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

Because they don't know what sex means?

Just so we know that we are talking about the same thing, please can you explain the situations when an artificial cervix would be created for a woman?

I'm talking about research, not treatment.

Says the person who says conflating sex with gender is plain English.

Fuck that.

And that pitching healthcare communications destined for the entire adult female population so that even people of low intelligence can understand them is... what was it again? Oh yes, "concern trolling".

No, it's not concern trolling, it's the first rule of plain English.

I'm really rather concerned that a midwife doesn't know that the cervix is an organ, comprising different tissue to the uterus and vagina. Indeed, that's why it gets a specific cancer, just like other organs.

Even if Himdia has had a surgically constructed cervix, (99.99% sure he hasn't) it wouldn't be susceptible to cervical cancer, thus rendering smear test useless and pointless.

Back to the main subject: you've had no TIF mothers on your ward and currently have the first NB. Why change the official wording to pander to pretty well 0% of your patients, whilst offending / confusing as near as damn it 100% of your patients?

Fair enough as a guidance footnote on being sensitive, but as the only official paperwork, its nothing but a mockery.

it wouldn't be susceptible to cervical cancer, thus rendering smear test useless and pointless.

But I think still might be susceptible to the cancers caused by the HPV virus, because that includes anal and penile cancer.

However, I assume that it would be a mistake to give cancer tests to a lab without telling them which organ the tissue originated from.

If it is not made of the same tissue as a biological woman’s cervix, it is surely not going to be susceptible to cervical cancer, is it, @LoftyRobin!

So this is about your personal opinion that trans related healthcare shouldn't be offered by the medical system at all.

If it is an orifice and HPV can "get in there", I think that general area might be suspectible as someone else pointed out. Whether a smear test could screen for that, i don't know. If it can, as in taking a smear of cells from that area for screening can be of predictive value, then I see no reason not to offer it on the NHS.

Why would they do that? Why wouldn't it be clear that this slide is from a transwoman with a neovagina?

Well because firstly, despite language changes, our unit has had no complaints at all about it from anyone. 100% of women aren't complaining about it changing to "women and pregnant people", in fact a large percentage fully support it.

As someone else pointed out, there is no reason to suspect a neovagina wouldn't also be suspectible to HPV.

Sex and gender always meant the same thing until recently.

When they are born without one or have had traumatic, pathological or surgical damage.

First, do no harm.

I can see two potential reasons for specialising in these types of surgeries which are not motivated by concern for patients.

One is the opportunity to pioneer new surgical techniques without being subject to the same rigorous ethical standards which apply to all other areas of medicine. This is the real wild west of surgery. This isn't about curing diseases or managing traumatic injuries. It is about playing God.

And the other is, of course, money. Follow the money, always.

Look at Siadbh Gallagher, who moved from Ireland to the US to carry out "gender affirming surgeries", charges upwards of $12000 for an elective double mastectomy, of which she performs several most days, and will operate on children as young as 13. Yeah, I can't imagine what could possibly be her motivation for specialising in this lifesaving work.

Even if you genuinely believe that performing incredibly risky surgery with a high complication rate on someone with a perfectly healthy body is an appropriate way to treat a mental health condition - which, you're right, I don't - you still have a professional duty to explain to the patient that the changes are purely cosmetic and will not actually change their sex.

If they were born without one, what would be the point in creating one?

If the sex is simply recorded as female (as is common in some health care records) and there is no explanation of where the tissues has been taken from and it's just recorded as a cervical smear test.

To ensure adequate testing I imagine that the nature of the neo vagina would also have to be made clear, as they can be constructed from different parts of the body.

I'm not arguing that there should be no screening process, but you would be screening for something other than cervical cancer.

So what do you think the two words mean now then?

Yes, LoftyRobin, I was really asking you to explain the purpose of creating an artificial cervix.

“It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”

What fresh lunacy is this? The only people capable of pregnancy are those born female, however they choose to identify. If this is the level of understanding of those who run things in Bristol, heaven help its unfortunate residents.

The same applies to this bit of nonsense: We also recognise that individuals may not identify with the word maternity and prefer paternity as it is gender neutral. Is Bristol Council really going back to the days when the word man automatically implied woman too? Give me strength....

https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/cervical-screening/what-is-cervical-screening/

I'm slightly concerned about the apparent lack of routine invitations to smear tests for trans identifying women, but I think the language used on this web page is clear and inclusive.

It also says:

• The cervix is the opening to your womb from your vagina.

So I think we can conclude that the NHS does not believe that India Willoughby has a cervix.

IW and anyone else should certainly receive appropriate tests for the HPV virus, and I don't care what language IW's doctors use when treating individual patients, but the NHS should use clear and accurate language in general communication, which this website page does. Long may It continue.

@LoftyRobin what age women are called for cervical screening?

Some language which doesn’t understand how Latin roots are embedded in English . Klingon maybe?

Some days I long for the good old bad old days when a member of the Bristol City council might have got up on their unrepentant back legs and made the proposal “Come on fellow Bristolians, let us embrace our most famous contribution to the English language and change the wording to People with Bristols, after all, much easier to identify Bristols than ovaries. Thankyou Madam Chairperson, I am putting on my coat as you speak……”

I'm not sure you do tbh. Can you point to what literature for clinicians says that you must tell them this? I have no idea. It might exist. Or is this you saying what you think should happen?