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

They are included in general services.

Their GPs should be saying to them, "I understand that you identify as a man/non-binary, but you have a female body and still need female healthcare, such as cervical screening. Would you like a leaflet about cervical screening for trans and non-binary people?" and then they can print off a special version of the leaflet for women who are upset about being referred to as women.

This would avoid reducing the effectiveness of the communication designed for the female population as a whole.

This is all incoherent rambling. Maybe calm down and rephrase it all. I'll give it another shot when you do. All I can see is that we dont have leaflets that tell people that they can choose their birth mode..we most definitely do.

At least I didn't add five superfluous, nonsensical words which obscure the meaning of the sentence and dilute the effectiveness of the communication for everyone else.

Why do they need to say you have a female body? Why can't they say you have a cervix? Can you see how you constantly want to enforce your views that they are a woman/female etc and it is totally unnecessary to inform them of their eligibility for screening?

I'm calling Bad Faith at this point.

This poster has literally just said

'Calm Down Dear'.

Bad Faith.

I do not need to comment further because you demonstrate my point just so well.

No I really didn't. Its directly from the NHs page I linked. Even when it comes to women, only those with a cervix need attend.

BECAUSE DOCTORS NEED TO DEALING IN REALITY AND NOT PEOPLE'S IMAGINARY IDENTITIES.

You cannot give or receive effective sex based healthcare without acknowledging what sex the patient is.

Yes because youre not making any sense at all. If you want me to respond to your posts, they have to be readable.

Uh huh.

I said "I didn't". Not "you did".

Accurate language isn't your forte, is it?

The irony.

You're proving my point. Youre more interested in enforcing your views than ensuring people at risk of cervical cancer have screening. That's why you could never be a HCP. Youre too invested in your own point of view to provide good healthcare.

No i am saying the quote you are talking about wasnt constructed by me, it is off of the NHs cervical screening site.

Paternity means father… how is ‘male’ now gender neutral?

Part of providing good healthcare to trans identifying people is making sure they understand that they have not changed sex.

I didn't say you wrote it.

I said it is unclear and that adding all these unnecessary words reduces the effectiveness of the communication.

Are you saying David Lammy is not a man oh that he is usually idiotic?

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.

No, I know this, and it isn't.

https://genderblog.net/what-exactly-is-a-neo-vagina-then/

I don't know whether the end of a neovagina is susceptible to cancer, or whether smear tests are appropriate, but it is not a cervix. From what I understand there is in increased concern about the impact of the HPV virus on cancers in men (e.g. throat cancer) and if more screening can prevent that then great.

I'm not going to get precious about parts of the body. I have had bits of my body removed because of cancer, and it didn't change my sex.

Only if youre not very bright. Most people would see woman and consider whether they have a cervix and known they are eligible. If have thought the degree educated population of Mumsnet would have had better comprehension skills.

Once again, this thread is useful because it exposes all the false arguments, wilful misinterpretation and general overreach of the proponents of genderism.
I rather doubt the credentials of our genderist midwife, but if she is indeed a midwife, her dogmatism is rather alarming.

So that is really the crux, are this demographic more suspectible to cancer that could be detected by routine smear tests. If they are, then you guys don't have any point at all.

Ive said several times what my personal beliefs are, I've also stated that they have nothing to do with my obligation to deliver midwifery care. That's what you don't seem to understand. The concept that you might have to refrain from sharing your views in the workplace and just do your job..

Guess what? Lots of people who need to know this information are not very bright.

The job of the writer is to write it in such a way that ensures that even the most stupid person can understand it.

What evidence do you have to suggest that they are more susceptible to these types of cancer?

I dont. I have no idea. My point is that IF they are, then there is no reason that screening and therefore recruitment, shouldn't be expanded to include them. Would mean more language change.

I think you're concern trolling tbh.

Look, just admit that what you want is for HCPs to forcibly insist to trans people that their identity is invalid. Even when they've shown up with a broken toe.