JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Josquius]

I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.

[merithyn]

I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.

I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.

I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.

[Josquius]

I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.

I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.

I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.

That's messed up.

But surely in that case saying "people with/without a cervix" would not have helped as you had one idea where the truth was different?

[merithyn]

I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.

I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.

I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.

That's messed up.

But surely in that case saying "people with/without a cervix" would not have helped as you had one idea where the truth was different?

My point is that being a "woman" had zero to do with any of it. It truly is about having or not having a cervix. It's proper language for the task. To use woman is to cater to those with delicate sensibilities over the whole trans thing instead of providing the right words for the right situation.

[Zoupa]

Transgender folks are estimated at 0.5% of the total population.

I don't think using the term woman has any political undertones. It's not used to cater to delicate snowflakes, come now.

[merithyn]

If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.

As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Numbers don't belong with language. Using the proper terminology is how communication works. The proper terminology is "persons with cervix" not "woman".

I'm sorry this bothers you, but if you are trying to be correct in your communication, you use the correct language.

[Josquius]

Yeah. I don't see the big deal with saying man/woman for this.
Likewise if some doctor who has a lot of trans patients does decide to say "people with a penis" or whatever then that's fine too.
But when speaking generally women /men is fine, no need to dictate a change in standard use.
It's fairly standard that health warnings are targeted at the most likely to be hit groups though they can afflict others. Certainly a heavy case to be made that this is done too much to the extent men just don't consider Breast cancer, colon cancer is dismissed for kids, people won't believe they have lung cancer if they don't smoke, etc.... But that's a more general issue and I don't think it'll hurt transgender people too much and if intersex people aren't aware of their condition then it won't really help to see people with ovaries when they don't know they have them.

[Zoupa]

If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.

As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Numbers don't belong with language. Using the proper terminology is how communication works. The proper terminology is "persons with cervix" not "woman".

I'm sorry this bothers you, but if you are trying to be correct in your communication, you use the correct language.

I'm not bothered by this I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.

[merithyn]

I'm not bothered by this I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.

The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.

Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.

[viper37]

Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.

yeah, but...

See, let's say you go to the doctor because you are very sick.  Then he tells you, "you have influenza type B".  You are saavy enough to know you only have a nasty flu that has lasted 7-8 days and see no signs of diminishing yet, nothing more serious.

However, for many people, and I have real life examples in mind, you tell them they have influenza type B (or A or whatever) instead of "a flu" and they are immediatly convinced they catch something much more worst than a flu.

When you say "people with a cervix", I think many people will have no idea what you talk about.  Same as a biologist employing the term "diptera" instead of "fly".  More precise, totally appropriate language, but most people have no idea what he's talking about.

In this case, I think the label "women", even if not 100% of women have a cervix is more appropriate, because instinctively, everyone knows whom this refers to.

[grumbler]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.

The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.

Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.

Frankly, I don't get it.  Why can't people see the simple sense behind this argument?

We have two choices:

Option A:  "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Individuals without a cervix need not concern themselves."

Option B:  "Women are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Men need not concern themselves."

Option B, of course, tells trans men that they need not concern themselves, and trans women that they need to get cancer screenings starting at 25.  Option A contains neither of those falsehoods.  Why not go with option A?  Who is harmed?

[Eddie Teach]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

[merithyn]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.

The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.

Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.

Frankly, I don't get it.  Why can't people see the simple sense behind this argument?

We have two choices:

Option A:  "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Individuals without a cervix need not concern themselves."

Option B:  "Women are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Men need not concern themselves."

Option B, of course, tells trans men that they need not concern themselves, and trans women that they need to get cancer screenings starting at 25.  Option A contains neither of those falsehoods.  Why not go with option A?  Who is harmed?

[merithyn]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

Those women are already harmed by not knowing what a cervix is.

Also, pretty much every woman over 18 knows exactly what an annual pap smear is, which is a check on the cervix. It's drilled into us. And you have to have one in order to get a refill on your birth control prescription. So yeah, if they don't know what their cervix is, there are already a lot of issues going on.

[Zoupa]

I'm not bothered by this I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.

The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.

Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.

I mean sure. What I object to is when you seem to think there's a vast resistance to this change as part of some "sticking to the old ways, special snowflakes" cabal.

This is an issue for a subset of a 0.5% population. There's no big scheming to prevent that subset to get treated properly. The "old ways" language is a vastly accurate generalization.