Census question. Do you menstruate? instead of Are you female? Madness!

[SomeWoman]

I'm a longtime lurker, drawn to MN by the Feminism and Gender discussions

This article in the Telegraph has enraged me, We can't let this happen!

(I'm using a french keyboard and can't do full stops, sorry)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/04/census-could-ask-do-menstruate-instead-female-taxpayer-funded/

Current thread about this:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4562519-suggestion-that-census-could-ask-do-you-menstruate-instead-of-asking-sex

Not all women menstruate. A census is about health care provision amongst other things. I'm
a 50 year old woman I don't menstruate. I have no need of reproductive health care.

My mum is 80 & long ago had a hysterectomy & doesn't menstruate.
Stop the needless Pearl clutching.

Stop the needless Pearl clutching

Needless?

You're absolutely right that not all women menstruate but it's not just about reproductive health care.

Not menstruating doesn't mean all your health needs are now aligned with the male default. For example how does this question help discern how much need for mammograms there may be? I may not menstruate, but still have ovaries and a cervix which can give indicators for smear testing, or specific types of cancer care.

It's the telegraph. Known for being full of shite.
Note the use of the word " could.

It's right that a government check what's appropriate inclusive language from time to time.
Nobody used to bat an eyelid when all terms were male gendered & women (rightly ) fought back.

So no longer fireman - now firefighter (gender neutral
No longer policeman - now police officer

No one is suggesting ending smear tests or mammograms.

Why the raised eyebrow? As you stated that there was 'needless pearl clutching' about this proposed change I asked how the proposed question would help to discern need for those things. Ie things relevant to being female but not to do with menstruation.

Ah, I did check, but not the Chat section

It's right that a government check what's appropriate inclusive language from time to time.

What's inclusive about it? What about women who don't menstruate but still need female provision? It's the opposite of inclusive.

There's a very few specific medical contexts where 'do you menstruate' is a relevant question, though often 'is there any possibility that you may become pregnant' may be even moreso. And maybe working out provision and emptying of sanitary bins...

Whereas accurate demographic figures (age, sex being the most fundamental) have many relevant uses. The last census asked clearly for sex and then a supplementary question about 'gender'. Useful info, totally 'inclusive' because everyone is male or female, and does know which they are even if they don't like it.

In this case the telegraph is full of shite because over half a million pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on what seems like a pretty shite piece of 'research'.

Note the use of the word " could.

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to read the article that lays out KCL's research and their findings. Perhaps read previous threads on here that discuss KCL's ESRC-funded project. These actions might assist you to engage in a discussion of this research.

The Future of Legal Gender Project, led by King’s College London, has assessed how legal sex would be abolished in England and Wales and replaced with a single gender category, with the aim of contributing to policy discussions.

After four years of interviews with 200 charity workers, civil servants, lawyers, government officials and the public, it suggested that a “soft decertification” of small changes in organisations could replace any lurch to “gender-neutral law”.

over half a million pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on what seems like a pretty shite piece of 'research'.

Indeed.

THIS.
The amount of money that is being spent (especially in healthcare) on obliterating women's language and identity is chilling. It's exclusionary and taking us back to the Victorian times when women's bodies and health needs were considered unmentionable.

Will they also be asking " do you ejaculate?"

😂

You’re missing the point entirely. This has zero to do with health care provision for women of all ages.

But you made me laugh 😂

I’ve commented on the other thread about this issue but will say again: this is the most fucking stupid, insulting question imaginable. What an outrageous waste of money, too 🤬🤬

Hang on I'm confused.

Are we wrong because it's the telegraph which is right wing and full of shite, therefore the census will continue to ask what sex people are?

Or are we wrong because we are "pearl clutching" silly menstruators /ex menstruators and the existence of could-be-menstruators who don't menstruate for myriad reasons means that there are no reasons at all to gather sex data on the population so the proposals that the telegraph reports on are fine?

Full report on which the article is based for anyone who wants to read it:

www.kcl.ac.uk/law/research/future-of-legal-gender-abolishing-legal-sex-status-full-report.pdf

Needless pearl clutching?

I don't menstruate. I'm still a woman. I still need healthcare directed at women. Why should I be recorded on a census as not a woman?

It's a really stupid idea. Lots of women don't menstruate, if we are using menstruators as a short hand for female, the census will show that 75% of the population are not female!

This. Never ever raised.

A census is about health care provision amongst other things.

Is it only females who menstruate who need health care? Surely knowing how many females there are in the country is much more useful.

ie the ejaculation question

All those women who don't menstruate but need HRT, treatment for female specific cancers, female specific DSD's etc are screwed under this proposal if it's just about health care provision.

If only women would stop complaining and suffer in silence or die quietly!

Since when has the census started asking for sensitive medical information? Your doctor wouldn’t even ask unless it was directly relevant to
Your treatment. I know there is a section on disabilities but it’s very non specific unless you volunteer the information

Ok. This thread shows exactly how quickly some will spiral and read what they want to read, rather than what is actually written.

I said women who no longer or simply don't menstruated dont need reproductive healthcare.

That doesn't mean healthcare of any other type. It means what i said and nothing more.

Language being inclusive is good. I certainly don't like anything except the bare essential being gendered.

Language that's excluding of anyone is not good. That's all I said.

It's an article in a Tory rag about a piece of research.

I simply don't agree with the panic ensuing.

Language being inclusive is good.

How is the proposed question inclusive?

@LemonRedwood

I haven't read the research only the torygraph article.
IF and that's a big IF it's accurate (unlikely) & is proposed as a stand alone question with no other mention of sex or gender then it's not inclusive.
ie it's absolutely meant as a replacement for M or F

If it's in a health section then yes it's inclusive.

There is nuance in most things that some simply choose not to see.

I suppose I just don't trust the torygraph to get it right. They have an agenda.