3 ms·

> If I say something affects women, but it's about menstrual bleeding... well, why not just say "people who menstruate"? Much clearer for women on the pill or w

by pragle 3y ago

> If I say something affects women, but it's about menstrual bleeding... well, why not just say "people who menstruate"? Much clearer for women on the pill or without a uterus, or trans men, or whatever. Unfortunately, in healthcare contexts this language will most likely be less clear. Here's an excellent, well-sourced paper which argues, amongst other things, that avoiding sex-based language with regards to female reproduction is problematic because it works against the plain language principle of health communications, and therefore can actually reduce inclusivity for vulnerable groups by making communications more difficult to understand: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.81885...

wizzwizz4 3y ago
> These [unintended consequences] include: decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanizing; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding. Describing the wrong groups, and being misleading, are exactly what I am not advocating for. I have, sadly, seen people advocate find-and-replacing in a document to make it “more inclusive”, and that never ends well. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem) The majority of phrases criticised by that article are… awful. (Seriously, “gestational carrier”? “Pregnant” is already a noun.) > “8 in 10 people” will get pregnant after having unprotected sex Obviously you don't use clunky language constructions, and you certainly don't do that. (If you are, I dare say that's not the only problem with your writing.) But one doesn't stop being a woman at menopause: this ambiguity might cause clear communication for some, but it comes at the expense of unclear communication for others. For accessibility, you can't have a one-size-fits-all text.[0] There's a reason we have separate easy-read versions.[1] Provide an imprecise, oversimplified summary if it improves outcomes, but don't make that the only version. > They may not know, for example, that “a person with a cervix” is a woman and refers to them If people don't know what the cervix is, explain what the cervix is, probably in parentheses. Rather than constructing an artificial example, I'll quote the World Health Organisation (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-ca...): > Persistent HPV infection of the cervix (the lower part of the uterus or womb, which opens into the vagina – also called the birth canal) if left untreated, causes 95% of cervical cancers. This sentence could do with some work, but it demonstrates the point. A skilled writer can be clear and correct: it's not either-or. [0]: https://indoxicate.me/text-accessibility-requires-multiple-formats/ https://indoxicate.me/text-accessibility-requires-multiple-f... [1]: https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/11/easy-read-is-hard-to-get-right/ https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/11/easy-read-is-hard...

by pragle 3y ago

wizzwizz4 3y ago

> These [unintended consequences] include: decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanizing; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding. Describing the wrong groups, and being misleading, are exactly what I am not advocating for. I have, sadly, seen people advocate find-and-replacing in a document to make it “more inclusive”, and that never ends well. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem) The majority of phrases criticised by that article are… awful. (Seriously, “gestational carrier”? “Pregnant” is already a noun.) > “8 in 10 people” will get pregnant after having unprotected sex Obviously you don't use clunky language constructions, and you certainly don't do that. (If you are, I dare say that's not the only problem with your writing.) But one doesn't stop being a woman at menopause: this ambiguity might cause clear communication for some, but it comes at the expense of unclear communication for others. For accessibility, you can't have a one-size-fits-all text.[0] There's a reason we have separate easy-read versions.[1] Provide an imprecise, oversimplified summary if it improves outcomes, but don't make that the only version. > They may not know, for example, that “a person with a cervix” is a woman and refers to them If people don't know what the cervix is, explain what the cervix is, probably in parentheses. Rather than constructing an artificial example, I'll quote the World Health Organisation (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-ca...): > Persistent HPV infection of the cervix (the lower part of the uterus or womb, which opens into the vagina – also called the birth canal) if left untreated, causes 95% of cervical cancers. This sentence could do with some work, but it demonstrates the point. A skilled writer can be clear and correct: it's not either-or. [0]: https://indoxicate.me/text-accessibility-requires-multiple-formats/ https://indoxicate.me/text-accessibility-requires-multiple-f... [1]: https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/11/easy-read-is-hard-to-get-right/ https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/11/easy-read-is-hard...