They’re celebrating “gender inclusion” at the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust. Apparently, no one has informed the medical professionals there that breasts are in fact not gender dependent. We all have them, in various sizes and shapes, regardless of our sex.

Nonetheless, to ensure that “trans and non-binary birthing people” are not offended, no one can use the B-word when it comes to breast milk, refer to “maternity,” and any instruction on natural nourishment for infants will refer to “breast/chestfeeding”:

The Washington Examiner notes that the language guide courageously lauds its effort to fight the “oppression” of women — er, people — by calling body parts by their correct names:

“Gender identity can be a source of oppression and health inequality. We are consciously using the words ‘women’ and ‘people’ together to make it clear that we are committed to working on addressing health inequalities for all those who use our services,” the BSUH said in a statement.

“As midwives and birth workers, we focus on improving access and health outcomes for marginalised and disadvantaged groups. Women are frequently disadvantaged in healthcare, as are trans and nonbinary people,” the BSUH said. “By continuing to use the term ‘woman’ we commit to working on addressing health inequalities for all who use our services.”

The word “mothers” on its own will also be avoided, with midwives told to use “mothers or birthing parents” instead. “Woman” will also be swapped with “people” or other inclusive language.

“We are consciously using the words ‘women’ and ‘people’ together to make it clear that we are committed to working on addressing health inequalities for all those who use our services,” the document said.

Wait — “midwives”? Shouldn’t that be “midspouses”? “Midfolks”? I prefer “midscolds,” but YMMV.

Needless to say, this only serves to prove that BSUH personnel have too much time on their hands. Gendered language such as “actress” has fallen out of popular use these days, which is understandable, and language does reflect popular usage no matter how much pedants will prefer static definition and usage. Efforts to impose such changes, especially when the objection is nonsensical and the alternatives this contrived, doesn’t relieve “oppression” as much as it undermines the credibility of the organizations that obsess over this idiocy. And in the middle of a global pandemic, this is particularly egregious nonsense.