The Naked Scientist podcast - menstruating people

[AllyCatTown]

I really like this podcast but have noticed that whenever there’s a topic on women’s health the male host speaks normally and uses words like female, woman etc “women who had the vaccine noticed a difference in their menstrual cycle etc etc”, but then it’s often a female interviewer who it cuts to for the in-depth story and she delivers a whole segment on menstruation without using such words as women. I wonder if there’s disagreement behind the scenes on this issue.

Also it’s interesting that it seems to be more women who are going along with this nonsense- or at least that’s my perception.

I agree, why are there so many women staunchly modifying their language? Are they mostly younger women?

Only females. You know that, we know that. I'm a young post menopausal woman, and I don't take umbrigde at that. Women , regardless of their age or cycle dont give a shit. People (men/handmaidens) that do, are truly daft. We see you.

So, it's more accurate to say "people who menstruate" or "menstruating people", especially when you are talking about study findings

No. It is less accurate, especially when you are talking about study findings. Science needs to use accurate terminology: what people actually are rather than what they like to think they are.

And wasn't NoHateOnlyDebate on the Trans training thread that was pulled? Certainly a TRA.

When women are falling over themselves to give our words away is it really misplaced, naive kindness?

When women in other countries stone other women to death few, if anyone, would say its misplaced kindness. Most would point to the internalization and uncritical submission of rules created by those who want to control women by any means possible such as by intimidation and terror.

Fair point. I was being generous, as I generally cut women, who are themselves navigating a patriarchal society the best way they can, more slack. But sometimes these women really test my patience.

Sometimes people just use a word like "people" when the context is clear that it is a female person, and it has nothing to do with gender ideology.

I find it totally shocking that scientists or the NHS use strange, misleading and dehumanising language in public forums, or public messaging.

Clear, unambiguous language is very important, the WHO even has a section on how public health messages are misunderstood so often, that it can cost lives and health. To put public health messages up they often have to go through a plain english filter and be vetted by health professionals to see that they are accurate and most importantly, clear about who it is they are talking about, and what the message is.

This kind of ‘people who menstruate’ is ambiguous and unclear.

Sometimes people just use a word like "people" when the context is clear that it is a female person, and it has nothing to do with gender ideology.

Odd then that the same rarely if ever happens when the context is clear that it is a male person. Moreover it absolutely has everything to do with gender ideology and not excluding those male people who don't want the word " woman" to have anything to do with female biology because then they can't be included in the word " woman". All about the males.

You can just say women. That's what used to happen. 'Women noticed a difference in their menstrual cycle'. It's implicit that it's only women who menstruate who noticed it.

Given that women do from about the age of 13 to 50 odd, it's most of us.

As a woman who no longer menstruates, I don't find it offensive, or confusing to know that this sentence doesn't apply to me.

And it never, ever happens to men when talking about male specific health issues. So yes, it's political. Please let's not pretend it isn't.

It was my understanding that women who no longer menstruate had also experienced bleeding after having the vaccinations. It’s really fucked with a lot of women.

Our local pharmacist mentioned the other day that she thinks there is an increase in miscarriage and has drawn a link to the vaccinations - which could be scaremongering, but could also be right.

It’s ideological Nonsense that excludes everyone except the very educated and privileged. In no way is this equality.

This really gets my goat because the average reading age in the UK is 9 years old. The NHS have a whole tram dedicated to making medical information understandable at that level for anyone with low reading comprehension or who speaks English as a foreign language.

And now all those with EMT and EAL language issues are being brushed aside so that the over privileged who run the trans movement aren’t offended.

The families I worked with in central Birmingham would find this language impossible to navigate. But the left don’t actual care about the lives of immigrant women anymore.

Yeah right.

Men's health campaigning is always referring to 'people who ejaculate' and 'people who get erections'. Prostate cancer awareness is er, stiff, with the term 'people with prostrates'.

Come back to me when men are routinely called by their body parts and biological functions.

In the meantime more and more people are realising it's a deliberate, political ploy to divorce the term women from their own biology.

Or maybe you have an alternative explanation?

No shit sherlock moment......

When only women have the required body parts and the scientist explains this to the reader.

Any reader would have to be a right idiot to read "women who had the vaccine noticed a difference in their menstrual cycle" and think it applies to women who don't have a menstrual cycle.

But lets all pretend that this is about accuracy, thats why it's always people with penis, people who ejeculate. 👀

Its a political choice to force a split in the language between woman and her body.

Women will be quicker to go along with it because the default worker is male, to gain the ability to work outside the home the slogan was that women were as good as men.
Most paid employment is still organises around the male default of always available eg 9-5 is the work day but schools don't match that timetable.
Once women accept that pregnancy related legislation is still not seen as levelling the work environment but as a sex based advantage, women have to be able to verbalize why having babies is so important for society but disadvantages on the individual level. SAHM is still "sold" as an economic burden on the family and on society. Western society reject recognition for the economic benefit women provide by growing and raising babies (to "productive" adulthood) and elder care. Cheap child care is needed to enable women to join the paid workforce.
Look at the state of nursing home provision to see the real economic value women provided for generation's. Child care was an anyone can do it but like with nursing homes proper training and regulation pushes the cost up. But society still needs it to be seen as a low value activity to continue to have other women afford to participate in the workforce. Women come to MN to discuss various solutions and any thread will show a vast array of opinions.

