Interesting investigation of the issues of so- called ‘inclusive’ de-sexed language

[JustSomeWaferThinHam]

I don’t know if this has been shared before but it could be useful as a resource to send to the righteous yet hard of thinking insisting that de-sexed language is good.

Karleen Gribble and other authors identify the types of de-sexed language used in the name of ‘inclusivity’ and point out how they are very much NOT inclusive and the negative impacts on mothers and children globally. Also discussed are the negative impacts on trans people. This is because the imposition of this unnatural language was not done with any research into the unexpected consequences.

By breaking the automatic and primacy of association of mothers with their babies it undermines their human rights and the agency of mothers and makes advocacy and education harder.

Nothing we don’t already know but I found the breakdown of the types interesting and the discussion of the impacts.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575625000266?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQKNjYyODU2ODM3OQABHjJz08TA1yLjCxOU2gDA_eZVPbT2MdYrmYFSdkkt3u5MlPENwfOfUFlWsW1p_aem_NV_42fDqHHQkxx4SYP_X2Q

Invisible Women says it all.

Gender neutral language isn't neutral. Default human is male.

I was reading this yesterday:
https://biologyinmedicine.substack.com/p/pregnancy-checks-in-medical-imaging
And I found it really interesting.
This inclusive language causes unintended problems to women, trans, and men too. It would be solved so easily with an accurate recording of sex (and gender as a separate category if someone feels the need).

A clearly written and sensible paper, needs as much publicity as possible

I had a look for the inclusive form used by radiographers and found this

https://www.sor.org/learning-advice/professional-body-guidance-and-publications/documents-and-publications/policy-guidance-document-library/inclusive-pregnancy-status-guidelines-for-ioni-(1)/inclusive-pregnancy-status-guidelines-for-ionising

Lots of inclusive links. I've only glanced at a couple and advise that you ensure your eyes are firmly in their sockets before you take a look.

Btw, is it only me who thinks the phrase 'women and birth people' actually seems to exclude 'women' from the pool of people who give birth?

Dangerous madness.

• the terminology is too complex for people with learning difficulties and for some of the people who don't have English as their first language. So this is ableist and excluding.
• it is making women invisible. There are lots of linguistic studies that show the real life discrimination resulting from that.
• it is not searchable (and therefore easy to find) on databases and the internet. What do you search for - "people"? This adds to making women invisible and makes it harder for professionals and the general public to find medical information on women's health issues. The medical sector, of course, has discriminated against women ever since it came into being.
• it increases the number of errors. Often the term "women" is simply replaced by "people" without doubling the numbers. However, "5 in 10 people" is half as frequent for women than "5 in 10 women". And if the numbers are correctly doubled, it makes common women's health problems seem much less common, because 1 in 10 is suddenly 1 in 20. However, 10 out of those 20 have zero chance of developing the disorder due to being male. This is dangerous and might influence medical decisions, putting women at risk. It will also make some women believe there is much less risk for them than there actually is.

Bumping - please read

This is so important- thank you

Excellent article and saved for future reference, thank you

Thanks Wafer, really good article

bump - I also hope many will read this

Find Karleen Gribble on YouTube. She has been talking about this for over four years. Always clear and articulate.

PARLIAMENTARY PETITION: FUND RESEARCH INTO DESEXED LANGUAGE IN WOMEN’S HEALTH

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/5481908-parliamentary-petition-fund-research-into-desexed-language-in-womens-health?reply=150218571

Yes that’s a good point. It says women are not ‘birth people’ as that is named as a separate category, so if ‘birth people’ can give birth, and women are excluded from that category as they are listed separately - that says women are not the ones who give birth.

This definition therefore benefits men tho call themselves women. And is really stupid.

The thing is, these people get away with it precisely because everyone knows so deeply that women are the only ones who give birth so if you call it out they just say “well you know what it means” and move on.

Yes, the NHS have been particularly guilty of this despite knowing that clear language is so important. We can see they understand that as the erasure of sexed based language only happens in the women’s sections. The mens health mostly remains clearly for men.

As a software/systems developer in a previous life, I can’t fathom the inconsistency. In update or review meetings where they are earnestly discussing the need for ‘inclusive’ language and busily erasing women, why is someone not piping up to point out the huge differences in approach to information about men as opposed to women?

