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.

Fair enough @Pumperthepumper

I feel equally the same for language around men's health/products aimed at men as I do with women. It should be 'men' and 'women' respectively. Just typically it's usually language around women that is targeted.

So there's my line in the sand anyway!

The NHS website says ‘people with a penis’ here:

I don't know why, but this conjures up a mental image of people who keep a little pet penis in a box with airholes and take it out and play with it every so often. It is just so absurd.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

Fair enough *@Pumperthepumper*

I feel equally the same for language around men's health/products aimed at men as I do with women. It should be 'men' and 'women' respectively. Just typically it's usually language around women that is targeted.

So there's my line in the sand anyway!

Great, thanks for the discussion!

@cheeseismydownfall 😁 it does sound absolutely absurd doesn't it. Like something lost in translation.

@cheeseismydownfall

The NHS website says ‘people with a penis’ here:

I don't know why, but this conjures up a mental image of people who keep a little pet penis in a box with airholes and take it out and play with it every so often. It is just so absurd.

I'm sure there was a South Park episode like this...

Mr Garrison's penis was growing on the back of a mouse I think.

@CharlieParley

I am confident that female transgender individuals have the ability to learn to manage their unwanted female biology without forcing this language change on all of us. And many of those I know and know of say that the language change doesn't help with their dysphoria, so I would honestly question who really benefits from uncoupling the word woman from female biology.

Oh god this a million times over.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!

This agenda is not being driven by transmen.

@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic.

@Floisme

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.

It was meant in the spirit of compromise. Obviously I'd prefer just to use "women", as has been fine for 1,400 years or so.

[quote GromblesOfGrimbledon]@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic. [/quote]
@GromblesOfGrimbledon 👏 you've said this much better than I could have. Agree completely.

[quote GromblesOfGrimbledon]@Pumperthepumper

I think most posters here have a different idea from you as to what "trans inclusion" means.

So when you accuse and say "that's your line in the sand- no trans inclusion?" it doesn't wash with us.

As PPs have noted, it is impossible to include everyone all of the time, and all of us at some point or another experience exclusion. That's life.

Trans people already have the same human rights as everyone else. They cannot force additional rights by way of removing the rights of another population of people: namely women of course!

That is the line in the sand when it comes to public domain, healthcare, prisons, etc etc.

Your particular points seem to revolve around private companies, selling women's sanitary products in particular. Well, we can't police what various companies do. We can boycott them if we disagree with their policies, the way they advertise, the wording on their products. And we do. There are often threads on FWR discussing companies who are discriminating against women. Christ almighty I couldn't even buy a packet of dreamies cat treats today without seeing the pride flag emblazoned across it!

Our distaste at, and subsequent avoidance of, products that use demeaning and dehumanising language in some sort of misplaced desire to be "inclusive" (although as many have pointed out here, are these companies fuck actually inclusive in any genuine manner), is not the same as not being inclusive to trans people.

The idea that mangling the language on the back of a packet of tampons is what's required to be inclusive of some ill-defined population is, frankly, pathetic. [/quote]
I could really do without the hostile tone, it’s unnecessary.

I’m not accusing anyone, I’m clarifying what they meant by ‘women only, no additions’. I’ve offered absolutely no opinion on that, other than I think it’s unlikely.

My only question has been ‘what level of compromise are you personally happy with. The example given was sanitary products, if you want to choose a different one to discuss, please do.

I don't know why we can't have a single word that means female. It used to be woman and that seems to have gone. I thought female would still retain its meaning but that's gone too. It would just make sense for there to be one simple word. Without resorting to bodily functions. We don't call cows large animals that go moo. Perhaps we should just embrace AFAB?

This agenda is not being driven by transmen.

YY.

“I am confident that female transgender individuals have the ability to learn to manage their unwanted female biology without forcing this language change on all of us. And many of those I know and know of say that the language change doesn't help with their dysphoria, so I would honestly question who really benefits from uncoupling the word woman from female biology.”

Yes I agree with this totally especially when it comes to things like childbirth and mensuration. If you’re a trans man giving birth to a baby or menstrating surely that physical reminder of your biological sex is immensely more of an issue than seeing signs/publications saying word like mother or woman (as presumably their preferred words would be used by professionals working with them). If your a transwoman then I’m not sure language, especially around biological women specific issues, should be adapted for you if the women to whom they are relevant are happy with those words.

@Totallyrandomname

Yep. And where are all these hoards of transmen having periods and babies who need protecting from words?

@MajesticWhine

I don't know why we can't have a single word that means female. It used to be woman and that seems to have gone. I thought female would still retain its meaning but that's gone too. It would just make sense for there to be one simple word. Without resorting to bodily functions. We don't call cows large animals that go moo. Perhaps we should just embrace AFAB?

I’m not a fan of AFAB either, it makes it seem like someone in the room randomly decided what sex the baby was.

AFAB is awful. Biological sex is not assigned, it's observed.

Afab just makes me think of Eddie and Patsy.
Sweetie, darling.

Well I'm I'm one of the people who is hard line about language and I do find it offensive. I'd happily share toilets with trans women, but the obfuscation of language is a well documented control tactic in queer theory texts. It's not about inclusion at all, it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the narrative and construct a new reality. That half of the congregation don't know the ecumenical underpinning of the method s being used is irrelevant.

Besides, all the soul searching being done about what language would be acceptable to everyone and you know what they will stay... TWAW you bigots. We have perfectly good words already.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

Very true. Control of language is so dangerous.

