By 
A doctor in England wrote an article about the nutritional benefits of peas, which included the following sentence, in a section discussing the fact that peas contain iron:
But iron deficiency remains common worldwide, particularly among people who menstruate.
Apparently the UK version of the scream machine found this language sufficiently triggering to subject the author to an email barrage (side note: in English English, people apparently say “opened my emails” instead of opened my email).
One commenter accused me of having “a pea for a brain”. Another accused me of “neutering women”. Comments continued throughout the weekend until they were eventually removed under the publication’s moderation policy.
The author pointed out that she had been trying to use precise language:
In science communication, precision matters. If I had simply written that women are at increased risk of iron deficiency anaemia, it would have been less accurate. The biological mechanism involved is menstruation, not womanhood itself. Scientific language should aim to describe reality as clearly as possible, even when that reality is more nuanced than people expect.
This approach is also consistent with NHS guidance on inclusive communication, which recommends using gender-neutral language where appropriate.
I have a vague sense that debates about trans identity are particularly vicious in the UK, but they’re certainly bad enough here in America, mainly because political and cultural reactionaries find it extremely triggering to ever be reminded that trans people actually do exist, although I understand that many of them are searching for a final solution to that particular social reality.
