The accompanying meme asks why women are increasingly described as “menstruators,” “pregnant people” and “cervix-havers,” while men appear less frequently as “ejaculators” or “penis people.”

The absolute comparison is imperfect. Some medical organizations now use expressions such as “people with prostates.” That does not answer the objection; it merely demonstrates that the same ideology can make language equally absurd in both directions.

Sex is a biological reality, not an identity. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines sex through biological attributes including chromosomes, hormones and reproductive anatomy.[1] Personal feelings may affect how someone wishes to dress, live or be addressed, but they cannot transform a male body into a female one or vice versa.

No male requires a Pap test, becomes pregnant or menstruates. No female develops prostate or testicular cancer. A female who identifies as a man may still require cervical screening, but that is because she remains female. Her identity does not make cervical cancer a male health issue.

Nor does saying that women menstruate imply that every woman currently menstruates. Children, post-menopausal women, women with certain medical conditions and women who have undergone surgery remain female. Ordinary category language has never required every member of a class to display every characteristic associated with it.

The linguistic transformation therefore serves another purpose. Once woman is redefined as an internal identity available to males, it can no longer reliably name the female sex. Yet medicine, law and politics still require a way to discuss female bodies. Women are consequently reassembled as lists of organs and functions: uterus-havers, menstruators and birthing bodies.

That is the anti-woman streak within transgender ideology. It does not merely ask that a small number of people be treated courteously. It demands that women surrender the language required to describe themselves as a sex class—and then presents their disappearance as inclusion.

This matters beyond wounded sensibilities. Women’s health research depends upon recognizing sex differences; Health Canada explicitly warns that failing to study women as a distinct sex can obscure clinically important differences in treatment and outcomes.[2] The same clarity is necessary when discussing pregnancy, sexual violence, sport and sex discrimination.

Courtesy toward individuals does not require institutions to falsify material reality. Medical professionals can treat every patient with dignity while recording sex accurately and speaking plainly about which sex is affected by a condition.

Women are not menstruators, cervix-havers or birthing bodies. They are women. Language that cannot say so is not inclusive; it has simply made women harder to name.

References

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, “What is gender? What is sex?”
    https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
  2. Health Canada, “Considerations for Inclusion of Women in Clinical Trials and Analysis of Data by Sex.”
    https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/clinical-trials/considerations-inclusion-women-clinical-trials-analysis-data-sex-differences.html
  3. Trans Care BC, “Gender-Inclusive Language: Clinical Settings.”
    https://www.transcarebc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-03/Gender_Inclusive_Language_Clinical.pdf