Human language

Women are women – degender language to appease the trans lobby won’t change this simple biological fact

This awake, virtue-signaling trash attempts to avoid the wrath of a tiny minority of trans people, but at the same time upsets the vast majority of women who would simply like to continue to be referred to by their biological sex.

“What is a woman?” I asked Dame Joan Collins several weeks ago on my new show Piers Morgan Uncensored.

“What is a woman?” she repeated, incredulous. “ME!”

I burst out laughing because of course it really is that simple.

A woman is an adult human… like Joan Collins.

Yet we now live in a world so ridiculous and ravaged by revivals that even high-ranking British politicians and US Supreme Court Justices cannot answer this simple question for fear that the crowd of activists trans does not cancel them.

Slowly but surely, society bowed to this linguistic tyranny and, in doing so, caused perhaps irreparable damage to women’s rights.

It’s gotten to the stage where women in positions of authority are saying things that 20 years ago would have had them locked up in an asylum for reasons of utter madness.

For example, the principal of the private Burgess Hill Girls School in West Sussex has just announced that she will no longer call her pupils “girls” because there are “so many gender options”.

Additionally, Liz Laybourn said she could also stop using the word “daughter” when writing to parents – who have paid large sums of money specifically to send their daughters to an all-girls school – just in case. where it would offend them.

Yet the name of her school remains Burgess Hill Girls.

And on the school’s website, the first thing you see is a letter from Mrs. Laybourn which begins: “Our mission at Burgess Hill Girls is to help make your daughter one of the women of tomorrow.

So, she is happy to use gendered language to trick people into parting with large sums of money to send their daughters to her all-girls school, but then refuses to use it when the girls actually attend the school. .

Have you ever heard something so completely ridiculous?

This descent into language madness reached a shocking level with news that the NHS has removed the word ‘women’ from its top online health advice for women being treated for cancers of the cervix, womb and ovary.

This is despite the fact that ONLY women born of female biological bodies suffer from these diseases, because only women have cervixes, uteri and ovaries.

England’s NHS website previously described ovarian cancer as “one of the most common types of cancer in women”, but now says: “Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer. ovary, but it mainly affects people over the age of 50”.

Someone?

It’s not just anyone, it’s women.

People looking for cervical cancer were told: “Cervical cancer develops in a woman’s cervix (the entrance to the uterus from the vagina) .” Now they are told, “Cervical cancer is cancer anywhere in the cervix.

This silent and sinister de-gendering was only revealed when the NHS website’s miscarriage advice was changed to read: “losing three or more pregnancies in a row (recurrent miscarriages) is rare and only affects about 1 in 100 people.

People? No, it affects 1 in 100 women!

After an inevitable outcry, it was quickly changed, but what more does one do without the media noticing?

Last month it was revealed that the government had told midwives not to use phrases like ‘breastfeeding’ or ‘vaginal birth’ to avoid causing distress to trans people. Instead, they were encouraged to use the phrases “breast feeding” and “frontal or lower birth.”

The impact of this PC c**p is potentially damaging

Does anyone care how much distress this PC c**p could cause women with boobs and vaginas (spoiler alert: it’s all women)?

Like so much woke, virtue-revealing garbage, the effect of this degendered language in our health services is potentially very damaging.

As Dr Karleen Gribble of the University of Western Sydney told The Times: “The changes to sex talk are well intentioned, but we find they make communications less clear and when it comes to issues of critical health issues that have great potential to place the health and well-being of people at risk.”

Sure.

There are already serious problems with poorer patients without English as a first language, or with low literacy, who are already struggling enough to follow health advice and are therefore not being checked in time – and some, tragically , eventually die.

Removing the word “women” from the guidelines will obviously make it even more difficult for these women to follow them.

Therefore, it is inevitable that testing rates will drop even more than they have and lives will be at risk.

This madness will also have a direct impact on trans patients who, since last year, can now request a whole new set of medical records with any reference to their biological sex removed in favor of their own self-declared gender identity.

This is supposed to make them feel more “inclusive”.

But ironically, this is dangerously exclusive because it means health conditions specific to their biological sex can be completely missed.

It’s a war against women and their rights

Trans men (biological women) will not receive screening invitations for early detection of female-specific diseases as they are now classified as male, and trans women (biological males) will not be invited to screenings for female-specific diseases. men because their medical records categorize them as women.

It has apparently been left to GPs to alert their trans patients to their gender-specific screenings, but how many doctors will take time out of their already hectic schedules to actually do this?

If in doubt that this is a war on women and their rights, the men’s health pages on the NHS website refer specifically to ‘men’ and ‘men’ in counseling for diseases such as testicular and prostate cancer.

This is about as pure a form of sexism as you could wish to find, coming from an organization that would ridiculously claim to be doing all of this in the pursuit of fairness and equality.

The bottom line is this: why is the language degendered to avoid possibly bothering a tiny minority of trans people when it so obviously bothers the vast majority of women who would just like to continue to be called women or girls?

Where are THEIR rights to not have their titles eradicated because an angry, usually male, trans activist hysterically demands it and threatens to rescind anyone who disagrees?

That’s why I commend Health Secretary Sajid Javid for finally taking a stand and saying enough.

Women are women, and never is that more important than when it comes to their health.