Balanced article on new paper re inclusive language and risks for women

[Melissa Louise]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html

Yes, the article includes gender diverse voices. 

[Tanaqui]

Any argument that relies on me believing that the word "people" is somehow dehumanizing to, uh, people is ill-conceived.

[Melissa Louise]

'People with vaginas' is dehumanizing for many women. Many women find the term 'birthing person' or 'gestator' or 'menstruator' dehumanizing. 

But, feel free not to read the article before you comment. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[maize]

16 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Any argument that relies on me believing that the word "people" is somehow dehumanizing to, uh, people is ill-conceived.

I find it dehumanizing to have the fundamental, biological, human female reality of womanhood carefully excised from contexts in which it is critically relevant--such as in research on pregnant women.

Male and female sex are pretty fundamental aspects of humanity. Obscuring those when talking about the biological realities of reproduction--a definitively sexed aspect of human life--is very much dehumanizing.

[KSera]

I think this is a thoughtful, balanced article that includes all sides without endorsing any particular perspective. I think the medical/scientific implications of erasing the biological realities where they are relevant are often overlooked and are important. I thought this quote was an imporant one

Quote

“Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.”

 

40 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Any argument that relies on me believing that the word "people" is somehow dehumanizing to, uh, people is ill-conceived.

These are the terms suggested to be used rather than "women": Birth people, bodies with vaginas, cervix havers, menstruators, non-males, non-men, people, people with a cervix, people with vaginas, uterus havers, vulva owners.

Other than "people", the rest of those are dehumanizing in my opinion. I mean "vulva owners"??? Not to mention that none of the ftm or nonbinary people I know would ever want to be called any of those things except for "people". Why would someone who is uncomfortable with their physical sex want to be identified specifically for their genital or reproductive parts?

I don't think we need to dehumanize women and invalidate "mother" as an important identifier and treat "breast" as a bad word in order to validate transgender people. There has to be a different way that respects trans people and their identities without undermining women as a whole class of people.

[BusyMom5]

I find most of the alternatives to be offensive.   I do not want to be referred to by my genitalia or my capacity to birth children.  We have words, they are women and mother.  I can accept adding another word, but I think it needs to be a new word, not an appropriated word.   Many health concerns center around ones biological sex and have nothing to do with one's feelings on the matter- that includes everything from cancer,  heart disease, exercise and nutrition,  bone density- lots of things!  

Edited January 29, 2022 by BusyMom5

[bolt.]

I think most of these can be much less specific.

In medical settings, a biological female who is a patient can usually be called a patient. For pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding -- simply saying "patient" conveys enough information. Just like simply saying "person" is generally enough information for most non-medical settings, and "parent" is generally enough information in a child-relevant conversation. In these cases, there's no pressing need for one's sex or gender to become part of the conversation at all.

If there is need to be specific, something relevant should be selected like, if you are studying cervical cancer, then yes, you could say, "people with cervixes" -- but not in general literature. It's a description, not a overall vocabulary shift. Technical terms like "persons with biologically female characteristics" might belong in scientific studies, but they don't need to be on pamphlets and posters.

I like "people who menstruate" a bit better than "women" -- if the context is a discussion of menstruation, (i.e. menstrual products, menstrual difficulties, etc.) because those things are only relevant to people who currently menstruate: not including older women who have passed menopause or young women before they begin to menstruate. "People who menstruate" is actually a relevant subcategory of women, not a description of all women. And it's in a context. It functions as a whole phrase, not a label or a straight-up word substitution.

I'm not sure about "breast"... I think if "feeding" is relevant, than the body part probably is (or has been) a breast in some sense of the word... but if a more flexible word is needed, we already have "nursing" right? We could go with "nursing parent" without any offense, confusion, or exclusion.

[Melissa Louise]

Nursing is a euphemism. 

Breastfeeding is more accurate. You are feeding the child from your breast. Not your chest. Milk is made within the breast, released by the breast, and the infant suckles from the breast. 