Some women go along with the butchering of womans language because they have internalised the social restriction : male never pregnant is always assumed as the default human. Pre-DNA men never had to worry about the reproduction part of sexual reproduction, just call her a slut and deny the baby was possibly his. So the daily impact of a female reproductive cycle has been "politely" ignored, marginlised and not provided for (eg car seatbelts, public toilets).

Yet Western Society recognises that men using dehumanising language around woman and their bodies may indicate a mysognist so media savvy men whos economic well being depends on a likability factor are not going to use that language.

Some women being "useful idiots" think that pretending that women can opt out of biology will benefit women long term. They have not figured out how to redesigned from 'male never pregnant' to 'female may be pregnant' so ignoring the problem is easier.

Examine the language used in the opening statement by the third speaker, a professor:
^ explain how it harms people of colour
^ people with the capacity to get pregnant were not part of the body politic
^ Women [ drops people with the capacity to get pregnant ] could not vote
Spot the other places woman is or is not used.

Note did the "useful idiot" also argued for the right of the sperm ejeculator to have the choice to cause the gestator to abort the gestational process and not go to jail?

Was the "useful idiot" so busy being clever that the introduction was about as useful as a chocolate teapot?
Anybody want to put money on how that was received by Mr Swing Vote on the pro-abortion legistation?

Guess what the headlines were about?

You can just say women. That's what used to happen. 'Women noticed a difference in their menstrual cycle'. It's implicit that it's only women who menstruate who noticed it.

Given that women do from about the age of 13 to 50 odd, it's most of us.

Yes in the last 5 years or so there has been a weird fad that perfectly common sex-based words have to represent every person exactly at all times or they don't mean anything.

So, it's more accurate to say "people who menstruate" or "menstruating people", especially when you are talking about study findings.

Ok, so if instead of just saying 'women', you want to specify those of them who menstruate, why on earth would you change the wording from 'women' to 'people who menstruate', rather than to 'women who menstruate'?

And now all those with EMT and EAL language issues are being brushed aside so that the over privileged who run the trans movement aren’t offended.

The entitlement and power tripping of these people is quite sickening.

Actually I disagree.

Young kids weren't freely given the vaccine. So women/men is correct.

Women who don't menstruate (health reasons or menopause) don't have a cycle so it wouldn't apply. 🤷🏻‍♀️ it's like saying "women who had wtv notice several hair fall". But what if they were bald??!!! 😩 then it just doesn't apply! We don't need to be SUUUUUUPER politically correct all the time!!!

I no longer menstruate due to menopause but I am not offended or excluded by the phrase "women who had the vaccine found changes to their periods..." I understand that I am no longer within the particular subset of women under discussion, just as I am no longer within the subset of any discussion referring to, say, schoolgirls. I never went to university but I don't feel excluded by any discussion of female students' experience. I've never given birth but I don't feel excluded by any reference to "mothers". I am and remain a women. I recognise that other women have experiences linked to their female bodies that I do not. I do not expect to be centred in every single discussion that may explore the huge variation of experiences that women may live through at different times of their life because of their female biology. If they do not apply to me personally, it has no affect whatsoever on my own womanhood, because I was born female and grew to adulthood and that is all that is required to be a woman.

I am and remain a woman, not 'a women', although if there were several of me I'd get vastly more shit done.

Or she has seen a rise/spike in specific medications used to manage the process. It could be that other places were nolonger stocking the meds etc or she could have spotted a trend. So if this is true across the UK the gp and pharmacists would be the first to notice on a local level but investigations would not start until it was reported to the health surveillance teams.

Remember it was undertakers who spotted the homicidal doctor's pattern and a doctor doing statistics on post op death rates who spotted the death rate in Bristol's baby hospital.

@Legrandsophie

I agree completely. The linguistic gymnastics that are now gone through to avoid upsetting a tiny minority, makes messages less clear for:-
Those with low levels of literacy
Those who speak English as a second language
Those with learning difficulties

Ah! the girls are too stupid to realise menstruation is the one thing that welcomes them into womanhood argument.

Got it...

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/28/erase-biological-definition-sex-gender-self-identification-trans-transgender-feminist-case

Also....

"So, it's more accurate to say "people who menstruate" or "menstruating people", especially when you are talking about study findings."

You also seem to be somehow implying that those who have gone through menopause or don't menstruate for another reason, are no longer "women" and are not entitled to the title.

They just become amorphous blobs called "people".

Womanhood revoked.

"So, it's more accurate to say "people who menstruate" or "menstruating people", especially when you are talking about study findings."

The fallacy of this is clear if you consider the differences between 'people who don't menstruate' and 'women who don't menstruate'.