'Inclusivity' isn't the only value at stake when it comes to how we talk about sex

Be inclusive or be clear, but you can't be both.

Advocates for 'inclusive' -- in this case, gender-neutral -- language often insist that "inclusivity costs you nothing." When you talk about menstruation, pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth, there's just no need to talk about women or femaleness or sex. Why wouldn't you just be kind and substitute "they" for "she," and "people" (or menstruator or chestfeeder or abortion-seeker) for "woman"?

But using gender-neutral language to talk about sex is not neutral: it actively obscures what's happening, to whom, and why. That's a huge price to pay.

And substituting artful and ever-shifting euphemisms for sex -- "people with cervixes," "bleeders," "vulva owners" -- isn't accessible to women who don't speak English well or aren't familiar with female reproductive anatomy, raising the risk that not all "cervix-havers" will show up for life-saving cancer screenings.

Advocates for ‘inclusive’ language prioritize sensitivity to gender identity over clarity about sex and accessibility. Many women's rights advocates prioritize clarity about sex and accessibility over sensitivity to gender identity. Determine your priorities and choose your language accordingly.

But don't pretend inclusivity is the only value at stake when it comes to what language we use to talk about sex. Clarity and accessibility matter, too.