men.

So my choice would be for the language to remain 'by women for women' as per the lil lets leaflet.

@Snugglepumpkin

There should be no compromise.

You cannot & should not change language to suit a minority.

Far more women on any given day are grieving after a miscarriage, but we don't hide all evidence of babies from the baby aisle in the supermarket just so that those women don't have to see the reality of other women buying nappies or baby milk & feel 'triggered'.

We don't ban all shows or films that include storylines of women getting raped because they may distress rape victims.

We don't ban computer games about war or re-enactment societies in case veterans find them traumatic.

If you take away EVERYTHING that someone finds upsetting we'll have to live sat in small boxes waiting to die because there would be nothing left in the world you could see or do.
Which wouldn't work for those who are claustrophobic of course.

It is NOT societies job to suit those with gender issues.
Like everyone else they just have to deal with living in a world where not everything is about them.

Ok, so that’s your line in the sand? No trans inclusion?

@Pumperthepumper you've done this on the other thread too- why do you keep asking individual people what their line in the sand is when they've made it quite clear what their thoughts are?

@Snugglepumpkin I agree with your post btw.

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer

Pumper, I have yet to see a solution proposed for problem a. That's my line in the sand and it should be everyone's as it protects the most vulnerable.

As stated above + with small print elsewhere would be a solution to problem a.
If you want a 'compromise' it needs to meet all three criteria. Otherwise it's not fit for purpose.

Absolutely, and I said to you in a different thread, English is not my first language so I completely appreciate the need for clear, accurate medical information.

Outside of that though, language does evolve. So off the top of my head, I can see a situation where some marketing exec might decide to include more words like ‘bae’ ‘idgaf’ ‘tldr’ might help attract a younger audience. It’s the same issue.

[quote StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]@Pumperthepumper you've done this on the other thread too- why do you keep asking individual people what their line in the sand is when they've made it quite clear what their thoughts are?[/quote]
I’m just making sure I’ve understood properly. That’s all.

'There should be no compromise' is quite clear, I thought.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

'There should be no compromise' is quite clear, I thought.

Fine, but I don’t think it hurts to confirm.

If you have trouble understanding the comments on this thread, surely now you can understand why plain English is necessary?

@Thelnebriati

If you have trouble understanding the comments on this thread, surely now you can understand why plain English is necessary?

English isn’t my first language, and I’ve already said I appreciate the need for clear language.

Is this hostility really necessary?

Outside of that though, language does evolve. So off the top of my head, I can see a situation where some marketing exec might decide to include more words like ‘bae’ ‘idgaf’ ‘tldr’ might help attract a younger audience. It’s the same issue.

Interesting that you've given the example of marketing execs using language to target a particular audience, when what the thread is discussing is changing the accepted language that has been used for sanitary products for decades- the language that refers to the vast vast majority of the product's consumers- WOMEN.

@lazylinguist I think we're on the same page though?

Sorry - you're quite right, we are! Although I stand by what I said about headspace. I see the 'You're lucky if that's all you've got to worry about" angle on MN a lot, and I don't buy it. Being concerned about one thing doesn't mean that you're not also concerned about other, possibly bigger, things. And I therefore have to assume that just because a trans person might think it's important to have different wording (which I may not agree with) on a product, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about girls and women in period poverty.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

Outside of that though, language does evolve. So off the top of my head, I can see a situation where some marketing exec might decide to include more words like ‘bae’ ‘idgaf’ ‘tldr’ might help attract a younger audience. It’s the same issue.

Interesting that you've given the example of marketing execs using language to target a particular audience, when what the thread is discussing is changing the accepted language that has been used for sanitary products for decades- the language that refers to the vast vast majority of the product's consumers- WOMEN.

But specifically women’s biology. Which is also applicable to trans men.