BBC - no adult human females here

A good medical education campaign teaches its target audience and has whatever effect you want it to. So we ask:

Who are we reaching?
What do we want them to know?
How do we go about that?

With breast cancer - it does affect men as well but I think you need a separate campaign for that. The branding and imagery and wording forvthe current breast cancer campaigns (pink ribbons etc, our local bakery had pink iced buns) is very stereotypically female - it’s yargeted at women and so adding a sex neutral wording in there is going to be lost. It’s not going to reach men because your average bloke will switch off atcthe pink and moonwalk stuff.

Just like the imagery for cardiac arrests was aimed at men - when you do a good medical Ed campaign the imagery needs to look like the people you’re targeting.

So many women were not realising their symptoms were heart attacks - so there was a female specific campaign to address that. That’s ticked all our boxes above - targeted, specific, informative. What’s needed for Male Brest cancer is. Similar campaign, using male stereotyped imagery, language aimed at males etc. The message would be lost otherwise.

This is people’s health - on a population of 70 million it’s a lot of lives. There’s no place for woke bullshit. The language, content and images need to be accurate, simple and targeted.

As barracker nails it above - the breaking of the link between the word woman and the sexed body and biological/medical/scientific tealityvis very telling. This is not benign

5 in 10 women gets a disease = 50% of the female population
1 in 10 men get a disease = 10% of the male population

(allowing for 50:50 by sex)

That's 6 in 20 people get the disease = 30% of the population.

It’s a bit like sickle cell anaemia.

Yes, some white people have it - but 15,000 cases is a very large number when the impact on the black community is considered but tiny when set against the UK population as a whole.

Do you think the authors would do this with ovarian cancer too? I suspect that they would.

Awareness of gyny cancers is really low and this has consequences as early diagnosis improves outcomes.

The charities, professionals women and families who have been affected have been working hard to raise awareness & consistantly highlight the vital importance of using direct and clear language.

Professor Clare McKenzie, RCOG (Royal Colege of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists Vice President wrote in 2016:

"September marks Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month; a UK-wide initiative led by women’s cancer charity, The Eve Appeal. The campaign aims to encourage more women to be aware of the signs and symptoms of the disease, and to feel comfortable speaking about them without shame or embarrassment.

Sadly, more than 21,000 women are diagnosed with one of the five forms of gynaecological cancer each year in the UK. In 2014, more than 7,750 of these women lost their battle. Despite these alarming statistics, gynaecological cancer remains a taboo subject among the public. We know that stigma, embarrassment and a lack of knowledge about the disease, are key barriers for women to talk openly about gynaecological cancer and seek medical help.

A new survey by The Eve Appeal now reveals a shocking number of women know little about their own anatomy; with nearly half of those surveyed unable to identify the vagina on an anatomical diagram, and 45% of women couldn’t point out the cervix.

Awareness of female cancers was also low; the survey found that 14% of women could not name a single gynaecological cancer, and 8% thought breast cancer was a type of gynaecological cancer. This survey highlights a growing need for better sex education. If women are better informed about what is normal or not when it comes to their gynaecological health, there is a higher chance they will seek help. This knowledge will equip young women for the future, and work to remove the stigma associated with gynaecological cancer.

In the wake of these statistics, The Eve Appeal has launched this year’s Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month with a theme focusing on knowing our own bodies (#KnowYourBody). The charity hopes this campaign will encourage women to get to know their bodies better; leading to early diagnoses.

Each day, around 25 women in the UK are diagnosed with womb cancer; the 12th most common cancer in the UK. Meanwhile, ovarian cancer leads to more deaths than any other type of gynaecological cancer with 4,100 women losing their life to the cancer in 2014. This is one too many wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and friends.

If women notice any changes in their bleeding patterns, vaginal discharge or bowel or urinary habits, or experience pain during sex, we urge them to speak to a GP or nurse. We also encourage women who have any concerns to contact The Eve Appeal’s Ask Eve service on Freephone 0808 802 0019 or email [email protected].