I think it's regressive to go back to 'nursing' as a descriptor for breastfeeding. Very 1950's. 

Here in AU we changed the name of the peak body for breastfeeding from the coy 'Nursing Mothers' to the vastly more matter of fact 'Breastfeeding Australia'. 

There's zero reason to remove the word breastfeeding. The vast majority of breastfeeding mothers are represented by that term. Transmen who refuse double mastectomies can breastfeed. They can ask to be referred to individually as a breastfeeding parent.  Enbies who don't choose double mastectomies can breastfeed. Ditto. 

Breastfeeding is inclusive of all female people who feed their baby from their breasts, regardless of gender identity. 

There is zero reason for organisations to remove or not use the term, breastfeeding and/or mother. 

 

 

[bolt.]

Maybe the answer is just "yes and" -- Consider the value of using a whole phrase like, "We support breastfeeding mothers and (?) lactating parents (?)" -- or something like that when we have paragraphs to work with, but "Breastfeeding Australia" when we need the shorter title even if it only applies most of the time.

[Melissa Louise]

7 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Maybe the answer is just "yes and" -- Consider the value of using a whole phrase like, "We support breastfeeding mothers and (?) lactating parents (?)" -- or something like that when we have paragraphs to work with, but "Breastfeeding Australia" when we need the shorter title even if it only applies most of the time.

We support breastfeeding mothers  (including transmen and female NB people) - I mean, sure, if need be. In terms of needing representation, adoptive mothers who want to initiate lactation form a greater % of the support group user base than enbies. 

The goal is to support breastfeeding, not to queer breastfeeding -  99% of the target audience are breastfeeding mothers.

But you don't remove breastfeeding, and you don't remove mother, both words being accurate. 

Breastfeeding Australia produces separate breastfeeding  information for families who self ID as queer, using preferred language. I think that's already a compromise. Nobody needs to self exclude from information because they might read female language. Additionally, b/f counselors will use preferred terms with individual clients. That's enough. We also serve women from non-English speaking, working class, and intellectually disabled backgrounds - we do NOT need to put barriers in their way by ditching commonly understood terms such as 'mother' or 'breastfeed'. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[Catwoman]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

'People with vaginas' is dehumanizing for many women. Many women find the term 'birthing person' or 'gestator' or 'menstruator' dehumanizing. 

But, feel free not to read the article before you comment. 

Add me to the list of women who finds those terms dehumanizing. I’m a woman, thank you, and I’ll be sticking with that term.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Add me to the list of women who finds those terms dehumanizing. I’m a woman, thank you, and I’ll be sticking with that term.

Being referred to by bits or processes doesn't feel great. I'm not a body with a vagina, I'm a female person. A woman. 

[freesia]

Just now, Catwoman said:

Add me to the list of women who finds those terms dehumanizing. I’m a woman, thank you, and I’ll be sticking with that term.

Add me, too. When I see pregnant person written in an article or headline I feel loss, like something special has been taken away. Pregnancy and breastfeeding are a special part of womanhood. They happen bc we are biologically women. They don’t make us women or define us, but they are dependent on our DNA and very special. Historically there haven’t been a lot of special attributed to being a woman and now we cannot even have those?

[Garga]

Oh wow! That article is from the future!  Coooool!  Sorry….having a little Dr. Who moment with the time difference between where I am and where the OP is. 😄

Now, I’ll get past the date and actually read the article….

Edited January 29, 2022 by Garga

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Garga said:

Oh wow! That article is from the future!  Coooool!  Sorry….having a little Dr. Who moment with the time difference between where I am and where the OP is. 😄

Now, I’ll get past the date and actually read the article….

I'm always in your future...so is Rosie! You're modded from the future....

[Melissa Louise]

17 minutes ago, freesia said:

Add me, too. When I see pregnant person written in an article or headline I feel loss, like something special has been taken away. Pregnancy and breastfeeding are a special part of womanhood. They happen bc we are biologically women. They don’t make us women or define us, but they are dependent on our DNA and very special. Historically there haven’t been a lot of special attributed to being a woman and now we cannot even have those?

