Gender-Inclusive Language ‘Marginalises’ Women’s Humanity Health Experts Say

A person holds a transgender pride flag in New York on June 28, 2019. (Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images)

Changing words like ‘women’ and ’mothers’ to gender-inclusive terms like ‘vagina owners’ or ‘birthers’ in medical research has the potential to dehumanise women and diminish the importance of the mother-child relationship, leading researchers have said.

In an opinion article officially published in the journal Frontiers in Global Women’s Health on Feb. 7, 10 women’s health experts from Australia, the US, Europe and Asia acknowledged that desexing the language of female reproduction have been done with a view to being “kind and inclusive” to LGBT+ people, including those who are pregnant or birthing but do not identify as women.

However, the researchers said the language changes have “delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.” Those consequences include “marginalising” women’s humanity because using alternative terms for ‘women,’ such as ‘gestational carrier,’ ‘birthing people’ or ‘pregnant families’ involve references to body parts or physiological processes.

“Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as “othering” and dehumanising,” the paper said.

“In addition, avoidance of the term ‘mother’ in its sexed sense risks reducing recognition and the right to protection of the mother-infant dyad.”

This undermining, the authors noted, may have the “most deleterious impact” in situations of adversity where mothers and infants are most in need of protection: such as circumstances of high maternal or infant mortality; when infants are sick or premature; or where the mother-infant relationship is in jeopardy due to poverty, domestic violence, or substance use.

Replacing “breastfeeding” with “human milk feeding” has the same effect, as it “disembodies breastfeeding” and “places emphasis on the milk as separate from the mother,” the experts added.

Push for Gender-Based Language in Medical Research

In recent years, gender-inclusive language has emerged in response to the growing acceptance of the concept of gender identity internationally as well as the rising numbers and visibility of people reporting gender identities in conflict with their biological sex.

Lead author Karleen Gribble, who is an adjunct associate professor in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Western Sydney University, told The Epoch Times there have been “lots of examples of where the desexed language has either made it difficult to understand who they’re talking about, or has been inappropriately inclusive, [meaning it] has included people who shouldn’t be included.”

For example, in 2021, the Australian Department of Health published a “COVID-19 vaccination decision guide for women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning pregnancy” that looks at statistics on disease severity between “pregnant women” and “non-pregnant women.”

The department later switched these terms to “pregnant people” and “non-pregnant people,” which Gribble said has resulted in “some of the statistics being wrong” because non-pregnant people “is a group that includes not only men, but children.”

Similar errors have also been made by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which published three versions of their Guidance on Breastfeeding during COVID-19 from November 2020 to January 2021. The CDC progressively desexed the text with the terms ’mother‘ replaced with the terms ’breastfeeding person,‘ ’lactating parent,‘ and ’someone.’

“If you avoid using sexed language, then when you’re talking about something where sex is really important, you’re going to lose meaning,” Gribble noted.

Activists rally to support transgenders on the steps of the City Hall, in New York, on Oct. 24, 2018. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The researcher added while it should be “entirely appropriate” to use gendered terms on a one-to-one basis, there are potential problems when they are applied systematically in research and policy.

“It’s really about what’s appropriate to the circumstance,” she said. “I don’t think it needs to be fit up as being people being in opposition to one another, I think it needs to be understood what the issue is and then looking at different solutions for different contexts.”

This sentiment is echoed by a number of LGBTQIA+ groups, who believe sexed and gendered-based language can co-exist.

Advocate and co-founder of Transgender Victoria, Sally Goldner, told the Sydney Morning Herald on Jan. 29 the term ‘cis-gender woman’ will “still be able to get the messages, but then we can add in the messages we need for other groups in terms of breastfeeding/chestfeeding and giving birth.”

“I think there are ways we can do it and include everyone, and make [information] comprehensive, accessible and inclusive,” she added.

The Epoch Times has contacted Equality Australia, AIDS Council of NSW and Transgender Australia but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Inclusive Language ‘Not Kind or Inclusive’

But resistance to a stronger push for gender-inclusive language remains, with a prominent women’s rights advocate arguing the addition of inclusive terms would gradually lead to the erasion of the concept of sex in law and policy.

Katherine Deves, co-founder of Save Women’s Sports Australasia, told The Epoch Times that “manipulating language is an effective tactic to normalise the manufactured concept of ‘gender identity’ as a replacement for biological sex.”

“Erasing biological sex is not kind or inclusive,” she said.

“We do not see men and fathers being referred to as ’testicle-owners,‘ ’ejaculators’ or ‘non-birthing bodies,’ yet women are expected to accept dehumanising and offensive terms such as gestational parent, chest-feeders, human milk producers,... effectively reducing us to body parts and bodily processes.”

Deves also noted that “pretending differences between male and female bodies do not exist” would “further perpetuate the discrimination and disadvantage women suffer in the provision of medical care and medical research.”

“Gender activists have demonstrated they will erase sex-based language if given the opportunity and they should not be given the chance to insert ideological language into official documents,” the activist said.

Meanwhile, lead author Gribble told The Epoch Times she hoped the research paper, which is the work of a group of researchers coming from all around the world, would be able to refute the widespread allegation that questioning any part of the move towards inclusive language is “transphobic.”

“People have said the only reason why people object to the language changes is because they’re bigoted. That is not the case at all,” she said.