Mick Hartley

Here at last (via Jerry Coyne) is some push-back against the use of de-sexed language  – "birthing body", "menstruators" and the like – which seems to have conquered medical publications recently. From Frontiers in Global Women's Health – Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language:

On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.” This statement, in which the word “women” was replaced with the phrase “bodies with vaginas,” is part of a trend to remove sexed terms such as “women” and “mothers” from discussions of female reproduction. The good and important intention behind these changes is sensitivity to, and acknowledgment of, the needs of people who are biologically female and yet do not consider themselves to be women because of their gender identity. However, these changes are often not deliberated regarding their impact on accuracy or potential for other unintended consequences. In this paper we present some background to this issue, describe various observed impacts, consider a number of potentially deleterious consequences, and suggest a way forward.

Sex (a reproductive category), gender (a societal role), and gender identity (an inner sense of self) are not synonymous. Sex is salient to reproduction, as there are only two gametes and pubertal pathways to adulthood and gamete production, and only one gamete producing body type that becomes pregnant. As a general principle of communication it is well established that the sex of individuals should be made visible when it is relevant and should not be invoked when it is not. This facilitates avoidance of sex stereotyping while ensuring that sex-based needs and issues are not overlooked. In communication related to female reproduction, sexed language including the words “women” and “mothers” has therefore predominated. Yet, this usage has been challenged in response to rising numbers and visibility of people who have a gender identity which means they do not wish to be referred to as such. As described below, we should address individuals as they wish, but more broadly there are risks to desexing language when describing female reproduction.

So yes, all very mild and sensible – but they get the point across.

Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive. Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children. These include: decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanizing; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding. In addition, avoidance of the term “mother” in its sexed sense, risks reducing recognition and the right to protection of the mother-infant dyad.

And here's a Sunday Times letter which cuts to the heart of it:

Hadley Freeman spoke to doctors concerned that the word “woman” had been deleted from some NHS website pages about women’s health (“Welcome to the doctors’ resistance”, Comment, last week). Curious, I checked out the site’s section on ovarian cancer. Sure enough, there is no mention of women or even females on the first page; only a note that “anyone with ovaries” can get ovarian cancer. If you click through to page 3, this is eventually spelt out as “women, trans men, non-binary people and intersex people with ovaries”.

I then looked at the section on prostate cancer. By contrast, this acknowledges on the first page that it is a disease of the male reproductive system. Men are mentioned repeatedly on that page and throughout the following pages. Trans women, who also have a prostate gland, are never mentioned.

Why is there no need to talk about “anyone with a prostate” in discussing prostate cancer? Why don’t men need to be inclusive? The whole thing is simply misogyny.