I actually don't personally feel a loss, but I am very angry people don't take into the account changing commonly understood language has on other women.

Women where I live are dealing with significant cultural, linguistic and socio-economic barriers to woman-centred pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding care, and removing the language they recognize forms yet another barrier. 

We also had the problem of some males wanting to dominate group meetings, which is not ok.

It needs to be clear that breastfeeding support is woman focused - some women can't  attend breastfeeding support groups if males are present/running a group. Person language does not communicate this. 

Obviously, needs have to be balanced if a group has a male-presenting female involved, but in general terms, it's important these women have women-focused language and groups. 

They form a far greater % of breastfeeding mothers seeking support. 

 

[katilac]

People with vaginas and vulva owners make it sound like we purchased them. 

[vonfirmath]

31 minutes ago, katilac said:

People with vaginas and vulva owners make it sound like we purchased them. 

I wonder how men would feel if they started being referred to as persons with penises.

 

[KSera]

1 minute ago, vonfirmath said:

I wonder how men would feel if they started being referred to as persons with penises.

 

Some of them might like it. How about people with prostates instead.

[Melissa Louise]

20 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

I wonder how men would feel if they started being referred to as persons with penises.

 

Bodies with prostates. 

[LMD]

Sperm producers, ejaculators, people with prostates, non-women, one-hole-havers, betesticled-bodies. 

I'll believe it's not misogyny when I see anything like this in a men's health campaign. 🤷‍♀️

[SKL]

I'm 55, and I remember my mom telling me about how dehumanizing was the way they talked about and treated people in hospitals (particularly women giving birth) as if they were something less than people.  Or as my mom would say, "a piece of meat."

Over the years as I was growing up, there was a movement toward treating people more as people in institutional settings such as hospitals.  Words like "patient" were replaced with more human, personal, and respectful terms.  Besides dropping "patient" where possible in hospitals etc., I recall my psychology teacher noting that they stopped using "patient" in psychology practices, preferring "client."  White coats, walls, etc were given color, patterns, and decorations.  Visiting rights were expanded to encourage family bonding etc.  Because folks in hospitals are much more than just bodies.  Who knew?

So now, after what most people considered progress away from impersonal terms and practices, we are back to "patient" and even worse, "vagina havers" etc.  Oh my goodness.

I swear, nobody had better ever refer to me in terms like that, especially in a stressful situation such as a hospital stay.  Some scrotum or vagina haver might end up being a black eye haver.

Edited January 29, 2022 by SKL

[Tanaqui]

9 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

'People with vaginas' is dehumanizing for many women. Many women find the term 'birthing person' or 'gestator' or 'menstruator' dehumanizing. 

But, feel free not to read the article opinion piece before you comment. 

 

I did read the editorial.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

one-hole-havers

 

You should really improve your understanding of human anatomy.

[Carrie12345]

9 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Nobody needs to self exclude from information because they might read female language.

And nobody *needs to be offended by inclusive language. Yet it’s considered by some an issue to be addressed. JUST AS the exclusion is considered by some an issue to be addressed. 

Personally/anecdotally/FWIW/not-for-nothing/IME… I have never heard “parts” phrases being used outside of relevant context. My kids aren’t going around labeling people by organs in general conversation.  Actually, my dd and I were talking about my “run the world” post last night and the name of an organ WAS used, but we don’t really know the status of anyone’s organ possession. It didn’t matter for the context in private conversation while we were being catty.
That not knowing, not caring, and valuing privacy actually removes the labeling of parts for general public conversation.

I most definitely have not gotten inclusive language down pat yet. But there’s nothing about it that threatens me. I am not defined by my lady parts, but my lady parts ARE relevant in certain contexts.  I’m not bothered by the fact that my boobs are (mostly) on my chest. I don’t even need them anymore! If I’m going to choose to be offended by something, I’m going to save it for the companies that continue to try to convince me that my vagina is repulsive and in need of garden fragrances. Talk about dehumanizing.

