9% of people

[Caaarrrl]

I've just watched a 4 minute segment on my local ITV evening news discussing reusable period products. They managed to completely avoid the use of the words 'woman', 'women', 'girls' or 'female'.

They stated statistics that only 9% of people in Yorkshire and the Humber use reusable period products. That's not factually correct. Shall I ask my husband if he is one of the 9%? The linguistic gymnastics is beyond ridiculous. I guarantee that if they did a similar type of report around prostate cancer or some other male issue, the word 'man/men' would be all over it.

I guarantee that if they did a similar type of report around prostate cancer or some other male issue, the word 'man/men' would be all over it.

Of course it would, this whole ideology is anti-woman, misogynistic and sexist to it's very core.

It's so unclear if they mean 9% of women or 9% of people, too.

Because 9% of people is actually 18% of the possible total amount.

Or do they mean 9% of girls and women who need to use period products of whatever sort? (That would be the most sensible statistic to consider). In which case I suppose we ought to be grateful they didn't refer to 'menstruators'

The percentage is also lower when you exclude younger girls and post-menopausal women.

I'd actually challenge this - they're a news service and language matters. Are they reporting 9%of the population as a whole or 9% of females regardless of gender identity?

They need to be clear otherwise what is the point of their story?

@BubbleCoffee

The percentage is also lower when you exclude younger girls and post-menopausal women.

Indeed. Or women like me who do not have periods because of hormonal contraception. There's just no way to know what they mean, is there? 9% of what group? I'm sure there used to be a word for this. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

If it is 'people' who menstruate, then 'women and girls' has nothing to do with possessing female bodies. So what do those words now mean? And what happens when the female sex can only be referred to by body parts (vagina-haver, uterus-owner, individual with cervix) or by body functions (menstruator)? How are we going to fight against sex-based oppression if the female sex is something which cannot be mentioned at all?

And Helen Joyce tells us exactly WHY they don't want us to be able to describe ourselves. In her book p. 139:

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that trans-inclusive language in inclusive in one direction only. It aims at removing all obstacles to using the words 'woman' and 'female' for any male who wants them...

It's about stealing OUR words. For them.