'Gender-affirming language' in healthcare

[zibzibara]

Saw this on Twitter earlier, it's how Health Partners, a workplace healthcare company, sidestepped the problem of 'gender-affirming language' in their most recent newsletter:

Please note: When we use the word 'men', we are referring to men, trans women, people who are non-binary who were assigned male at birth and cis gender men. When we use the word 'women', we are referring to women, trans men, people who are non-binary who were assigned female at birth and cis gender women.

A reasonable compromise for people with gender identity beliefs? Or an unnecessary appeasement?

A reasonable acknowledgment that people have beliefs that are significant to them and may influence their accessing the service the organisation provides, without in any way making any judgement around those beliefs..

No need for 'cis' or 'assigned at birth'. That's ideology language and I for one will never use it.

No need for compromises, we have the language already.

At least from a healthcare perspective all the men are in one group and all the women in another.

Of course the other side won't like it, even if it improves their healthcare. 🤷🏻‍♀️

That's exactly what I've always advocated for! The BBC has used the asterix + disclaimer technique in their articles on migration issues for years now and I always thought it would work for gender as well. Acknowledge people's self-defintions once, in a footnote, then go back to using men and women as sex-bsed terms. Much better than the additive "women and transmen" language throughout a text, which effectively turns "woman" into another gender term.

What is the point of saying "When we use the word 'men', we are referring to men, trans women, people who are non-binary who were assigned male at birth and cis gender men"? (Ditto "women [...] and cis gender women".)

Glad to see transwomen being included in the correct sex class, but I fear that using the nonsense terms "assigned [..] at birth" and " cis gender" are going to be enough to prevent Health Partners from getting the usual backlash from the TRAs.

I'm also sick of seeing "gender-affirming language" - the phrase should be "sex-denying language". (This is not directed at the OP - I fully appreciate how and why they used it.)

I've no real issue with this - it retains "woman" whilst respectfully acknowledging other identities. I would prefer to remove the reference to "cisgender women " at the end but I would prefer respectful discussion and compromise at this point.

D'oh - that should have been "but I fear that using the nonsense terms ... are not going to be enough ..."

I think it's fine. Yes, it uses the identitarian language of 'assign' and 'cis', but from that point on it will only be using the words 'men' and 'women'.

I can just imagine the person who wrote it rolling their eyes that it is necessary in the first place.

It wouldn't work for a charity dealing in ovarian cancer, for e.g.

Am I being too cynical in noting that they use this footnote in an issue of the newsletter devoted to "men's health and happiness"?

I think NICE does something similar. Would have to check