Almost two decades ago, my assigned-male, still-male dh had a breast cancer scare.  It was weird navigating that with someone not presenting as a woman, and uncomfortable for him.  IN CONTEXT, inclusivity could have gone a long way at the time, even if just in dealing with people on the phone. Seeing his masculine name tripped people up every time.

[Melissa Louise]

It's a particular problem in midwifery and breastfeeding advocacy, and women's health more generally. 

One could assume these ten women's health researchers did not just decide to write a paper about a non-existent issue. 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[Melissa Louise]

Speaking of, the paper should be open access soon, so I'll post the link once I see it's up. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Garga said:

Oh wow! That article is from the future!  Coooool!  Sorry….having a little Dr. Who moment with the time difference between where I am and where the OP is. 😄

Now, I’ll get past the date and actually read the article….

All our Aussie friends on here are from the future. Luckies.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Quill

[Bootsie]

The list of non-sexed replacement terms in the chart in the article does not always provide a synonym.  For example,  person who is lactating is not necessarily breastfeeding.  For others, I just don't understanding how "women" is sexed but "non-men" or "non-male" is a non-sexed replacement.  That to me is worse--it makes it sound as if man or male is the default/norm.  And I don't understand the concern of the term breast being sexed--the term breast is used with male anatomy, also. 

These issues are important in other areas of academic writing.  In economics, for example, the male/female wage gap is discussed--how do we discuss the wages of women relative to men? Wages of those with XY relative to those who are XX?  

[KSera]

10 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

I did read the editorial.

I gather from your responses that you are somehow interpreting this article as being anti-trans. I wonder if that was your expectation going into reading it, and that colored your reading. I don’t read it that way at all and read it as completely respectful of trans identities and the trans experience while acknowledging that the changing language is inducing some other problems that needs to be addressed. They gave this example:

“The source information compared disease severity of COVID in pregnant women with non-pregnant women, but when the department removed the word “women” it compared “pregnant people” with “non-pregnant people”, changing the meaning to incorrectly include men.”
 

Is that not a valid issue for researchers to raise about how to make sure medical research remains accurate? I’m just not sure why the article would raise such a negative response. 🤷‍♀️
 

10 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

You should really improve your understanding of human anatomy.

One hole is in response to the sometimes suggested “people with two holes” as an alternative term for people with female anatomy. That would be the corollary to that also incorrect term. 
 

eta: I just went back and reread the article to see if I somehow missed that the article was an opinion piece. Having reread, I can’t see it at all. I don’t even know which opinion you would say was the one being put forth. It was an article which explored the issues and concerns of people from different perspectives, with as much focus and respect given to the benefits of inclusive language as to the risks. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by KSera

[Dmmetler]

My concern is that comparing pregnant people and non-pregnant people aren't the same sets as pregnant women and non-pregnant women, because non-pregnant people includes men. So in this case, women seems to be necessary unless you're going to do the "pregnant assigned female at birth people" and that would get pretty unwieldy fast. 

 

The same is true if you're talking about breast cancer rates between those who have breastfed and those who have not. Because there are differences between the group of women of childbearing age who have not breastfed and the group of people in the same age range who have not breastfed. 

 

Medically, there are simply differences based on physical anatomy and genetic makeup. Women and Men are probably the best linguistic short cut we have. 

 

In non-medical settings, it really doesn't bother me to be a person vs a woman, as long as my husband is also a person vs a man.  But it needs to be reciprocal. 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

13 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

I did read the editorial.

Its not an editorial. 

I assume you know what an editorial is and isn't, right? This is an article in the news section of a centre left newspaper, which goes to great lengths not only to cover the upcoming paper as women's health news, but to cover reactions and objections to it, including from gender diverse organisations/people.

It's long; I can only assume you read the first paragraph. 

