My letter to the editor:
"Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
Words and their definitions are critical, especially in scientific writing, yet an NS article on endometriosis failed to use the word “female” even once. But, in an article about a pregnant shark, the term “female” was freely used, despite the fact that no male shark could possibly become pregnant.
As a publication that prides itself on adhering to scientific accuracy, I find this inconsistency both perplexing and problematic. Endometriosis is a condition that exclusively affects females, specifically women and girls—human females. But, the article chose to use vague terms like “people with the condition,”, or even “People who menstruate".
We cannot afford to obscure biological realities with cultural ambiguity, particularly in a scientific context. If we can confidently describe Pluto as a “dwarf planet” - because definitions matter, then we must also be as precise in identifying the biological sex of those affected by medical conditions like endometriosis.
It is disappointing to see New Scientist refuse to use scientifically accurate terminology in one article while adhering to it in another. This lack of consistency undermines the trust readers place in your publication for factual, evidence-based reporting. Science is grounded in clear definitions, and it is essential that your publication reflects this.
I urge you to maintain the same standard of scientific accuracy across all your articles, especially when discussing topics related to human biology and medical conditions."