[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

An article from the Daily Mail that's full of language and terminology meant to incite gammon about gender? Surely not!?

TRUE fair point

But they can't erase female phrases and the word woman , so i'm hoping this just applies to people who identify that way .

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

sounds a bit cake and eat it to me if I am honest, if you want to be male, and I honestly think if you are taking testosterone that would negate female hormones, but I am not up on science, also I asked you because you seemed so sure I thought you might know?

any comment on the breasts that the non binary person has attached to their body..

Not all transmen are on hormones. Especially given..a lot of transmen these days tend to be very very young. A 16 year old child of a friend of mine came out as trans last year. They are not on hormones or anything, and are now pregnant. From the utterly ridiculous situation of listening to online groups and basically convincing themselves into believing that they are actually male, and they have no pregnancy risk, etc etc, sleeping with a 'non binary person' (who also, cannot get them pregnant, as not a man) and..funnily enough..as can happen when a male and female person shag, ending up pregnant. Like, its like something from some messed up comedy at times. This is part of why I am hugely against the denial of biology really. Seems to be creating some weird alternate reality where people are actually convinced that sex is not a real thing because they want to think that, and end up in situations that are..easily avoidable with some sense applied. Again, that^ seemed a rarity, usually confined to america tbh, but its everywhere now, with so so many young female people saying they are trans/non binary. No issue in itself really, but when they fall for the social media/media bull****? It becomes a bit of an issue. I do not think its 'kind' or 'nice' to be playing to that narrative.

Kids are..easily 'brainwashed'. I dont think the term fits 100%, but you can see where I am coming from. When many many older people tell young impressionable minds that they can identify their way out of biology, you get these kinds of results tbh. Its insanity.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I just read the article Vicky and it sounds like they're calling father's "birthing parent" & "co parent " instead of man .

Thats got to be a first..bloody hell. In practise, I really doubt they will though..its been a 'thing' for a while now. Cervical cancer charities totally removing the word woman/female, meanwhile, mens cancers..left alone. I don't WANT mens charities to be targetted mind. But, its always seemed very stark, the lack of 'inclusive language' for male people. And..the reaction of a lot of those who use 'inclusive language' if you do attempt to define male people as scrotum havers or something.

Honestly have not read the actual article as..read this elsewhere so the mails take is not too important to me

[Ammi]

...I don’t really have much comment atm because I don’t want to just take a DM article for something like this...I have tried to Google more and the terminology seems to be specific to these hospitals in their new guidance...I mean for staff use, not what would be expected of any terminology used beyond that...it’s a difficult one...for me anyway...because I do feel that trans inclusivity has importance also...


...there is a maternity pay bill being rushed through today, I read...I’m not sure the details but it’s being apparently rushed through because of a minister about to go on maternity leave...I always wonder with this type of story, if it’s there for a diversion, it’ll be interesting as to what the bill is exactly...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

You don’t actually need to do anything...

From what I’ve seen it’s not just women I’ve heard things like “people with penises/prostates” used. I’m not going to click on the dailymail article but from arista’s extract it looks like they’re talking specifically about the birthing process and people who are born male don’t do that.

I don't want to be referred to that way though, is it not OK for me to say I find it dehumanising?

Where have you seen men being referred to as anything other than men? Is it men's health literature or in hospitals or on mens hygiene products?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Thats got to be a first..bloody hell. In practise, I really doubt they will though..its been a 'thing' for a while now. Cervical cancer charities totally removing the word woman/female, meanwhile, mens cancers..left alone. I don't WANT mens charities to be targetted mind. But, its always seemed very stark, the lack of 'inclusive language' for male people. And..the reaction of a lot of those who use 'inclusive language' if you do attempt to define male people as scrotum havers or something.

Honestly have not read the actual article as..read this elsewhere so the mails take is not too important to me

Well according to that article so I guess we just take it with a pinch of salt .

But "woman" & "female" cannot be erased of the English language and terminology , if they want to have inclusive terms then that's one thing but they shouldn't remove another .

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I don’t really have much comment atm because I don’t want to just take a DM article for something like this...I have tried to Google more and the terminology seems to be specific to these hospitals in their new guidance...I mean for staff use, not what would be expected of any terminology used beyond that...it’s a difficult one...for me anyway...because I do feel that trans inclusivity has importance also...


...there is a maternity pay bill being rushed through today, I read...I’m not sure the details but it’s being apparently rushed through because of a minister about to go on maternity leave...I always wonder with this type of story, if it’s there for a diversion, it’ll be interesting as to what the bill is exactly...

Its on Every News Headlines
Forget the DM

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

if they want to have inclusive terms then that's one thing but they shouldn't remove another .

Well thats always been it for me on this topic. I see no issue, at all (and its maybe even preferable tbh) in midwives or whoever using 'inclusive'/nonsexbased terms for those who do not identify with their sex. Make the patient as comfy as possible right? Affects noone else really if for their appointments, they are called chest feeders, or anything like that. And could help the patient, a lot.

