Common sense language, fully inclusive

[JellySaurus]

Well this is a change!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60205239

I agree - that's good to see. No erasure of women but also acknowledging trans men and non binary people.

Common sense at last.

OMG. Such a shock. Something I can understand that helps me not die. (Wait for the backlash...).

Well done BBC!

It's written by Michelle Roberts, who is a doctor. She writes with clarity. She wrote this a few months ago, which I thought was very clear and informative.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58868961

Brilliant to see some steps forward in diagnosis of these trickier to soot cancers

At last, clear communication on health issues and everyone it apples to is included.

Sorry but it must be ‘inclusive’?

Why - it’s biology based on sex - the woman in the street may not know what/where a cervix is but if you have invested time, money and medical treatment in your body, then you should have the knowledge and maturity of how to maintain the physical ‘you’.

Wow. Makes a change!!

The article ok.prostate cancer- Well the bbcs response to my complaint was that because the Cancer charities did the dirty work.of explaining the sex stuff they were happy to use people.

Agree aviut language not having to be inclusive though. The whole point of language is that it's exclusive . The word table excludes anything that isn't a table. It's how language works. If anything cab mean anything communication is impossible.

But, that article is a refreshing change the only part I'd alter would be to not insinuate trans people should waste a drs time calling to find out their sex.

It could just read " anyone born female even if you don't identify as such can be affected" or something

@KittenKong

Sorry but it must be ‘inclusive’?

Why - it’s biology based on sex - the woman in the street may not know what/where a cervix is but if you have invested time, money and medical treatment in your body, then you should have the knowledge and maturity of how to maintain the physical ‘you’.

It must be inclusive purely to satisfy the tiny number of individuals who demand that the rest of society prioritises their way of interpreting their personal experiences.

The article has done this by specifically including them in the last paragraph. But every one of them knows exactly whether or not the whole of the article relates to them.

This is what should have been done all along, rather than quaking before the tantrum-cries of "Bigot!"

I have no patience left. I haven’t got time to ponder each word and it’s interpretation within a small, bullying group within society. Words have meanings and to pretend you don’t understand is just silly. Maybe we should just be distributing free dictionaries.

And I studied bloody linguistics…

I've just been watching PMQs and there was a question raised about specialist menopause care. BJ said that it was an integral part of the Women's health initiative.

Both question and response used 'women' or 'woman' without caveat or clarification and I was very pleasantly surprised, which then just made me slump a bit. How the hell did we get to a point of being surprised enough to start/post on threads when the word 'women' is used in the context of women's health?!

This is how I'd like to see the whole trans thing go. Absolutely inclusive, with no erasure of words like 'woman'. And, possibly most importantly, with clear health advice for those who are trans or non-binary.
Brava, Michelle Roberts.

Health advise should be based on your sex - or specific to any medication you may be in, or bodily modifications that need maintenance.