One of the reasons this is very bad from
a content design perspective is that it is presented as is it’s being ‘inclusive’ and , therefore, is ‘user centred’.
but it’s not. It fails to meet the basic needs of the vast majority of users. And for the very small number of users it’s supposedly ‘including’, it’s confusing user desires/wants with needs. It’s confusing their political agenda with their user needs to access comprehensible information about their health.
The thing is, every single trans man knows that for NHS purposes the term ‘woman’ applies to them. They absolutely know it. The know they are biologically female and that advice for women about cervical screening etc includes them. Without using any other terminology.
They might not like that or want to acknowledge it. But that’s a political point rather than a need. Accommodating their highly political desire to not be called women makes the information far, far less accessible to the vast majority of users. Many of those users are vulnerable and socially excluded in various ways. Designing for the wants of a tiny minority who know the information applies to them exacerbates the exclusion of these users. So it’s not a trade off they should be making.
NHS information specifically for transmen about trans issues is a different thing. But mainstream stuff about pregnancy or women’s health should be written in the language women understand about themselves.