Eve Appeal responds to criticism against TWAW

Someone who has never had a cervix is never going to get cervical cancer.

And rather than making their language inclusive for women who have transitioned and presumably have a fault good understanding of their anatomy, charities which are ostensibly focused on women's health really need to ensure that their messaging is accessible to those women who really need it - those women who have difficulty accessing healthcare for whatever reason. Language needs to be clear and easy to understand

I liked to way Dr Emma Hilton (FondofBeetles) put it:

HPV is primarily a problem for mucous membranes. Penile skin is not a mucous membrane. Of course, transwomen should have regular health checked, including if necessary, internal exams. But they aren't at risk for cervical cancer.

If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it could be a simulated dog so it may not have any of the same needs as a dog so should not assume those needs. (Or it could be my 3 year old just as easily by that analogy) In this case, it may be a simulated organ but it is not a mucous membrane that requires the same checks for health.

It is presenting increased health risks for all involved for the sake of 'living in a 'nice' bubble'.

It's all so confusing knowing who has what but I found a genius solution on a Twitter thread discussing trans inclusive healthcare.

"instead of having someone check a M/F box, give them an organ index instead. this way there aren’t assumptions made about who has what genitals/organs, and leaves room for people who have had surgeries to describe their bodies in specific terms"

"Honestly this would also be helpful for situations like a cis woman who’d had her womb removed. It’s a universally great idea"

Unless anyone can think of a simpler solution?

They may have taken it down, but they're probably off my list of potential new recipients of the dosh that formerly went to ActionAid.

If I got into such a controversial argument on my own company's social media, without very clear sign off of the parameters of what I could say from the senior team, I would definitely be disciplined, perhaps I'd be looking for a new job.

[quote DamsonDragon]transwomen who have had gender confirmation surgery can get cervical cancer of the neo-vagina/cervix.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28217933/[/quote]
That article makes no claims to suggest transwomen can get cervical cancer or that they have a cervix or even a ‘neocervix’. Did you actually read it?

It's not there now. Perhaps a grown up noticed what the social media person has been up to.

S'amazing isn't it?

Five minutes ago we weren't allowed to be women any more, we had to be cervix havers.

And sure as fate we now have people popping up to remind us that people born male have cervixes too if you stretch a lot of points, squint a bit and cross your fingers, so you can't associate that with 'female' any more. I wonder what we're supposed to call the class of half the human race born with female biology? Since it's all apparently dependent on the wishes, feels and needs of the other half, and the goal posts move every 30 seconds?

Its all to the same agenda isn't it? 'There is no such thing as a biological female'. Erasure and denial of females to benefit males.
So no, not swallowing that disrespectful rubbish or any of the rest of the female erasing rubbish. Male people do not have cervixes. TW have specific needs following some surgeries. TWATW. Male people and their enablers are just going to have to get a grip on the fact that respect and lived experience and choice of personal definitions either works equally both ways or it doesn't work at all.

It’s only female cancer charities that are tying themselves up in knots ti be so inclusive they don’t use the words woman or Girls

Yes, men's health charities are all "men, men, manly men" with their masculine-coded hobbies like football and golf. It's weird.

SciFiScream
It was there this morning as I read it - along with the tone deaf responses from the member of staff to women cancer sufferers who posted about being marginalised by the language used to insist that people with neovaginas must have cancer of the cervix. It's funny how invisible women become when we demand access to biologically accurate facts and language compared with the demands from men to own and dominate every single aspect of female experiences.
If a cancer charity for women's gynae cancers are so determined to centre men in their work to the extent that they distort science, biology and facts, then that charity no longer gets a £ from me.

Yes it looks like they've taken it down. Good. A really unhelpful contribution to the debate.

[quote DamsonDragon]transwomen who have had gender confirmation surgery can get cervical cancer of the neo-vagina/cervix.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28217933/[/quote]
They don't have a cervix, so can't possibly get cervical cancer. And a 'neo vagina' isn't a vagina, it's an orifice constructed from penile skin. Nothing like a vagina at all, the word vagina is a descriptor on this case, not a biological term. Therefore it is not a gynaecological cancer.

I think the insta post has been deleted. The link didn't work this morning. Did anyone archive it?

Sorry about the grammar of that post! Need coffee

really like the way the Eve Appeal includes transmen and NB people on their website.

There is a lot of information there, it's easily read and it doesn't shirk from the fact that these are female cancers.

That's inclusion.

Yes, I had a look last night. The front page is all about women. Women, women's stories, donate in her memory. They obviously do realise its sensitive to women to use the word women instead of "people". It's really quite stark when you read the info for trans FTM that they avoid any mention that cervical cancer is a thing which happens (even mostly) to female people but all the body parts they are talking about are female.

It's jarring, but it's good that they provide resources for this small group. I guess they've probably had some Stonewall or GI training.

What they don't seem to realise is to have any of that woman stuff on their front page at all for a female health charity is transphobic to the pitiless TRA zealots, and so I don't know why they're attacking women who point this out.

Therefore (posted too soon) should you get a cancerous mass inside of it, you do not have cervical/gynecological cancer.

Yes, that needs treating, yes of course they should be monitored for any issues. But we need to stop pretending that TW are anatomically & biologically the same as women.

It's an artificial channel constructed from a penis, that does nothing except allow the TW to have some semblance of a sexual experience akin to that which a biological female would have.