In any case, it's clearly not an editorial. It's odd you'd claim that, when it's so easily disproved by anyone who clicks on the link and reads. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LMD]

14 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

You should really improve your understanding of human anatomy.

Talk to Healthline and MedicalNewsToday and BioMedCentral et al

"Some transgender men, transmasculine people, or non-binary people assigned female at birth (AFAB) may find identifying a part of their body with the word “vagina” triggering. In this article, we will be using the term “front hole/vagina.”"

[Melissa Louise]

Here's a link to the discussion paper by the women's health researchers ( from AU, US, India, Sweden, Vietnam, UK), about which the newspaper article in the OP was written. It's a really good paper, and I think it's worth reading. I found the discussion of cultural imperialism interesting. Very grounded in the well-being of the mother-infant dyad. 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's a really good paper, and I think it's worth reading. I found the discussion of cultural imperialism interesting.

Agree and agree. Thanks for providing the original source. Do you know if there's a way to view the supplementary files referenced?

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Agree and agree. Thanks for providing the original source. Do you know if there's a way to view the supplementary files referenced?

I'm not sure. If I find them, I'll post a link here. 

[Eos]

21 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's a particular problem in midwifery and breastfeeding advocacy, and women's health more generally. 

I'm following because of this. I like the yes and approach suggested by a previous poster.

For instance, I'm not going to tell a woman with large breasts to maneuver their chest in a particular way to assist with feeding, that would be lying.  Those are breasts, and I'm not wiling to enter the virtual reality where they are called chests.  In addition to the physical and economic challenges of nursing, breasts are an historic location of abuse and harassment and it's not my job as a feminist to ignore that historic reality while providing care to women. When I'm working with a trans man or a non-binary person I use the term body, and I'm vigilant to provide wholistic, respectful care to that person which includes using their correct pronouns and broadly-defined body parts. 

Women who experience sexual violence resulting in pregnancy, or fistula, or FGM can't just declare they are not female and identify out of those sex-based issues.  If we say these are problems of people not women, we are absolutely erasing their experience and humanity by denying them their connection with similarly-situated others across the arc of history. If they are trans men or non-binary, then we also need to work with them in the most inclusive language and capacity.  It shouldn't be either/or.

Editing after reading the second article.  Thank you for posting it. The authors define some areas where the yes and approach does not work but are careful to note that using inclusive language in most areas is the highest level of care for individuals. 

The queries at the end of the second article are compelling.

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Eos

[Carrie12345]

14 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

My concern is that comparing pregnant people and non-pregnant people aren't the same sets as pregnant women and non-pregnant women, because non-pregnant people includes men. So in this case, women seems to be necessary unless you're going to do the "pregnant assigned female at birth people" and that would get pretty unwieldy fast. 

 

The same is true if you're talking about breast cancer rates between those who have breastfed and those who have not. Because there are differences between the group of women of childbearing age who have not breastfed and the group of people in the same age range who have not breastfed. 

 

Medically, there are simply differences based on physical anatomy and genetic makeup. Women and Men are probably the best linguistic short cut we have. 

 

In non-medical settings, it really doesn't bother me to be a person vs a woman, as long as my husband is also a person vs a man.  But it needs to be reciprocal. 

 

In my head, I’m fine with the examples given. I would think that the type of studies mentioned not only assume and imply the gender assigned at birth, but that they’d be conducted with only women assigned at birth. For the most part, transgender people wouldn’t be included in the data.  And, if they somehow were, there wouldn’t be enough to cause much more data anomalies than we usually find in studies.

That said, actual medical studies ARE written with lots of unwieldy stuff, lol. And they include detailed relevant information about their subjects. It’s in the translation to the general public where terms have to be simplified for attention and understanding.

[KSera]

6 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

In my head, I’m fine with the examples given. I would think that the type of studies mentioned not only assume and imply the gender assigned at birth, but that they’d be conducted with only women assigned at birth. For the most part, transgender people wouldn’t be included in the data.  And, if they somehow were, there wouldn’t be enough to cause much more data anomalies than we usually find in studies.