Because it is still "normal" to dehumanise women but not men?

This, but add in that the people making most fuss and creating fear of backlash are male and they are not targeting men’s language.

Sorry, I am not clear what you mean 😳

Could you expand on that, please? 🙏

The loudest voices I hear advocating for so-called “trans rights” on social media are male.

The most obvious invasion into opposite sex everything is male incursion into female spaces.

Men are the loudest and most performative objectors when they are denied access to anything or feel anything (language included) excludes them from anything.

I think it’s likely that men have complained about medical language and situations more often than, and more aggressively and loudly than, women.

So as well as it being normalised to dehumanize women, there’s also a huge fuss made by male activists whenever information is put out, using the word “women”. The objection is that that word should never be used in a situation where it implies that word excludes those men.

Thank you! I understand what you were getting at now.

Sadly, there is a also a long history of women (however they identify):

• being at the forefront of funding trans activism in the USA;
• pushing legal cases through the courts domestically and up to Europe;
• pioneering medicalisation and surgery as both patients and medics in the UK;
• engineering legislation and policies that recognise men as women and vice versa;
• campaigning for the "de-sexing" of language and the objectification of women as body parts and reproductive functions;
• corrupting institutions of all types as the majority of "trans allies" involved in teaching, social work, HR and DEI initiatives, etc. etc. are female;
• leading or being influential in "cancellation" campaigns.

Without the leadership and support of women, the men who want to erase us and get access to our single-sex spaces, prisons, opportunities and awards would not have been so successful.

I agree that the loudest voices advocating for so-called “trans rights” on social media are male.

I suspect that a lot of the "ordinary men" trans allies are cross-dressers, AGPs who are not transvestites and/or GAMPs. There are more of them than there are AGPs, other trans-identifying men, male non-binaries, etc.

However, it can also be difficult to know who people are online. Some of the most aggressive and vile "men" I have encountered on social media are trans-identified females or unhinged women simply posing as men online.

In Vox Pops on TV it is always women who tend to be "trans inclusive" while more men are firmly in support of keeping women and children safe. I think that is because men know what other men are like, while a lot of women have no idea, have had their heart-strings pulled by all the "most marginalised and vulnerable" propaganda or have been brainwashed by their own children.

The omnicause rallies where majority male crowds roar support for "trans liberation" one moment and Palestine the next, with the call and response led by men in dresses, are scary. The same male, left-wing mob that turn up to protest and scream abuse and threats at Let Women Speak's peaceful gatherings.

When we have done LWS "Table Events" locally there have not been any protesters and both men and women have been supportive. However, more men than women have been supportive and more women than men have been rude or dismissive "trans allies". Most worrying are the "trans ally" mums with young children in tow.

In short, I think men and women generally express and actualise their undermining of women, women's rights and children's safety differently and both are forces to be reckoned with.

Man, those SOR guidelines have seriously pissed me off. How the blistering cosmic fuck do they get away with such tendentious, unscientific, largely bloody fictional shite?

@Sammidge Easy. It is top down.

There are LBTQ+ working groups making recommendations and creating pressure. They position themselves as "allies" and part of a social justice movement, so leadership follows their recommendations.

A lot of women don't care about feminism and are unaware of the systemic discrimination they face. They certainly don't care about women with disabilities, poor women etc., so they go along with it. Often there are LGBTQ+ working groups, but not women's working groups, particularly in women-heavy sectors such as psychology, teaching or care.

A lot of people go along with it, because they are ignorant and lack critical thinking skills - or just don't think about it at all.

All of that combined makes it very hard for those against it to speak out, because they are immediately framed as right wingers, uninformed (the irony!), backwards, anti-social justice or whatever.

If you want to keep your job, you better shut up or speak up in very general terms.

I think large organisations need to be targeted even more. Ethical committees need to be turned around so that they don't approve research that does not use truly inclusive correct sexed-based language.

The health and mental health sector love to focus on language, because it gives a sense of change and achievement and costs nothing.

Perfect summary!

In which I say "we told you so". Academics figure out what was glaringly obvious to FWR regulars.

Karleen Gribble has been a regular publisher in this subject in both industry journals and lay magazines for many years. She hasn’t just lately “figured it out”.