It is vital that we raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of all types of gynaecological cancers. It’s time to change the mentality of these being a taboo subject, and get women talking about their bodies. Only then can we start reducing the number of women who died from the disease."
www.rcog.org.uk/en/blog/gynaecological-cancer-awareness-month-know-your-body/

You have to think about the impact of detaching the word breasts from the word woman.
And the reason why?

Is an article about a disease that affects almost exclusively women improved, made more or less effective by using generic 'people' instead of women?

How much of the primarily impacted females shall we ignore on behalf of the whataboutery for men?

Do you think the authors would do this with ovarian cancer too? I suspect that they would.

The BBC erase references to women when they are associated (either primarily or exclusively) with female anatomy.

They consistently try to break the link between female bodies and the word woman.

This is not accidental.

Neutral language in this context doesn’t bother me as it is factually correct, Breast cancer affects females and males.

It isn’t the same as trying to claim that some women have penises, or that some men have cervixes, which is factually incorrect.

The new rules of womanhood:

1. If it's associated with a penis it's allowed to be a woman and may be shouted loudly:

1. If it's associated with a vagina it is never to be uttered. We are menstruators, cervix havers, people with breast cancer.

Ergo, men can be men, men can be women, and people with vaginas are barely human and must be acknowledged only with reference to their disparate and disconnected body parts.

If they really must be referenced at all.

It isn't that woman is never spoken or written any more. It's that it's only allowable when it's referencing people with dicks, and not with the original, unmentionable owners of the word.

Men do get breast cancer and tend to have poorer outcomes because they don’t realise.

But. I still think gender neutral language here is a mistake. This needs two separate campaigns; one for bc for women and a separate one for men. There needs to be a separate campaign to target each sex more effectively.

A lot of men will not register a campaign for women’s breast cancer regardless of language. We’ve seen successful separate campaigns for women’s cardiac issues.

These were the CRUK headline descriptions when I posted September 25th:

'Prostate cancer is cancer that starts in the prostate gland, which is a walnut sized gland at the base of the bladder in men.'

'Testicular cancer is cancer that develops in the testicles, which are part of a man's reproductive system.'

'Penile cancer is cancer of the penis. It is a rare cancer in the UK. It can develop anywhere on the penis but is most common under the foreskin in men who haven’t been circumcised or on the head of the penis (the glans).

cf
'Cervical cancer is when abnormal cells in the lining of the cervix grow in an uncontrolled way. The cervix is the lower part of the womb. It is the opening to the vagina from the womb. The main symptom is unusual bleeding from the vagina. Finding changes in the cells through screening can help to prevent cancer developing.'

'Your guide to ovarian cancer, including what it is, how you are diagnosed, treatment and its side effects, and where to get practical and emotional support.'

'The womb is the pear shaped muscular bag that holds a baby during pregnancy. Most womb cancers start in the lining of the womb. They are also called uterine or endometrial cancer. The endometrium is the lining of the womb.'

'Vaginal cancer is very rare. It starts in the vagina, which is the passage that leads from the neck of the womb (cervix) to the vulva. Vaginal cancer is more common in older women.'

'Vulval cancer is a rare cancer. It can start in any part of the female external sex organs, the vulva. The treatment you need depends on how big the cancer is and whether it has spread.'

from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375155-Billboard-with-dictionary-definition-woman-adult-human-female-removed-after-pressure-from-TRAs?pg=8&messages=25

I reckon ‘people’ is ok here. Men do get breast cancer. And women understand the word breast. So it is quite different from ‘people with a cervix’.

I would like to see CRUK and similar organisations show their field testing and research.

I would like to see that testing and research signed off by the Royal Statistical Society and the likes of Prof. Spiegelhalter. who is acknowledged as a leader is risk and uncertainty communication - maybe with some of the leading Public Health people.

www.regulation.org.uk/library/2017-Spiegelhalter-Risk_and_Uncertainty_Communication.pdf

CRUK have also removed mention of 'women' / 'female' from nearly all descriptions of gynaecological cancers.

