Homepaddock

Health New Zealand has been directed to call women women :

. . . Associate Health Minister Casey Costello wrote to interim chief executive Dr Dale Bramley on March 27, telling the agency to use “clear language”.

“Recent documents that have reached my office from the Ministry of Health have referred to women as ‘pregnant people’, ‘people with a cervix’ or ‘individuals capable of childbearing’,” she said in the letter.

“Only women and people of the female sex can get pregnant and birth a child no matter how they identify.”

Costello pointed to inequities and bias in the health system, as well as conditions like endometriosis, as reasons why she thought it was necessary Health NZ used “sex-specific language”.

“It is important that we have clarity about the people we are referring to when talking about women’s health. Sex-specific language ensures that women know what health services they are entitled to and can access these easily, especially for those women with English as a second language.

“Clear language should be used in all documents and communications that refer to health issues specific to females.” . . .

This is a win for women and biology but it is not universally accepted:

Victoria University senior lecturer and researcher Dr George Parker, who has studied LGBTQIA+ equitable reproductive and perinatal healthcare, said the letter went against best practice.

“The memo is part of a broader push against equity initiatives in healthcare internationally and it is disappointing to see this picked up by politicians in Aotearoa.

“Roadblocking the use of inclusive language in Health New Zealand is against the findings of research commissioned by government agencies and is a step backwards for inclusive and equitable perinatal care.”

What’s inclusive about erasing the words woman and women and reducing females to body parts?

“Research-informed best practice is to use neutral terms to describe perinatal service users and to invite people to self-identify who they are, and what matters to them, as part of individualised and person-centred healthcare.”

Parker added there was no evidence cis-gendered people were negatively affected by the use of inclusive language. . . 

Are irritation, anger and incomprehension not negative affects of language which excludes a whole sex, reduces women to anatomical bits and pieces and makes it difficult for those for whom English isn’t their first language?

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is on the side of clarity:

. . . “What’s important is just to have clear language and I think, common sense language,” he said.

“I think most New Zealanders would actually say ‘pregnant people’ are women and that’s quite acceptable to say so.”

Quite. Not only is it acceptable it is also safer.

A pregnant transgender man delivered a stillborn baby after hospital staff did not immediately recognize that he was pregnant.

When the 32-year-old man arrived at the hospital with severe abdominal pains, a nurse did not consider it an emergency, noting the man was obese and had stopped taking blood pressure medicine.

Sadly, that misdiagnosis resulted in the unnamed man’s baby dying before it could be delivered, and has sparked a push for awareness among hospital staff.

The man’s case was highlighted by Dr Daphna Stroumsa in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday as an example of how gender assumptions can be detrimental in hospitals. . . 

Stroumsa and the authors wrote that if a woman would have arrived at the hospital with similar symptoms, she ‘would almost surely have been triaged and evaluated more urgently for pregnancy-related problems.’ . . 

Conflating sex and gender also distorts data and creates risks :

Cancer screenings have been missed and criminal convictions overlooked because of how data is collected about people’s biological sex and gender identity, an independent review found.

The review, led by Prof Alice Sullivan, outlined the risks of conflating biological sex and gender when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific cancer screening and safeguarding.

Prof Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, urged public bodies to collect data on both sex and gender identity by default “across the board” to ensure it is accurate.

The Department of Health said the findings would be considered with “the gravity they deserve, as it reforms gender identity services across the board”.

Prof Sullivan said “a confusion between sex and transgender and gender diverse identities” had developed in recent years and there had been attempts to “merge these two things into one variable”.

While people can legally change gender, they can’t change biological sex. This means a woman who transitions to become a man may still need cervical smears and transgender women may need prostate checks. . .

Biological is redundant in that sentence. Sex is a fact determined at conception.

It used to be interchangeable with gender but now gender more often refers to stereotypical characteristics of males and females including clothes and hair styles rather than sex.

Changing language doesn’t change facts and in healthcare especially facts and language matter, as Speak Up for Women points out:

SUFW spokeswoman Suzanne Levy said: “Language matters—especially in health. When we stop naming a group who are impacted, we remove their voice from discussions that affect them. Women must be clearly named in health communications to ensure their needs and experiences are recognised and addressed.”

SUFW also welcomed the Minister’s focus on ensuring that women—particularly those with English as a second language—can easily understand and access the health services intended for them.

“This is a common-sense move that puts the rights and wellbeing of women and girls first. It recognises biological reality and ensures that health communications are accessible, inclusive, and based on truth.”

The truth that regardless of feelings, sex is immutable and it matters, as does the language used when referring to women.