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.

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.

You don't, because you're a decent, reasonable person who doesn't think their experiences and feelings trump everyone else's experience, feelings and rights. That's the difference.

Sorry to hear about your condition

Oh snuggle that's so difficult for you. My ds is in primary and I know he's going to change massively in a few years. To not have an internal image to rely on is a biological cruelty
I was going to raise the casual use of going for a walk when many can't. But I can see my dc so I'm going to shut up and count my blessings.

And the 'honing in' on what language is used is irrelevant here because it's really about the semiotics, the signal it sends to the audience.
Menstruaters, bleeders or whatever you like isn't a benign word. It's a word used to signal adherence to gender ideology and therefore hostility to gender critical ideology. It is a signal that everything Stonewall approves of is fine and dandy and endorsed.

For an analogy:

Let's take the vegan group PETA. Now, I am vegan, but I consider their ideas pretty extreme. They don't agree with pets and put healthy strays down for example. They are also, I feel, hostile to meat eaters.
Their slogan is 'Animals are not ours. '
But let's imagine they added in a benign sounding soundbite like. For animals- for me.

Now imagine I am the teacher at your child's school. In the school newsletter and email I end with this.
For animals- For me.

Do you now feel comfortable emailing me about your child's school lunches?
How about that your child is sad because their pet is sad?

How would you feel if for animals- for you started appearing in restaurants? Would you feel comfortable ordering a steak? Would you even mention you're not vegan or would you keep your head down.

Would you feel comfortable bottle feeding your child in public if this slogan started appearing in windows everywhere?
Eating a meat sandwich at your desk at work when all your colleagues proudly display for animals-for me?

That's as close to the situation as I can muster. Except instead of vegans being predominately peaceful females (statistically they are) you'd need to imagine there were plenty of aggressive men leading the -for animals for me- charge.

I'm not having a go at either meat eaters or vegans, obviously, just pointing out how the language being asked for is not benign.

Very sorry about your health Snugglepumpkin , you sound strong and independent, I hope your great attitude sees you through the tough times.

Changing the language is an absolute nonsense. Really it is just confined to a few companies and charities brandishing their woke credentials and in areas of law and the NHS. Which is bad enough, especially in areas that impact on health.

Menstruators, anyone with a cervix?
It's ridiculous. There are enough people with English as a mother tongue who won't know what the hell they are talking about. For anyone with limited understanding of English it's a disaster.
I don't speak any other language and failed my French O level miserably. But I know what man and woman are in French, German Spanish and Italian and Latin. I certainly don't know the words for cervix, uterus, vulva or menstruation in any of those languages. It's really disgracefully exclusionary when we live in a multicultural country.

Why are they bothering though? It will never catch on with the wider public. Do they think they can banish all gendered language wherever it arises? Most of literature would just have to be binned.

Children's stories? Imagine Charlie and the chocolate factory. Charlie (a name that could apply to either sex) was a skinny young person. Charlie lived with six older people, their non birthing parent and birthing parent and the non birthing parents and birthing parents of the younger non birthing parent and birthing parent.

A gender neutral Madam Bovary or Anna Karenina?

We should push back where we see it and point out how inappropriate it is, especially in areas of law and health.
But beyond that let's treat it as the silly bad joke that it is.

And the 'honing in' on what language is used is irrelevant here because it's really about the semiotics, the signal it sends to the audience.
Menstruaters, bleeders or whatever you like isn't a benign word. It's a word used to signal adherence to gender ideology and therefore hostility to gender critical ideology. It is a signal that everything Stonewall approves of is fine and dandy and endorsed.

What a sharp observation. You are absolutely spot on - when I see this language it does feel hostile to me. Its not just that it is dehumanising and confusing, it is also signalling that my own beliefs are wrong and unwelcome.

Thank you for putting in to words something that I haven't been able to.

I think it's known as a dogwhistle, Cheese.
But a misogynistic one.

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer

I think it's known as a dogwhistle, Cheese. But a misogynistic one.

Ah, thank you for explaining - I've seen the term dogwhistle but was unsure what it meant - it was on my list of things to look up

It enrages me that so many women are so bloody meek, passive and willing to compromise. To be complicit in their own erasure.
The only sane response to the TRAs attempts to invade our spaces and render our language meaningless is “Fuck off. We’re not having it.”

Thinking a bit more about the dogwhistle thing - it really makes sense and it making me quite cross.

Let's say that I get a reminder to book a smear test, but I have experienced trauma in my past and I am quite anxious. If the letter refers to "women" then I would feel comfortable and safe to request clear confirmation that the exam would be carried out by a female practitioner.

But if the same letter references "people with a cervix" - what then? The organisation is making it clear not just that it is aware of sex vs gender, but that it is advocating for gender to take preference over sex. How comfortable do I feel now about insisting on female-only care? A lot bloody less comfortable.

The more I understand this the angrier I am getting.

@Babdoc

It enrages me that so many women are so bloody meek, passive and willing to compromise. To be complicit in their own erasure. The only sane response to the TRAs attempts to invade our spaces and render our language meaningless is “Fuck off. We’re not having it.”

I agree completely @Babdoc

A colleague recently told us that it is incorrect for the term 'pregnant women' to be used- it should be 'pregnant people'. So frustrating to hear a woman saying this.