Bristol Council insists women be called ‘people with ovaries’

[IwantToRetire]

The comments were made in a 39-page response to a consultation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on updates to its guidance, following the ruling that sex in equality laws refers to biological sex.

It wrote that “not all pregnant individuals would use the pronouns ‘she/her’” so it could lead to “emotional and psychological distress” for “trans men, non-binary, gender diverse or intersex individuals”.

“We strongly advise the use of more inclusive language such as using ‘they/them’ to refer to all individuals, or include other identities to reflect the diversity of individuals who access maternity or paternity services,” officials said.

“This could include ‘people with ovaries’ or the term ‘people who use paternity services’. We also recognise that individuals may not identify with the word maternity and prefer paternity as it is gender neutral.

“Additionally, it is unclear what support will be available to trans people who chest-feed to ensure they are protected from discrimination.”
Protections based on biological sex are “too vague”, the response added, as: “It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”

Council officials complained that the new guidance implies that “trans women are not ‘really’ women” and risked “creating a hostile environment in public services”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/council-says-women-called-people-with-ovaries/

And at https://archive.is/TOgKA

Yes, I am. What you want is that the person next door to you in labour ward is forcibly referred to as a woman so you feel comfortable pushing out your baby. It's really bizarre. I wonder how much this attitude seeps into your personal relationships.

I don't think anyone assesses personal identity when they analyse a smear test, so happily we stick to words that refer to science and biology.

(I assume you can agree that we rely on medical staff using the same model of science and biology and are not implying that MissScarletInTheBallroom has a personal model of science and biology?)

It shouldn't have to apply to everyone you feel it should to still feel apt for you.

Again, it's not a question of it feeling 'apt'.

It's a neutral describer like blood type or age.

Youre reaching and it's starting to show that this conversation is beyond you. But I'll try and go with your weird journey to explain to you another way.

When the lab staff look at those cells, they will.decide whether they are cancerous or not. They use a scientific model to assess that. They don't see cancerous cells and decide it is a curse from a disgruntled neighbour, for instance. That would be a spiritual model. Let's say they find cancer.

The person whose cells it is can view this a few ways. They can think "I am suffering from.cancer". They can think "I have cancer". "They can think I am living with cancer". They can even think they have been cursed and they are the victim of the devil or something. How they view it may well play into their personal identity. Or conversely, it may not and that again speaks of their personal identity. "I am not defined by my pathology".

So yes, the person factually has cancer or is pregnant, what that says about their personal identity is an internal experience. The key to providing good maternity care (probably healthcare generally) is by trying to understand someone's internal experience of what they are going through.

For you.

No, but anyone who thinks a man can have a cervix is definitely an idiot.

It means "all adult human females", not "all adult human females except the ones who believe they are not female even whilst pushing a baby out of their vagina plus some adult males who believe they are female".

The word we need and want to use is a word for "all adult human females". Therefore it includes all adult human females and excludes all other people whether they fucking like it or not.

Who thinks a man can have a cervix?

This is not what I want.

I assume that you have a whole range of difficult issues to deal with including women with mental health problems, eating disorders, in abusive relationships, and drug addicts and that they all need patient specific care.

All I am asking is that institutions do not generalise the individualised care that one person may need to other patients, at the expense of clear communication, and at risk of imposing a contentious belief system on all.

General communication should refer to the sex based model that YOU use in hospital to treat patients.

Similarly, some cancer patients don't like to talk about cancer, but leaflets and posters communicate clearly and don't use euphemisms.

David Lammy for one, but why wouldn't a man think he might have a cervix if he doesn't know what it is?

Anyone who thinks the word "woman" doesn't already include everyone with a cervix.

Right so I was right, you want midwives to forcibly call everyone women, even if they don't want to be labelled that way.

Well no, we won't stop providing individualised and inclusive care for all maternity care users. But thank you for making it so plain that you'd like us to treat service users that way.

What about women who were born without a cervix or have had them removed later in life. Should we let them know that screening isn't necessary for them by saying "women (and people) with a cervix should come for screening".

No, I think women's healthcare information should refer to women, in the simplest possible terms.

If you really think that dealing with pregnant women who identify as something other than women is a situation that comes up often, why not produce alternative versions of leaflets etc. which you can hand out to those people?

Nobody really cares how you address that person when you are the only people present, so if you want to indulge Freddy McConnell's idiocy, knock yourself out.

By definition.

Some people don't like to admit their age - should hospitals avoid using clear communication about age?

