How language has changed in 6 years

[Plasmodesmata]

Compare and contrast these two news reports, one from today, and the other from 2016.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61477168

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37606726

Yes and I find it so disturbing, I don't even know where to begin 🙄

I'm going to have to stop coming on here, this is too much erasure to cope with at 8.13am.

Emma Cox from Endometriosis UK says: "We need to challenge the squeamishness and silence around menstrual health".

You're not going to be able to do that when you're too squeamish to mention women though are you Emma?

Yes, sorry it's a bit early. I've been up since 3 going in and out the bathroom being a person who has ridiculous periods, so the first story particularly irked me.

The only change is to the language which links female biology to the word " woman". No similar change has been made to erase the word " man" as transmen don't count as they are female. This is patriarchy at its most blatant as it is male people demanding this , so that they can call themselves women.

Yet in the article about monkeypox being transmitted sexually they're not squeamish about mentioning men.

Surely it should say:

And the most recent UK cases are in gay or bisexual people which has prompted the UK Health Security Agency to encourage people who have sex with people to be aware of any unusual rashes or lesions.

Come on BBC. Do you think that accurate information is important for everybody? Or only some bodies?

A whole article about period pain without using the word woman once, I might find it impressive if I hadn't spent decades managing my life around my endometriosis, instead I just find it offensive.

Congratulations to Zambia for forcing the BBC to use the word 'mothers' in that article there. Elsewhere we're 'those', 'people', 'participants', 'anyone', 'workers' and 'employees'.

What the actual fuck is going on in the BBC's heads, still?

The point of this is to be inclusive of trans men, none of this is about trans women...

It's really offensive. I am going to complain.

Thanks for highlighting, I've made a complaint. Side note - double depressing that it's a woman who wrote the article. What hope do we have when some women so gleefully embrace this bullshit?

Have you deliberately misinterpreted 334’s post? 334 is pointing out the lack of aggressively forced changes to the language surrounding discussion about males.

To be clear, males are not called ejaculators, sperm havers, prostate owners, testicle holders are they?

Emma Cox from Endometriosis UK, adds: "Anyone experiencing pain which means they need to be absent from work should expect to be listened to, believed, and receive support which is appropriate to the type and severity of symptoms they experience."

Is Emma Cox an advocate for women suffering endo or for all people suffering any pain. So a general pain management advocate?

That is how her statement reads to me.

It may not be Emma's fault, she might have originally used the W word and the BBC have censored it?

If we're wanting to include trans men, fair enough - "women and other people who menstruate".
A bit clunky and doesn't really need saying twice but would cover it.

Bloody depressing (pun intended). Woman is definitely the word which cannot be named

Another BBC health article from today, about HRT, actually uses "women" normally.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61527680
what is it about periods that gets particularly targetted for the language erasure?
Is it because transwomen can have "HRT" (although what it's replacing who knows) so don't feel left out?

The point of this is to be inclusive of trans men, none of this is about trans women

This is almost certainly not true. Those who most want the word woman removed from its common meaning of “adult human female” are the adult human males who want to insist that the word women should never be used in circumstances where they are not included. If it was really for the benefit of female transitioners, it would be the word “men” that was being removed from the language. As always, claiming a trans identity fails to remove the inherent sexism that ensures male people continue to have more power.

One of the saddest things about those two articles is that progress has been made in removing the word women (to benefit male people) but no progress has been made to help women with menstrual problems. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose…

Oh, I just made a different thread about this. Yours is much more eloquent and useful.

They can all fuck the fuck right off, frankly.

And I don't give a fuck who this is trying to accommodate, why do women never have concessions made or considerations given of how they might wish to be accommodated? We're just fucking disposable and of lesser importance, is why.

I'm going to go against the grain here because the group of ppl in question - those who would legitimately require menstrual leave - are more accurately described as "people who menstruate" (or maybe "women who menstruate") than "women" or "all women" which is used in the 2016 piece.

All women wouldn't require menstrual leave, as we don't all have periods - pregnant women, post-menopausal, those on medication that stops menstruation.

I don't have a problem with using language that avoids referring to trans men as women. And all trans men won't have periods either. So "people who menstruate" does accurately talk about the demographic in question where "women" doesn't. The two are not directly equivalent.

Obviously to use the term to just refer to all women in a context that has nothing to do with periods is ridiculous, and I'd expect the equivalent usage when talking about male-specific issues.

I know I'm in the minority here but as no-one seems to even know what a woman is, it dodges that "confusion".

What's wrong with menstruating wimen @PrelateChuckles?

Regressive institutional sexism that needs challenging.

Women fgs!

But why use ‘people who menstruate’ instead of ‘women who menstruate’?