Why not 'women?'

@nooneinparticular Said

I find it amusing that the person who accuses others of speaking for women then attempts to speak for women.

@offbeat Said

nooneinparticular said:
I find it amusing that the person who accuses others of speaking for women then attempts to speak for women.


I'm trying to make the point that there are women with different opinions whereas the other poster you're referring too thinks she speaks for all women.

@nooneinparticular Said

Now if you had said that, I might have agreed with you but, 'how can you think such and such term is not potentially insensitive' or 'such a term would be more likely to upset women, not less' is not exactly the same as saying 'different women have different opinions'. Jennifer even responded to this by saying it was her view. That doesn't mean she didn't (and doesn't) come off as speaking for others, whether she intends to or not, but arguing that other women could 'potentially be harmed' is absolutely no different.

Now I don't want to put words in dookie's mouth, but my reading of their comment was akin to what I thought. In that, there are two sides to a story and they can both be perfectly valid.

@offbeat Said

I suggested that a woman who had her cervix/uterus removed might have been upset by the use of the term 'individuals with a cervix' whereas she didn't even consider this. She seemed to think the use of that term was a positive for such women. To be fair though, she felt compelled to bring women without cervixes into the discussion because she was trying to divert the conversation away from the trans aspect. She finds it hard to dominate in that debate.

@nooneinparticular Said

Except how was that not a legitimate response? Ascribe all the nefarious undertones you wish, her point still stands. Not all women have a cervix.

And how do we know that it isn't a positive (or neutral) for some women?

@offbeat Said

i imagine it might be both. But i put forward the possibillity that a woman minus a cervix might feel upset by the term 'individuals with a cervix' but she seemed to think the opposite. i opened the door for more than one opinion whereas she thinks all women without a cervix would fine with that term. i can see you're agreeing with her so there's not much more i can say really.

@nooneinparticular Said

I don't actually, but no one ever seems to believe me when I say I don't agree with Jen (or anyone/thing else for that matter).

Let's keep in mind however that your statement about 'Why didn't they just use women' was the opening statement, not a reaction to anything Jen said. Jen then came and gave a legitimate reason as to why they might not want to use the word 'woman'. You then argued that Hysterectomies were a thing before and you don't remember seeing any mention of the term, and then added that the term 'might be offensive to women' (aka speaking for them).

My only comment on this whole thing is that you engaged in the same thought process of speaking for others that she did. I never made any assertion as to who was 'right' or who I agreed with.

If you wish to know my opinion, it's that this was a pointless topic to begin with, and arguing over the supposed hurt or non-hurt that this word might or does cause is the same. Some people will be hurt by words that empower others. Neither is wrong.

@offbeat Said

'Pointless?' So why the hell are you taking part in it? You really couldn't make this s**t up!

@offbeat Said

How you can't see that using the term 'individuals with a cervix' isn't potentially upsetting for women without a cervix shows a deep level of insensitivity on your part.I noticed also that you asked me a question and then supplied the answer yourself, as if you know what is in the minds of others. Are you also a mind reader? And no, i'm not claiming victimhood, just merely pointing out how angry and aggressively you come across. You're so certain that all women agree with your interpretation. It's almost as if you have a dictatorial nature. Do you? ... And what do you say about that female politician liking that tweet, you know, the one that said 'do you mean women?' It would appear that there is at least one woman who disagrees with you.Should i take your advice about listening to women by listening to her, or should i just listen to you?

@Jennifer1984 Said

You can listen to anybody you like. Speaking for myself, I'm not at all flattered by the thought of having you for an audience.

I could turn this around and ask you why you find using "Individuals without a cervix" so offensive. It's a form of language that takes into account the sensitivities of women who DON'T have a cervix and in my experience, it's something that the vast, overwhelming majority of women don't have a problem with.

You see...…… we've kinda got an understanding about our girlyworks. We grow these lumpy things that you seem to be so fascinated with and we have to carry them around all our adult lives. We have to wear "boulder holders" to keep them constrained... that are notoriously difficult to get a good fit for, are often very uncomfortable.... that make us sweat..... and are bloody expensive. We understand this.

All you see is a pair of tits.

Likewise, we have to endure a monthly cycle that can be irregular, awkward, sometimes embarrassing, often painful, and even messy. It doesn't always happen when it should and it can make us irascible, bad tempered, unpredictable, tearful, depressed and in some cases, violent.

All you do is complain that "She's on the soddin' rag again."

Now... we live with this as best we can and all the time our bodies do what they're supposed to do, we get along with it. It's part of our femininity. In many ways, it defines our gender, and we're all in it together. It's not a case of "poor me" because the girl sitting next to you on the bus goes through exactly the same.

It makes us empathetic towards each other. We feel our fellow woman's pain in a very literal way. Men don't understand this because blood doesn't pour out of any of your bodily orifices every 28 days. Get the message...?

And then something goes wrong. A difficult birth, or cervical cancer... two things men will never experience and have no understanding of, much less any empathy for.

To remove a woman's uterus is a life experience that can be traumatic beyond belief. It goes to the very core of the meaning of "femininity". And it is quite clear that it is completely beyond your ability to comprehend.

But we're not scaredy cats about this. When it happens, we recognise it and learn to cope with it, but at the same time, we want it to be referred to in sensitive terms. Call it touchy-feely if you like, but it's how we're wired.

Now... you have to understand how some things can be perceived. To use the word "woman" when referring to a woman who doesn't feel like a woman any more because she has lost those organs that, to her, define her womanhood, can be traumatic. It's personal. It matters.

And so an alternative form of address is used. And mostly, we're comfortable with that.

And you... in your masculine way, with not the faintest idea of how women might feel, and if you did, you wouldn't care, burst straight into print telling women what terminology we should be allowed to use.

And then you wonder why women get irritated at you.

It is not for men to tell women how they can address entirely feminine issues. Leave it to us. Unless you're a medical professional, suitably qualified and are genuinely trying to help in a constructive way, We'll get along fine without your linguistic input.