Suggestion that census could ask “do you menstruate?” instead of asking sex.

[broccolibush]

Telegraph article

So apparently it could be more inclusive and more precise to ask do you menstruate instead of asking for your sex. Which makes no sense at all to me. It would mean that pregnant women, menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, women on hormonal contraception, anorexic women, pre-pubescent girls and many others aren’t female. Surely this is beyond stupid?

More concerningly the article refers to “soft decertification” and “slow law” as a way to describe softly-softly pushing through change to erase women from womanhood.

These people need to grow up. And then fuck off.

Is there no end to this nonsense - I'm getting very weary with it all.

I'm 67 and no longer menstruate but I am a woman - 95% of women would just easily tick the box that says female, in answer to 'what sex are you?'

Why oh why are we being marginalised when we're the majority!

95% of women would just easily tick the box that says female, in answer to 'what sex are you?'

More than 95%, I'd have thought?

There are very, very few medical issues where 'do you menstruate' is an appropriate question, and it certainly has no role on a broad data collection exercise such as a census.

I do feel that if they're just trying to avoid the sex question, then they'll get much more accurate figures for male/female if they ask if someone ejaculates than if they menstruate.

I mean, if we really have to go down this ridiculous route because some people want to be women, when they aren't and some people want to do things that only women can do whilst refusing to admit their are women, surely you want to question in the least-worst manner.

Hell, they'd get better results if they ask 'to the best of your knowledge, do you have a penis' or 'to the best of your knowledge, do you have a uterus'

Menstruation is such a weird thing to pick - so hit and miss even for women.

What, so instead of sex or gender just have boxes:
Penis haver
Cervix haver
Don't know/don't want to say.

It's like a million pennies are hanging in the air absolutely refusing to drop...like gravity has ceased to exist for many, many people.

There is a certain trans activist that offered to go onto media and show everyone his cervix.

This is a delusion. He has no cervix, nobody can see anyone's cervix without specialist medical equipment.

For those with English as a second language...how does anyone explain that in basic terms?

‘The cervix is a part of the body found in cervix-havers ’, probably.

My young daughter would be deeply embarrassed to be asked ‘Do you menstruate?’

I wouldn’t know how to answer. ‘Sometimes, possibly never again, your guess is as good as mine’? I guess we’re meant to answer the intended question rather than the actual question.

My elderly mother and MIL would be extremely indignant that anyone should want to ask personal questions to do with one’s monthlies/women’s issues/‘down there’/curse.

(Actually, I’m not sure MIL would understand the word menstruate. She was functionally illiterate till quite late in life and now has signs of dementia.)

Or of course you could ask:
Do you menstruate now/ are likely to menstruate in future/ menstruated in the past.
That should cover all bases.

Why not ask:
Sex M/F or M/W
So much easier.

'"Are you now, or have you ever been, or will you ever be a member of the group who menstruates?'

I know. It's is getting quite, quite frightening.

Yes it is very stupid and also very ignorant too

Or are you someone who should have been a member of the group who menstruates, but had malfunctioning menstruative equipment?

And right there the door opens for someone not of the group who menstruates to begin insisting that their menstruative equipment just malfunctioned so if those females with gynecological issues are allowed to be called female, then so can male people. There is no way females will ever be allowed to define themselves as a group, there will always be some chink that male people seize on to justify colonisation and control.

The disrespect for what everyone knows are females in all this is quite staggeringly depressing.

For those with English as a second language...how does anyone explain that in basic terms?

"Women and girls, Men and boys". Or male/female.

Where sex is relevant, that's it. Where it isn't relevant then "person", or adult/child.

Everyone understands this. It's fully inclusive.

And if some people insist on answering the census counterfactually, it's going to be a small number, probably mostly cancelling out each way. The census is population statistics - if an individual confuses their own medical record that's their responsibility.

They'll be asking if we have bowel issues next

To be fair to ejaculators some of them have good reason to be offended if they were asked the question, presumably impotence means an affirmative answer might not be the case or problems following prostate cancer for instance.

It's just all highly inappropriate and ridiculous.

Asking women who have recently had a hysterectomy if they menstruate is an unkind question

Asking women who aren’t familiar with the word menstruate, either because English is not their first language or they have low levels of education is unkind

Asking women who are trying to conceive and don't want their period to come if they menstruate is unkind

Asking women who aren’t menstruating due to a medical issue is unkind

Asking women who are pregnant and dont want to be if they menstruate is unkind

Why is it ok not to be kind to women

Women like me with MRKH don't menstruate. No womb. Born without one but still female. So fed up of all this nonsense.

These people need to grow up. And then fuck off

and not necessarily in that order.

What is this obsession with menstruation anyway?

It's one of the intended language changes to get rid of 'woman' as a sex class so that transgender and nonbinary people's abstract gender identities prevail everywhere. If the rest of use kept defining our genders on the basis of our sex, then their abstract gender identities would not be validated. This is the new inclusiveness argument (i.e. that it's okay to talk about menstruators as not all women menstruate or that it's okay to say 'pregnant people' as there are now female people who refuse to be called women).

For those of us who still define 'woman' as a biological sex this is really insulting and dehumanising, but we do not matter in the new ideology of gender identities. So it's okay to either neuter us (as in 'people giving birth, menstruating, etc.) or calling us by a body part (vulva people, ovary-havers) or a bodily function (birthers, bleeders).

This is the goal of the report, not whatever they state the goal might be.

@nepeta · Yesterday 21:51

“FeminismAndCake
What is this obsession with menstruation anyway?”

It's one of the intended language changes to get rid of 'woman' as a sex class…….[all the rest of what you said]

Well put. That is exactly how it is.

That would be ludicrous and require a change in the law surely as the Equality Act protects against sex discrimination specifically.

Even the first English census of 1841 asked age and sex - see extract

Even the first English census of 1841 asked age and sex - see extract

Try telling that to the Scottish judicial review who ignored all evidence like that.