Male cancers eg testiscular, penile and prostate cancer retain clear mentions of men /male.

Argh, didn't mean to post then...

And 'gender neutral' language also reduces the significance of stats

Example, not real figures:

5 in 10 women gets a disease = 50% of the female population
1 in 10 men get a disease = 10% of the male population

(allowing for 50:50 by sex)

That's 6 in 20 people get the disease = 30% of the population.

Think about how that skews advertising, funding, research, marketing, etc for that disease.

Risk perception is skewed, the cohort that needs to be very vigilant is not; no official extra work is done on alerting that cohort, more people die!

THAT is one example of why language matters and why we need to stop the eradication of sex based differentiation.

Let this one go OP. No! OP is right!

With gender neutral language both sexes are done a disservice.

Women get more pissed off at the eradication and men don't get a clear, loud message that they too are at risk.

If the article included clear sex based language then a better message could have been sent about the sex based risk of breast cancer.

'Gender neutral' language simply masks very real health risks.

Lung cancer campaigns have to focus on prevention - ie stopping smoking - because once you're diagnosed, the prognosis is very poor.

I appreciate that. Nonetheless, the awareness of lung cancer, and ability to spot early symptoms doesn't help. There's a stigma attached to it (and some gynaecological cancers) that breast cancer doesn't have.

Similarly - for me - the relative ignorance around women's cardiovascular issues and symptom presentation.

I agree with girlinthefireplace, arran and dulce - this is one instance where gender neutral language is appropriate, because men do get breast cancer (yes, smaller numbers, but it's still just as devastating for them as individuals when it happens).

I had a male colleague who went through breast cancer and it was really hard for him to get a diagnosis and deal with other people's reactions (particularly other men) because of the pinkification of breast cancer. Let this one go OP.

arranfan: there are good reasons for raising awareness about breast cancer, though. Lung cancer campaigns have to focus on prevention - ie stopping smoking - because once you're diagnosed, the prognosis is very poor. But if you discover a lump early enough and go straight to a GP, the chances of successful treatment for breast cancer are much higher than if you leave it.

The pinkification of breast cancer sets my teeth fair on edge.

Yes, men being excluded from breast cancer certainly isn't the only problem with the pink thing!

all the pink campaigns and everything

The pinkification of breast cancer sets my teeth fair on edge.

And - conversely, you'd never know from the relentless promotion of breast cancer that it's the 3rd 'biggest killer of women' so to speak. Lung cancer beats breast cancer for mortality. And look at the difficulty women have in being even diagnosed with cardiovascular problems because the symptoms are screened through a filter of male physiology etc.

Sorry I cross posted a bit with arranfan there. Yes, it's true about the prostate cancer thing, men are much less likely to go to the doctor and get anything check for anything though. But obviously if they don't even realise they can even get breast cancer, then they definitely won't!

I am not bothered about 'people' in this context. Yes, it is true that the vast vast majority of people who get breast cancer are women but men do get it and do die of it. And there is a problem that all the pink campaigns and everything mean that men just don't think they would ever get breast cancer and therefore never check or anything.

I wouldn't complain about this one.

Biological males can get breast cancer and the assumption that they can't by many men delays them seeking medical attention and checking themselves regularly.

Yes, they can. Given the number of men who disregard prostate cancer public service announcements, I wonder how many will pay attention to breast cancer promotion messages that are gender neutral?

I'd be fascinated if CRUK or similar has run field-testing or research on that.

Actually I disagree with you on this. Biological males can get breast cancer and the assumption that they can't by many men delays them seeking medical attention and checking themselves regularly.

I think it's important that it is widely publicised that men can also eat breast cancer.

Whether this is the intention with the BBC terminology, I don't know.

Closdes, that makes me weep.

I think you only get 14 days to complain, but you can also add evidence of bias here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here