I don't want to lose the meaning of the word "woman" but in the meantime could we not use female?

Female has already been colonised. Not to the same extent as women, but it's been chipped away at too.

But yes, a very clear recoupling with female would help.
Although I am not sure female and male fit the plain English criteria in the way that men and women do.

I think “women” is enough. At a push, “women and other females” but, quite frankly, that sounds daft. I have no ides what it says on my various Sanpro products because I only look at them to check the absorption.

I simply don’t believe that all this mangling of language is done to help transmen. As said above, it’s to control the narrative and try to take our words or make them forbidden to say.

Diluting the words used is an attempt to promote the idea that there are lots of kinds of women. Personally, I’d put a note in the leaflet explains that the word “women” refers to all women no matter how they choose to identify and that they are all valued customers, or some such polite phrasing.

Another thing that could be done is to have a second smaller Sanpro section in a neutral type place in the shop.

I teach reading for a living and it actually makes me quite cross that people with presumably high reading skills get to dictate language so that people who have more difficulties have an unnecessary barrier.

If people want to colloquially use queer, pansexual or whatever they fancy in their own mundane tweets, that's fine. I mean, the first is a slur but if that seems to be being reclaimed, whatever.

But companies have a responsibility to be accessible if they are something fairly vital like a train service. They should be clear, polite and to the point.

I especially don't like it because the rules seem to change depending on who uses them. Like that non binary railway worker who complained about ladies and gentlemen being used. Then it turned out he'd used that in one of his tweets.

Because it's not really about language.
It's about power.
And anyone who thinks by conceding language like a good ally is in for a shock, because it'll never be enough as they'll never be satisfied with anything less than total power.

So there's no magic compromise language. It's not about the language at all. It's about eroding boundaries and reshaping things to suit.

And it's never enough.

Yes, if you want to term it that way, that is my line in the sand.

As a society we have to fit in.
Society makes some things a little easier (like the markings on the ground near traffic lights to help blind people) but for the most part we have to compromise to fit in with society & not the other way round.

I'm losing my sight.
I also have Aphantasia so once I can't see pictures or see my son in front of me, I will no longer be able to picture his face.
I will almost certainly never know what he looks like as an adult as he is still in primary school.
No amount of staring at him now will leave me with an image in my head.

I don't expect the world to hide all cameras, ban cars, close things like art galleries in case it hurts my feelings I can't see the exhibits, cancel all theatre, except on the radio so I don't feel like I'm missing out, outlaw ballet making it a hate crime because it's not fair I can no longer see it & pretend nobody else can visualise things just because I desperately wish to keep being one of the sighted or at least someone who can see pictures in their head.
I shall never call people sightphobic because they know what their children look like like & they might say something like 'he's growing up to be a good looking young man' about their son.
I'm just adjusting my home as best I can so that I can be safe & have the best life I can when I get to that point.
I won't be able to see it, but if I get everything I hope to get done completed, I will know that it is/was my definition of a beautiful home.
It's my problem not everyone elses to deal with & I have no right to expect the world to reshape itself to fit my particular needs which will no longer be those of the majority.

I wish no harm to transpeople, but it is not womens responsibility or even societies to actively include transwomen in the world of women & trying to do so can cause harm.
They are part of a completely different biological world that is a subset of men & it never intersects with being a woman.

Changing language on a couple of obviously female products does nothing for transmen because whatever you call it, they know damn well they are only buying a tampon or a pad because they are having a period.
It is not possible to have a sex neutral word for a period because whatever you call it, it will retain the same definition & it is something only womens bodies can ever have happen to them.

Whatever that word is, it simply doesn't have the same impact on a persons life as experiencing menstruation which is so much more than just the bit of blood soaked up by sanitary products.

Everybody knows that men can't get period pains.
I've just checked my medicine cabinet & I have paracetamol, ibuprofen & co-codamol in there (don't have any aspirin to check) all of which list period pains on the box as one of the pains they can provide mild to moderate relief from.
Are you suggesting transmen or other women who call themselves something other than women don't buy them because they mention periods?
What word is more inclusive of the people who are seeking relief from period pain is there than the ones currently used?

I've seen the same thing mentioned on product pages advertising hot water bottles - are you saying hot water bottles are transphobic for mentioning one of their uses?

The effects of womens lived reality on womens lives goes far beyond tampons & folic acid (which mentions conception & pregnancy on it.)
Women need to know that it may be a good idea to take folic acid if they are trying to conceive or are pregnant.

What about specific vitamin products aimed at men & women?
We have different vitamin & mineral requirements for our very different bodies.
Men & transwomen (& anyone else born male whatever they are calling themselves) don't need as much iron as women do for instance.
Iron poisoning can lead to organ failure or death.
A young boy (or even an adult male if he takes enough) taking female vitamins supplements at the correct dose for a woman over an extended period of time could potentially cause serious harm to his body if he wishes to become a transwoman & has been fed the lie that he will actually become a real woman.
Do you want to kill young transwomen by feeding them this sort of misinformation?

Our biochemistry is not inclusive.

Compromising on the truth helps nobody at all.

I'm sorry that's happening to you *Snugglepumpkin. Sounds like such a difficult experience that you are approaching with a very good attitude.

Didn't know that about vitamins. Although DH and I accidentally imputed female into those home vitamin testing kits and they flagged up his iron was abnormal. Actually turned out it was abnormal for a female but perfectly ok for a male.