That said, actual medical studies ARE written with lots of unwieldy stuff, lol. And they include detailed relevant information about their subjects. It’s in the translation to the general public where terms have to be simplified for attention and understanding.

I’m not sure if you had a chance to read the original source article shared (it’s long), but it shares multiple examples of how this has led to incorrect or misleading reporting of data in the studies themselves. It does get made worse when that is then translated by reporters for the general public. A study reporting on endometriosis rates in “people” means something different than endometriosis rates in females. I think the underlying suggestion that sex and gender need to be kept as distinct categories in the literature, with different definitions, resolves most of those kinds of issues and is important for scientific accuracy. Sex at birth isn’t always even collected by researchers, which is problematic for accuracy, and moves us back in the direction we came from, of medical research tending to skew toward a male subject as the default and leaving out physiological differences in females. I have participated in a number of Covid research studies, and have appreciated those that ask for both sex at birth (usually phrased as “assigned” but whatever) and gender identity. They will have more accurate results than those that do not do that; Covid affects males and females differently.

I also thought the colonial imperialism part was a really interesting aspect that wasn’t even on my radar. 

[Melissa Louise]

@KSera

I actually think this paper is a model in how to sensitively discuss the difficulties that arise when rights come into conflict. 

I also very much appreciated that the paper considers both gender dysphoric females and females without gender dysphoria ( and their infants) as having value and needs. 

I wish all those who call it transphobic without actually reading or considering would...read and consider. 

I worked with one of the authors about 15 years ago. She's not a phobe. She's a very bright and compassionate person with a great deal of expertise, lived and academic, in women's experiences of breastfeeding and maternity. 

I wish people would not be so close minded and read this paper. 

 

[BusyMom5]

One other thought that I had when reading this article- we need to be tracking the long-term affects taking cross-sex hormones has in transmen and transwomen and how that affects their risk profile.  I would assume that it would change the risks profile enough for some disease to make their own specific risk category.  By not tracking and pulling that data out separately, would we know if it caused an increase risk for heart attack or stroke for example?  Or if the risk of breast cancer goes up or down depending on the drugs you are taking?  I think these are important reasons to separate out male, female, transwomen, and transmen any time data is collected in the health field.  We already break down data based on body mass, age, smoker/non-smoker, etc.  

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, BusyMom5 said:

One other thought that I had when reading this article- we need to be tracking the long-term affects taking cross-sex hormones has in transmen and transwomen and how that affects their risk profile.  I would assume that it would change the risks profile enough for some disease to make their own specific risk category.  By not tracking and pulling that data out separately, would we know if it caused an increase risk for heart attack or stroke for example?  Or if the risk of breast cancer goes up or down depending on the drugs you are taking?  I think these are important reasons to separate out male, female, transwomen, and transmen any time data is collected in the health field.  We already break down data based on body mass, age, smoker/non-smoker, etc.  

There are some fairly severe gynie risks for females on T. These need more investigation, education, access to treatments. 

 

 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

 By not tracking and pulling that data out separately, would we know if it caused an increase risk for heart attack or stroke for example?

We have some data on this, and it shows a significant increase of both of these things. We do not have any long term data, only short term (and still the significant increase. Here's one large study looking at this:
Occurrence of Acute Cardiovascular Events in Transgender Individuals Receiving Hormone Therapy

This study had median ages of 30 and 23 for transwomen and men respectively and the increased risks of cardiovascular effects are significant. We have no idea what these effects look like 20, 30, 40 years down the road. This freaks me out a lot. I feel much better about my kid having surgery than being on hormone therapy due to the seriousness of the health effects.

Eta: cross sex testosterone therapy is also associated with insulin resistance and worsening lipid profiles. Again, all this is based on relatively short term impacts. We don’t know long term yet, which is especially relevant for people starting on these early in life. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by KSera