IT'S Movember and moustache growers across the country will be sprouting a cornucopia of facial hair arrangements aiming to raise money for the fight against cancers affecting prostate holders and testes bearers.

Throughout November participants will also be trying to generate awareness of mental health and suicide rates among mxn.

Jars a bit, doesn't it, when you remove the word "man" and replace it with associated body parts instead. Or make up an entirely new word.

Of course, men aren't having to deal with such indignities. It seems "man" is still an inoffensive word. It is "woman" that is the issue. Same as it ever was.

Language and the weight of meaning is having a moment.

The BBC slipped up in a tweet about the President-elect of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. With a list of quotes from the far-right politician, it asked the question: "Racist, sexist and homophobic or a refreshing break from political correctness?"

After an outcry about the way fascist views are being framed as mainstream, the broadcaster retracted the tweet with: "The intention was to reflect the spectrum of opinion on such statements but the language of the post may not have reflected this accurately."

Next, to the American broadcaster CNN, which took a potshot at President Donald Trump. The Obfuscater-In-Chief went off on one of his bizarre rants accusing CNN of claiming he had been directly responsible for a bomb sent to its offices by a Trump supporter.

CNN released a statement: "We did say that [you] should understand your words matter. Every single one of them. But so far, you don’t seem to get that."

Sir Philip Green, the owner of Topshop, finds himself emphatically denying charges of sexual harassment and racist abuse of staff. In his 40 years in business, there has "Been some banter," he said. "And a bit of humour."

Ah, the old banter defence. The last bastion of students in Nazi Halloween costumes and ponytail-pulling politicians everywhere.

It's hard to argue with the idea that language has power. That words might amount to harassment. That thoughtless statements may incite violence in someone primed to lash out. That giving equal weight to mainstream and extreme political ideologies legitimises hate.

So, does the slow erasure of the word "woman" mean anything? In order to be inclusive and to prevent causing offence to trans people, the word "woman" has become a problem.

A national newspaper last week ran a story about women's experience of dealing with period pain at work, but the word "woman" was replaced with "menstruator". That word is very slowly becoming increasingly used to acknowledge that trans men and non-binary people have periods too.

There was a story on the website of another national newspaper this week that managed to tell a lengthy story about periods while completely avoiding using the word "woman" or "girl", despite the fact the story was about a schoolgirl who was caught short and a male classmate who very kindly helped her.

"Chest feeding" in place of breast feeding is another inclusive term and a particularly odd one, given that men do have breasts. "Pregnant people" is now preferred to "pregnant women"

The Wellcome Collection, a London museum, was berated last month over its use of the word "womxn" to promote a new event aimed at women. How would one even pronounce it? Sounds like bollx.

During the summer Cancer Research UK launched a campaign to encourage the uptake of smear tests. It was aimed at "everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix".

Inclusive in a way, but arguably exclusive. It's complex language for, say, people who don't speak English as a first language and for groups where women might not be aware of all the words relating to their biology.

One of the arguments in favour of changes to the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, which would bring into force gender self-ID and remove current bureaucracy for trans people, is that what's in your pants shouldn't matter.

Yet, by replacing the word "woman" we are doing just that - placing an emphasis on biology and bodily functions. It's dehumanising and it is problematic for the very fact that women have fought for recognition and a voice in a male-dominated world thanks to acceptance of "woman" as being a political class.

We are pleased that women are being recognised, finally, on bank notes. Yet we are still fighting for gains to be made in board rooms, on sports fields, the political sphere and so on.

We can only lose if we allow the word "woman" to be erased in the name of progression.

Is this progressive or is a clever trick on the part of the patriarchy? The answer lies in the fact that, as I said, it is not the word "man" causing problems. Women have fought ferociously to have the same status, rights and respect as men.

Of course, all groups deserve equal rights, protections and dignity and must be afforded those. But there has to be another way to ensure inclusion. Otherwise we are going backwards in a vain attempt to move forwards.