There is no link to a Gspot (unless it is specifically created at the same time as the original surgery).
There is no self cleansing process.
There is no self lubricating process.
There is no ability to birth a child.
There is no link to a womb and therefore the ability to be a channel for the lining shed on a monthly basis.

Therefore, no... it isn't remotely a vagina. Because vaginas are not just for sexual gratification, they are inherently biologically female.

I really like the way the Eve Appeal includes transmen and NB people on their website.

There is a lot of information there, it's easily read and it doesn't shirk from the fact that these are female cancers.

That's inclusion.

@IloveJKRowling
Thanks, I’ve become far too au fait with oncology over the last six months or so.

It seems to me that the current level of magical thinking which informs a lot of pro trans rhetoric atm is going to lead to poor health outcomes for many trans people, especially those who wholeheartedly embrace it. The insistence on denying biological reality because ‘the feelz’ are a dangerous path to take in the long term. I can only assume that it is as it is because the majority of trans people and TRAs are of a younger demographic, so ugly medical issues have yet to really effect their lives. You only have to look at how irresponsibly some younger people have behaved over Covid-19 to realise how much the young can perceive themselves to be invincible.
I don’t think the current changes in language by so many institutions are going to help anybody, it will only make things more difficult for many, both trans and natal, and if trans people are that upset by reminders of their biological sex, then that is something that needs to be addressed in and of itself, medicalised and non-affirming treatment of their dysphoria should not be discouraged just because it’s uncomfortable if it prevents early deaths from serious sex-specific illnesses.
Trans people have to accept their status as a tiny minority, the transwoman who finds herself sat in the urology clinic with all the other males with dicky prostates deserves to be treated well but really needs to learn how to cope with a service that caters to men when they form 99.9% of the patients. The same applies to a trans man in gynaecology. The NHS will not deny them sex specific tests or treatment, so let’s bury that canard, but denying them to yourself because you refused to learn how to come to terms with your innate sex because it wasn’t ‘affirming’ is not just on you but also on those who encouraged and accommodated you in that thinking.You are the extreme outlier, you have to deal with that, not expect everyone else to fuck about on your behalf. At a base level it’s just polite, but more than that, it might be lifesaving.

It’s only female cancer charities that are tying themselves up in knots ti be so inclusive they don’t use the words woman or Girls

Just for comparison, prostate cancer advert

“What a piece of work is a man” can you imagine the furore, the wailing of beeee kiiiiind, the announcements that they were literally KILLING TW if a female cancer charity dared to put out a similar advert?

This obsfucation is such bollocks! It doesn’t help anyone. Biology is real, sex matters in health more than anything because so many diseases behave differently in men & women

All it does highlight is yet again that women are expected to be everyone’s ‘mummy’ and put the well-being of TW above their own while the reverse isn’t even vaguely expected of men

Addendum: people who have had reconstructive surgery, for whatever reason, using skin or body parts grafted from other areas of their body clearly need protecting from cancer, too. Their surgeons need to give them specialised, personalised advice on their risks and instructions on what to do and where to go for help if they have symptoms. Their GPs need to be aware so they can be ready to offer help without the patient having to rehearse their entire medical history at every visit.

I would just call this best practice and expect it.

Damson there is someone I keep seeing pushing this research/story on twitter. It's possibly you. Don't be so offensive as to come and tell women - all of whom have or have had a cervix, all of whom will have had smear tests and some of whom will have had precancerous cells or cancer detected - about their female bodies and what is and isn't female cancer.

TRAs. If someone says "A person with a uterus is a woman" they think it means the same as "A person without a uterus is not a woman." It's a failure to understand basic logic. It's the same as when JK Rowling said "A person who menstruates is a woman" and they thought it meant "A person who doesn't menstruate is not a woman."

Divide and conquer.

Up until recently ‘period products for women’ was never assumed to mean women who don’t have periods - post menopausal, disease, pregnancy, etc weren’t women.

Most still know full well women not menstruating are women. Idiots who just drunk too much of the koolaid just pretend they don’t.

This is not the majority.

HPV can cause penile cancer in men, also anal cancer or throat cancer.

HPV is what causes cervical cancer. A large percentage of the sexually active population of both sexes carries HPV. It doesn't cause cancer in any organ in men. It's only a cancer risk if you have a cervix. Not a neo-cervix constructed from penis or colon tissue, not for anyone whatever the sex or even gender.

The whole furore around cervical cancer and who gets it and doesn't get it was a response to the weaponising of language that came about through lobbying by TRA groups which resulted in the erasure of the words 'woman' and 'women' from NHS and cancer charity leaflets where NHS boards and charities had 'fallen' to the neo-speak of activists.

Of course all adult, functionally literate, reasonably well-informed people whose first language is English know what a cervix is, whether or not they have one and what they need to do to about it (attend for smears, report symptoms to their HP).

The concern is for people who are not well-informed or have lower levels of literacy or speak and read English as a second or subsequent language. They may not know the word cervix but it's much more likely they will know the words woman and women and realise it concerns them or someone they love.

Erasing language about women from posters and leaflets could easily lead to growing unawareness of the risks and delays to diagnoses or even to preventable deaths.

This is not about hating trans-women or transmen, it's about informing and protecting the people who need smears and checks.

I notice the words man and men are happily entrenched in NHS and charity literature around prostate cancer. Why is it just women as a class who are being re-invented by a tiny but vocal minority and being deprived of the vocabulary we need to describe and discuss ourselves?