Radio 4 Today programme - people with periods

[GCmiddle]

Did anyone hear the item just before the 7.00am news this morning? Dr Viki Male from Imperial College, London was speaking about her recently published paper in the BMJ on the need to research possible effects of the Covid vaccination on menstruation and fertility. Even though the interviewer asked her about women, women’s periods, etc, the scientist only talked about ‘people’ with periods, ‘people’ who want to get pregnant. I honestly don’t think that these educated professionals realise how silly they sound. I long for the day when an interviewer (it was Martha Kearny today) picks them up on it and directly asks them "why won’t you say women?"

I noticed yesterday a BBC news heading "People with periods finding festivals difficult' something along those lines anyway.

Yes I noticed that. Otherwise an interesting piece. But it did sound silly

...But no "People with testicles..."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-58571353

Yeah, I heard it and thought it sounded a bit weird.

Vicki Male is terrible with that. Stella Creasy did a very good webinar a few months ago about the covid vaccine, and Dr Male was one of the experts interviewed. Everyone else managed to use the word 'woman' but Dr Male used the phrase 'pregnant people' every single time (except once when she clearly slipped up because she was repeating someone else's terminology). It was jarring and distracted from what she was saying, which was otherwise good.

Women. The issue of COVID, the vaccine and pregnancy will only ever affect women. Not all women, but only women.

Urgh, the creeping capture by applied pomo. Perhaps they needs to change their surname to Amab?

It has the effect on me of just turning off/away from whatever the product is while muttering fuck off with your gynephobia

I was the same on the BBC talking about cervical cancer- all 'people' never women.

Until they start saying people with testicles/a prostate, this stuff will just be bogus woman hating shit.

I came on to mention this.

She said 25% of people had changes to menstruation. I am wondering what % of women of menstruating age that equates to and why she didn't cite this number instead?

Or is the the case that this is what she meant but didn't say and therefore her stats are bullshit?

My point being it's not just fucking stupid. It's wrong.

She said 25% of people had changes to menstruation.

God, what a useless statistic. 50% of people will not ever menstruate. It would be a bit of a surprise to them to start. So did she mean a whopping 50% of women and girls had changes to menstruation after the jab?

And then take out females over 50ish. So another 30/40% of those who have had the vaccinations maybe? Top of my head. So now what is the stat for that 50% of women?

She didn't mean people though did she? She meant women of menstruating age. Or women who usually menstruate. But she couldn't say that because woke bullshit pronouns in twitter bio.

You might think a scientist would understand that you can't just transpose one term for another and have the equation/sentence/statistic still work. But apparently not.

No disrespect but Martha Kearney is an old hand. Surely she doesn't believe this nonsense.

I listened to a R4 podcast on periods recently (for advice as my periods have given me hell since birth of ds) and there was a specific bit where they were going on about menstruators or people who menstruate something. FFS.

Women are being erased from everything....

I'm just wondering if I am totally doing her a disservice and it is 25% of people and we are supposed to extrapolate that out to women? Because I can't believe a scientist could make such a basic error.

In which case it could only be that she hasn't produced the actual number because Maths is transphobic.

Same on Times Radio news this breakfast time.

Thats the trouble. We're left wondering.

To be perfectly fair, menstruators is more accurate as obviously a lot of women don't menstruate any more. Menstruating women might have been more accurate and less dehumanising. But there's another question - a friend of mine who hadn't had a period for almost a year did have one post vaccination. I guess almost a year still meant she wasn't quite defined as menopausal.

All women are people but not all people are women.

You can't just exchange one of these words for the other and expect your sentence to mean the same thing.

Possibly she's just smarting from the surname she was assigned at birth?

Aren't you only mentruatng when you are on?

@MistandMud

She said 25% of people had changes to menstruation.

God, what a useless statistic. 50% of people will not ever menstruate. It would be a bit of a surprise to them to start. So did she mean a whopping 50% of women and girls had changes to menstruation after the jab?

Maybe someone should ask More or Less to comment on this remarkable statistic?

@NewMutiny

I came on to mention this.

She said 25% of people had changes to menstruation. I am wondering what % of women of menstruating age that equates to and why she didn't cite this number instead?

Or is the the case that this is what she meant but didn't say and therefore her stats are bullshit?

I pointed that out to a social science lecturer and got told "Oh, you know what I meant. It's obvious!"

I told her to write it up as if it were a paper to be published and see what she thought then. She has never done it since. Not sure she doesn't think it as an individual, but her professional head has reconnected with the importance of clear language around data.

I did think about More or Less...

I might have to listen again to see if it am right (I was hoovering behind the sofa in celebration of my femaleness) because, once again, I can't quite believe such stupidity actually exists in people who are so demonstrably clever.

I wonder why that lecturer couldn't say the thing she meant and everyone knows?

It's almost as though everyone knows it's bullshit but isn't allowed to say so...