Musculing in on the menopause

[Lolabalola]

Seriously getting ridiculous
Really useful and informative article in Horse and hound on the menopause and it's effects on confidence and sporting ability
And then they add this ...

"Females make up 51% of the population, and menopause is most common between the ages of 45 to 55, but can happen at any age.
And while not every woman, or trans or non-binary person, will experience signs, around 25% have serious symptoms. The links between menopause and decreased bone density is also something for riders to understand, especially given this is a risk sport."
Virtue signalling at its finest

It refers to women, and mentions trans men and non binary people who can all obviously experience it too.
So what exactly is the problem with including them too along with women?

Mentions trans so yes, trans men may suffer from it too.
(trans men being born female just for clarity)

When discussing factual medical matters, the term “women” refers to sex, not gender identity.
So transmen and non binary women are already covered - there is no need to tag them on separately. And in fact “non binary” includes non binary males, who do not experience menopause, so adding that term causes unnecessary confusion.

@Babdoc

When discussing factual medical matters, the term “women” refers to sex, not gender identity. So transmen and non binary women are already covered - there is no need to tag them on separately. And in fact “non binary” includes non binary males, who do not experience menopause, so adding that term causes unnecessary confusion.

Exactly. The virtue-signalling actually causes confusion.

It is at least better than person!

It’s referring to trans men though who don’t like to be referred to as women even though they are biologically female.

If it just said “men” then that would be an issue but it says trans.

The use of trans or non-binary person is (in this particular instance) a nonsense. What they presumably meant was trans men & non-binary people of the female sex. Clarity & accuracy is so incredibly important in health messaging (even informal messaging like this) & at the moment there is frequently a worrying lack of both.

Of course, one has to wonder about this privileging of certain gender identities when there are hundreds: is the push for inclusive language going to go further; or is there more likely to be a return to using exclusively sex-based terms?

It’s referring to trans men though who don’t like to be referred to as women even though they are biologically female.

If it just said “men” then that would be an issue but it says trans.

This

Transmen suffer symptoms of menopause because they are actually women, User.
I am sure that, whatever their gender identity, they are perfectly well aware that they cannot deny the reality of their physical body when it needs medical treatment, and their doctor also needs to recognise that reality.

Transmen suffer symptoms of menopause because they are actually women, User.

Yes I get that. I’m a gc feminist. But on this occasion, whilst the need for the distinction isn’t strictly there, it is polite and respectful. If it referred to trans women then that would be nonsense and gaslighting. If it referred to men it would similarly be misleading and inaccurate because trans men are not men they are trans men.

On this occasion I think the reference to trans men is as good as can be hoped for in this crazy mess.

And while not every woman, or trans or non-binary person,

I don't have a problem with this as I think it's obvious from the context they are talking about female people.

I've never been that het up about saying 'women, trans men and [whatever you are allowed to call female NB people]'

What's crap is where they say "25% of people have serious menopause symptoms" which is meaningless because you can't tell which group of 'people' it's referring to.

Or where you can't tell what's actually being said and if it's relevant to one sex or another.

There would be no confusion if we stuck to “sex” for medical, factual, and scientific purposes, and left “gender identity” for social use. One cannot identify out of having a menopause, however one might wish to!

One cannot identify out of having a menopause, however one might wish to!

No, but surely the message in the original post acknowledges that, by saying they can suffer too?

As a horsey woman (person?), that particular tribe is... well, let's just say historically fairly non-woke.

Of all the audiences that you would make an effort to pull inclusive terms into, H&H would more or less be at the bottom of my list.

As a horsey woman (person?), that particular tribe is... well, let's just say historically fairly non-woke.
Of all the audiences that you would make an effort to pull inclusive terms into, H&H would more or less be at the bottom of my list.

Sorry, I genuinely don't get your point?
You and your horsey tribe don't identify with being trans, or non binary.
Fair enough if so.
How then is it about you though?
Surely it's clearly not aimed at you.

@EeeICouldRipATissue

We're talking about an article written in Horse and Hound (H&H)?

@Babdoc

There would be no confusion if we stuck to “sex” for medical, factual, and scientific purposes, and left “gender identity” for social use. One cannot identify out of having a menopause, however one might wish to!

Well quite, particularly as there are what, 50+ genders now? If the article really wanted to be inclusive it should include all of them. Why stop at trans and non binary? Or it could just say "While not every female...." which covers every biological woman doesn't it?

I'll give you a clue: its target audience is not buying it to read about, for example, bathroom redesigns; caravanning holidays; the history of modern Europe 1880-1935; or buying a retirement home in the south of France.

It’s referring to trans men though who don’t like to be referred to as women even though they are biologically female.

Why should we all have to tiptoe around people who are in denial about reality?

Adult female humans are women, however they like to identify. What will be next? The medical profession unable to refer to groups of people who are obese, or elderly, because those people don't like to think of themselves in those terms?

Sometimes, as in healthcare, it is more important to be able to accurately identify a group of people than to pander to those who would prefer to deny reality.

This is an example of inappropriate inclusion as the description of trans and non-binary people includes males.

If they were really on the ball, and wanted to inform inclusively, they couldhave pointed out that young women on puberty blockers or cross sex hormones might undergo very early menopause, with potentially life threatening side effects.

Can’t get too worked up about their rather clumsy attempt at inclusivity. Had they avoided the word women and used menopausal people or some equally confusing term, it would be a good deal more insulting.

This isnt the worst example i have seen. Personally i would like to see the phrase women and other female people. I get some females may not identify as women but, regardless of how you identify, if you are menopausal you are female, and pretending otherwise is just dangerous.

I don’t have an issue with this. Women aren’t reduced to body parts and transmen/nb females will feel included.

There’s much worse examples out there.

Why are people afraid to use the words transmen why dies it have to be shortened down into "trans"

This isnt the worst example i have seen.

No, but it's illustrative of why it's dumb not to have "woman" mean "adult human female". It becomes impossible to write coherently and succinctly about adult human females when you don't have a word for them.

And you have to write about adult human females quite a lot - they're a coherent material group. Unlike social constructs such as "gender women" or "non binaries" or "trans people".