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

[viper37]

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.

I've seen women seriously wondering if they would get pregnant after oral sex.  And I've seen women seriously asking how they could be sure the baby they just had was theirs.

Nothing would surprise me anymore on the stupiditiy of some people.

[grumbler]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

  You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object.  Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?

[grumbler]

I've seen women seriously wondering if they would get pregnant after oral sex.  And I've seen women seriously asking how they could be sure the baby they just had was theirs.

Nothing would surprise me anymore on the stupiditiy of some people.

Frankly, you don't seem to be the kind of guy a woman would ask if she didn't know whether she could get pregnant from oral sex.  Nor do you seem to be the guy a woman would ask regarding whether the baby she just had was hers.  So, no, I don't believe for one second that you have seen either.

Nothing would surprise me anymore on the intellectual dishonesty of some people.

[Eddie Teach]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

  You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object.  Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?

They don't know they're being told to see a doctor. And I'm quite sure there are more of them than trans-men who don't know they still have one.

[grumbler]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

  You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object.  Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?

They don't know they're being told to see a doctor. And I'm quite sure there are more of them than trans-men who don't know they still have one.

I have no idea what this means.  I could as easily say that women who don't know what women means don't know that they are being told to go see a doctor.  Especially if they don't know what "doctor" means, either!    We can go down this rabbit hole forever.

People who don't know what words mean are always going to be an issue.  No sense advocating the authorities choose the wrong words just because you don't now what the right words mean.

[alfred russel]

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?

Option C: Why not just say, "Cervical cancer screenings are now recommended to start at 25"?

It is more concise and avoids any controversy (probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).

[Syt]

(probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).

What's it like living in a world where you suspect everyone to be potentially a Machiavellian schemer? Or are you projecting your own traits on others?

[Valmy]

The only Machiavellian around here is BB.

[Sheilbh]

And as I say we're all going off a Guardian article, kicked off by a Piers Morgan tweet, about a CNN story - so I still don't know precisely who is sending what message to whom.

The other option is the NHS message which may not be perfect but avoids the fears of erasing women and is inclusive of others, "all women and people with a cervix" need screening.

[Josquius]

It is more concise and avoids any controversy (probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).

How would that work?
Generally its the transphobes who want to create the controversy. Not those who want to make things more trans-friendly (whether necessary or not)

[alfred russel]

(probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).

What's it like living in a world where you suspect everyone to be potentially a Machiavellian schemer? Or are you projecting your own traits on others?

We live in a world where even the BBC has given in to using clickbait. I don't think I'm way out on a limb on this.

As for whether I am projecting my own traits on others, I absolutely use language in my professional life to virtue signal.

[Tamas]

Women who don't know what a cervix is.

  You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object.  Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?

Maybe not in the demographic watched by CNN, but in a worldwide context, I am fairly certain the number of women who have no idea what a cervix is are WAY higher than those women who know but don't have one and would be confused if heard cervix and women in the same sentence.

[The Brain]

The only Machiavellian around here is BB.

And how.

[Barrister]

The only Machiavellian around here is BB.

And how.

[Admiral Yi]

the transphobes

Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?