However I do NOT find it inclusive at all, to wholesale remove usual language.

Like, even the likes of this ridiculous 'menstruators' thing (possibly the most well known instance of this?). Menstruators, and 'people who menstruate' are bloody awful terms for so so many. I have never, since the start of this, understood why the answer was not...'women, transmen and non binary people'?! Seems the bloody obvious answer? But no. Not acceptable.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well thats always been it for me on this topic. I see no issue, at all (and its maybe even preferable tbh) in midwives or whoever using 'inclusive'/nonsexbased terms for those who do not identify with their sex. Make the patient as comfy as possible right? Affects noone else really if for their appointments, they are called chest feeders, or anything like that. And could help the patient, a lot.

However I do NOT find it inclusive at all, to wholesale remove usual language.

Like, even the likes of this ridiculous 'menstruators' thing (possibly the most well known instance of this?). Menstruators, and 'people who menstruate' are bloody awful terms for so so many. I have never, since the start of this, understood why the answer was not...'women, transmen and non binary people'?! Seems the bloody obvious answer? But no. Not acceptable.

Why isn't acceptable to add rather than remove is the question?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Why isn't acceptable to add rather than remove is the question?

Exactly. If people don't wish to be named women, fine. Add them. Do not ****ing remove women. And then, replace women with 'person who bleeds' or other such nonsense. Jesus.

[Oliver_W]

The story has also been covered by the Mirror and Metro, for those who find the Daily Mail too scary

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...terms-23473645
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brigh...sive-14055419/

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well thats always been it for me on this topic. I see no issue, at all (and its maybe even preferable tbh) in midwives or whoever using 'inclusive'/nonsexbased terms for those who do not identify with their sex. Make the patient as comfy as possible right? Affects noone else really if for their appointments, they are called chest feeders, or anything like that. And could help the patient, a lot.

However I do NOT find it inclusive at all, to wholesale remove usual language.

Like, even the likes of this ridiculous 'menstruators' thing (possibly the most well known instance of this?). Menstruators, and 'people who menstruate' are bloody awful terms for so so many. I have never, since the start of this, understood why the answer was not...'women, transmen and non binary people'?! Seems the bloody obvious answer? But no. Not acceptable.

That term would be too long to say , why not just say 'women and people'

I heard about the 'menstruator' one, but I didn't think many used that term as people are still openly saying 'woman and period' in the same sentence. The ads on TV still say female and women when talking about periods.

Even ' tenor ladies ' still say women , I just can't imagine them changing that all .

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

That term would be too long to say , why not just say 'women and people'

Or even better ... Women.

[Livia]

If you're giving birth and/or breastfeeding, you're a woman. That's nature. I don't see why women can't be referred to as women because a handful of women identifying as men, and still having unprotected sex, might be offended.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Not all transmen are on hormones. Especially given..a lot of transmen these days tend to be very very young. A 16 year old child of a friend of mine came out as trans last year. They are not on hormones or anything, and are now pregnant. From the utterly ridiculous situation of listening to online groups and basically convincing themselves into believing that they are actually male, and they have no pregnancy risk, etc etc, sleeping with a 'non binary person' (who also, cannot get them pregnant, as not a man) and..funnily enough..as can happen when a male and female person shag, ending up pregnant. Like, its like something from some messed up comedy at times. This is part of why I am hugely against the denial of biology really. Seems to be creating some weird alternate reality where people are actually convinced that sex is not a real thing because they want to think that, and end up in situations that are..easily avoidable with some sense applied. Again, that^ seemed a rarity, usually confined to america tbh, but its everywhere now, with so so many young female people saying they are trans/non binary. No issue in itself really, but when they fall for the social media/media bull****? It becomes a bit of an issue. I do not think its 'kind' or 'nice' to be playing to that narrative.

Kids are..easily 'brainwashed'. I dont think the term fits 100%, but you can see where I am coming from. When many many older people tell young impressionable minds that they can identify their way out of biology, you get these kinds of results tbh. Its insanity.

Right got you Vicky, its not something I thought about in terms of very young people so yes of course they wont immediately be on hormones, so that make sense

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Or even better ... Women.

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" .

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The story has also been covered by the Mirror and Metro, for those who find the Daily Mail too scary

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...terms-23473645
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brigh...sive-14055419/

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.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

Its on Every News Headlines
Forget the DM

...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...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...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?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The story has also been covered by the Mirror and Metro, for those who find the Daily Mail too scary

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...terms-23473645
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brigh...sive-14055419/

Thank you Oliver
for helping Ammi.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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?

...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....

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

Thank you Oliver
for helping Ammi.

...behave yourself, Arista...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 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....

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?

[Smithy]

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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?