Well yeah we say woman and women and they can't and shouldn't try to eliminate that, if I go to a doctor's appointment I don't expect to be called "human person" :rolleyes: .

There's absolutely nothing scary about that idiot's lantern of a newspaper. Let's not make out that people who find Daily Mail's continued love of misinformation and spin disgusting somehow fear it, we simply hold journalism to a higher standard and are actually interested in news, not spin meant to rile up the gullible.

...I know that it’s not just the DM carrying the story, Arista...but it’s still for me not a complete story because we don’t know how the terms are going to be applied, whether it’s on medical/hospital documentation/reports only etc...these are tabloid media, it seems most wise to feel the need for a complete story and context etc...

I don't know about this particular case but in Ireland they had changed the information on the HSE website (our NHS) to people with a cervix and removed the word women completely. Loads of people complained about it (me included) and they've now changed it to "Women and people with a cervix" see below

https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-va...screening.html

Funnily enough the Prostate Cancer Screening section was never changed originally and has not been changed to include other people who may have prostates either. I would really like to know why only women are being pressured to be inclusive in their language. See below.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/c/c...te-cancer.html

So same health service but only one sex is being pressured to change language. Why?

Thank you Oliver
for helping Ammi.

...that feels like the obvious solution, to add on, rather than to change...?...I think the intention of exclusivity is good and necessary but these things aren’t always well thought out....and I would hope that they would be taking Ireland’s lead if it’s to apply to the NHS as a whole body...atm, it seems to be this particular hospital and their staff workforce guidance and I’d just like to know a little more in depth, how it’s going to be applied....and I hope these hospitals are also a guide for other hospitals to think how exclusivity can apply without offending or alienating etc....

...behave yourself, Arista...

But why only the women's side of things being changed/redefined? This is what I don't get. Who is behind pushing this agenda but only asking for women's products and literature to be altered?

*I'm glad they added women back and don't have an issue with them adding people with a cervix to it btw, I just want to know why it's only us having to make the change, why isn't it important on the other side?

There isn’t a single person out there that’s campaigned for these changes it’s all a load of trash by the media reporting it to further their anti trans agenda

If no one campaigns for it why does it get changed, who prompts that change? And why when prompted to be more inclusive, is it only changing on the women's side?

Thats just..not true. It appears to be 'fringe groups' and such mainly, granted. And oddball loner types bombarding companies to change their terms. However, even the likes of stonewall are pushing for 'gender neutral language' . To say its just anti trans stuff made up by the media or whatever is just..false. The media is actually fairly slow on the uptake with this stuff..not too long back there was a situation in the UK same as niamh described in Ireland, where NHS cervical cancer leaflets and such suddenly removed the words woman and female completely. Its now both (as it should be, women AND those wth a cervix) but the answer was apparently to remove women totally. Media were almost silent at the time, as it was a bit suprising. Again, the lack of changes to prostate cancer pages and such was notable.