If the definition of 'woman' is up for grabs, why should 'cervix' have an objective meaning?

Right so I was right, you want midwives to forcibly call everyone women, even if they don't want to be labelled that way.

Rather radical interpretation of the text (and reality) going on here.

But that phrase doesn't let them know that they don't need to come for screening. And actually, it would be medically negligent to try to identify women who don't need cervical screening in that type of communication, because there is a risk that some women would think that they don't need screening when actually they do.

You are talking about women who either have a DSD or have had a major hysterectomy including removal of the cervix, which as I understand it is quite unusual. Most women who have had a hysterectomy and many women with MRKH syndrome still have at least a partial cervix and may well still need screening.

If they genuinely do not need screening, their doctor will tell them that and they can feel free to ignore information about cervical screening.

Men arent idiots either.

I think the crux if the question you maybe want to.ask but cant quite get there is whether whatever they create during a sex change is a cervix.

Interesting question. Is it? There are some women who need to have a cervix created surgically through grafts. Are these really a cervix?

If the ones created in a sex change surgery are surgically similar to the ones created for women without a functional cervix, would that mean they are both not a cervix, or both a cervix? Or can they still be different.

What I really care about is whether either demographic of person who has a cervix created are at increased risk of localised cancer. That to me would.determine their eligibility for routine screening and therefore, the language used in literature.

We already know that trans men and non binary people with a natal cervix are at increased risk, hence the language to include them.

It does because it essentially says that only adults with a cervix need attend.

Why are women who identify as men or non binary at increased risk of cervical cancer?

"women (and people) with a cervix should come for screening".

The meaning of that sentences is that all women (regardless of whether they have a cervix) AND people with a cervix (who are presumably men) should attend screening.

Either 'Women with a cervix' or 'people with a cervix' excludes women without a cervix, but if you don't use 'women' you risk excluding people who don't know what a cervix is.

No, it doesn't.

It says that women, and people who have a cervix but are not women, need to attend.

The first category - women - includes women who do not have a cervix. The second category - people who have a cervix but are not women - is a fictional category.

There are. But it is also important to include them in general services so people don't think they have to go to the special queer services. That's why we changed language to include same sex parents.

You added the commas

You know that arrogance that defines the Lanyards Who Don't Listen....

Well done on providing a Fine Example of The Problem.

YES it matters what you normalise - it impacts on everyone.

Language matters for this reason. Normal language should be used so it doesn't undermine everyone else's care. That means women. None of the rest of the bullshit necessary.

If you then choose to take a different approach for individual patients then you do this - thats how you normally deal with more complex cases.

You don't go around producing leaflets saying 'you can chose to have a vb or a cs' or cavating everything with mental health considerations do you? You have a default approach and anyone who falls outside that then gets individual care as appropriate. You don't shove these additional considerations down everyone elses necks.

Not only that but normalising this 'inclusive' language, also means you fail to have difficult conversations where appropriate because you have already created egg shells of problems where they didn't exist. Because you have legitimises the concept of 'trauma' about mentioning sex. Thus it becomes self fulfilling.

There is an element to anixety, where you have to have exposure but that exposure comes with support. Thats the difference. There is this pandering to the anxiety rather than offering actual support misses the point. You fail people by doing this - you have to acknowledge the anxiety head on. Using pronouns isn't support btw. Its just using pronouns.

And there is a third party minor involved who SHOULD be learning about the concept of sex for their own wellbeing. Saying sex doesn't matter and allowing a generation of indoctrinated children to not understand this puts them at considerable risk.

So no. Stop patronising, start listening to patients telling you that this 'inclusive' language being used across the board in inappropriate settings IS harmful and if you must use it, it should be confined to those individual patients as part of their individual care rather than imposing it on everyone else because its not in the best interests of the mjority of your patients. You are throwing the rest of your patients under the bus in this misguided abusive notion that we should all hail the pronouns and gender language.

NO.

This conversation is not 'taking it to a level' above anyone. If it is that smacks of the heart of the problem where women are not involved in their care and how they are treated at an institutional level. Its top down paternalism where women are told their place and that they are too stupid to understand and we the enlightened understand things beyond you. Which is utter bullshit. THIS IN ITSELF IS HARMFUL AS IT UNDERMINES PATIENT TRUST IN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS. You are creating a harm RIGHT THERE.

How dare you suggest this to any poster.

You demonstrate my previous point about disrepute finely and accurately.

No. This is not right. This is woman hating, punching down bullshit that hurts our interests.