I detest the violently misogynistic and degrading terminology such as calling us baby carriers or referring to our front holes. I am also disgusted by the move to erase women and girls from information about female conditions. Finally I agree with others here who have pointed out how insulting it is to use birth trauma as an excuse to push for a movement that undermines and disrespects women.
However, one of the suggestions I think make sense - providing literature that is specific to trans-identified or detrans women where there is a need. It’s not a matter of agreeing on an ideological basis, but I don’t want anyone to be left without vital health care knowledge. Although the article constantly bangs on about inclusive language (which I can also assume means the erasure and degradation of women) it is far more important that they are accurately and clearly informed about their healthcare needs.
For example, in a lot of women testosterone use causes vaginal atrophy which can make cervical screening painful. If they and their health care providers are aware of this issue then there are things that can be done to make screening more comfortable.
I suffer from the same condition, but being post-menopausal it was something the nurse was already thinking about and so after examining me she prescribed an oestrogen pessary and rearranged to a later date when it had taken effect. I don’t imagine that would be at the front of your mind when caring for a young woman. It important that both she and her nurse are aware, because a painful and unpleasant experience could decrease future uptake rates.
I mentioned cervical screening because that is an issue that affects a lot more trans-identifying women than pregnancy, but the same is true in relation to pregnancy and contraception. A lot of trans-identified women falsely believe that testosterone use protects them from pregnancy when it does not. They also need to be informed that using testosterone whilst pregnant can cause birth defects in the developing foetus.
None of this is about accepting or supporting the use of drugs or surgery in trans-identified people, but on a practical level people do these things whether we think it is the correct way to manage their psychological issue or not. They and their doctor need to have an awareness of the medical consequences, and guidance specifically designed for these groups can provide that without degrading and erasing women and girls. Nor does that literature itself have to use misogynistic language; in fact I have seen several trans-identified women who are uncomfortable with this language too.
I can’t agree with those suggesting that the NHS shouldn’t spend the money, which frankly wouldn’t be very much, on producing this kind of guidance or suggesting it is wasteful. We all deserve health care that considers the individual needs and risk factors we have, and I can’t support the notion that any group is less entitled to this. Whether I agree with someone’s choices or beliefs has no impact on that.
Sorry if I’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent. I know the true issue most of us have is with the degrading language and treatment of women and girls, and I expect everyone here agrees about the need for complete transparency regarding the consequences of experimental hormonal and surgical interventions.
However, I wanted to raise the examples because I think the difference between these two approaches is sometimes overlooked, and I do believe that there are ways we can protect the health of trans-identifying people without promoting harmful and dangerous ideology.