New Statesman article - justifying "individuals with a cervix" message

You will not need to go for cervical screening if you have had a total hysterectomy to remove all of your womb and cervix

Erm yes, often you do.

You will not need to go for cervical screening if you have had a total hysterectomy to remove all of your womb and cervix.

That is not universally true. If you had a total hysterectomy due to cervical abnormalities you do still need them. If you missed your smear before your total hysterectomy, you need a vault smear. It’s not as simple as no cervix = no smear

I was relieved that my letter reminding me to go for a test mentioned that it was a routine recommended for women.

And as I have said before. In this era where tailored communication is not expensive, I can imagine it is very easy for a transman to receive a similar letter with wording that works for them. So, let’s stop the dehumanising and focus on using either females or even better, women and transmen (and if needed, people with cervixes for anyone else who needs it).

"If you have had a hysterectomy you still need to go for a smear even if you don’t have a cervix."

Lower down on the page it says you don't have to go for a smear if you have had a total hysterectomy:

If you have had a total hysterectomy
You will not need to go for cervical screening if you have had a total hysterectomy to remove all of your womb and cervix.
You should not receive any more screening invitation letters.

[quote SheWhoMustNotBeHeard]Well, I just checked the NHS website and they say "all women and people with a cervix". I would say they have got it right but I'm sure someone is bound to object.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/when-youll-be-invited/[/quote]
I think that is right and fair. If you have had a hysterectomy you still need to go for a smear even if you don’t have a cervix. That is clear and everyone knows it applies to them.

I think that many people know they need to have a smear and are anxious about it. Jess Taylor posted a lot about how women who were sexually abused as a child are more likely to have cervical cancer (she was diagnosed at her first smear aged 25).

This is possibly the case for transmen because they have dysphoria and so many of them are autistic.

That's great. The only way I would maybe improve it is hyperlink "people with a cervix" to a page especially aimed at FTM trans people and non binary female people. And then you can speak about it freely in terms of "women" in the main article. Which they mostly have done anyway.

Well, I just checked the NHS website and they say "all women and people with a cervix". I would say they have got it right but I'm sure someone is bound to object.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/when-youll-be-invited/

She is an example of an Individual with Half a Wit. Wits are a spectrum.

Good point @Mumoblue. In fact, does anyone want to be addressed with an organ as their main feature? Of course not. Doctors are taught not to refer to patients as 'the broken leg in bed 5' for example, because it's utterly dehumanising. And so is this person with a cervix nonsense.

Yes, exactly.

Quoted from that article

in the last year as cis (not trans) women and are believed to be at increased risk for cervical cancer due to underutilisation of cancer screening and delayed follow-up care. so she even illustrates the ludicrousness of the fucking language whilst supporting it.

Women and transmen... just type that instead, ffs!

Good point @Mumoblue. In fact, does anyone want to be addressed with an organ as their main feature? Of course not. Doctors are taught not to refer to patients as 'the broken leg in bed 5' for example, because it's utterly dehumanising. And so is this person with a cervix nonsense.

I really doubt that trans men want to be addressed by the organs that cause them dysphoria. This has never made sense to me.

They should say ‘women and transmen’.
But they won’t do that because that is not what this is about.
It’s about avoiding the use of the word ‘woman’ because it excludes transwomen.

As I said last time this tweet was discussed, this has nothing to do with worrying about transmen's health and everything to do with avoiding the use of the word women when talking about the cunty kind.

Men want to make the word women men 'anyone who identifies as a woman' so that we can just omit that bit when using the word women.

It's much more sinister than this naive woman makes out.

Portnlemon the singling out of non binary people is another front on which to undermine the category of 'women'.

Non binary is a gender category, not a sex category.

The more reach that gender ideologist have over language, the more power they hold.

Given that people who transition have spent some considerable time being only too aware of what sex they are, it would likely be more helpful to have information given specifically about the links between health risks/conditions and biological sex.

Lots of trans people don't change the 'gender markers' on their medical records because the know that the sex they are affects their health and potential treatment if unwell.

Reality denial really doesn't have any place in public health care.

Why on earth are non binary people relevant to any of this? It's completely irrelevant. We don't bother saying women, dames, ladies, queens, baronesses, etc so why do we have to single out non binary as a special category of people. Unless that's the answer, they would like to be a special category of people?

Come to think of it, anything referring to 'women' is hastily taken down and reworded at the request of one person, such as Action Aid, I heart JKR, etc.

I may start a campaign on behalf of TW and non binary people that are being excluded by use of the word 'man'. They should rightfully be referred to as prostrate havers. How quickly do we think they'd erase the word man at one persons say so, I wonder? 🤔

"And what about prostrate cancer? Are those campaigns inclusive?"

Personally, I think every time an article simply refers to men's semen, or men's prostates, we should point out it is also transphobic because it's ignores transwomen who may also have semen / prostates too.

Yet somehow, there never seems to need to be an uproar about these articles failing to include transwomen in men's health issues. (Only that trans men aren't included in women's health issues). Funny that, but I think we should consistently point it out, as this is exactly where the hypocrisy lies....

It makes a change to see the woke championing transmen though. Usually they barely get a look in.

Trans men only get wheeled out when men can use them as a stick to beat women down with. Else there'd be a massive push to get the 'men' changed in health messages. But it's almost like TW don't want to be included in that. It's becoming clearer by the day that this is just a women bullying exercise, and they use trans men to achieve it.

I haven't heard a single person answer why TW aren't going after the word man, has anyone else?

If transmen cannot cope with acknowledging the individual needs of their particular body which falls into the generic sex category of female (which encompasses a very wide range of differences but still, female) then their treatment has failed them by not enough focus on mental health support. If they cannot even acknowledge that their medical records need to reflect their body’s needs (including the treatments they have received) so they receive notification of tests that are available, that is a major issue to be addressed.

Not to make the rest of the sex category change their language to suit them.

Besides, If a transman is on cross sex hormones, surely they are doing regular doctors visits to check for atrophy and other issues that might arise. There is plenty of discussion needed to address the specific need of their bodies. Let’s address these things specifically and stop dehumanizing women to body parts. Let’s do targeted communication aimed at these needs as they have been clear that they don’t want to be lumped into women’s communications. if it has to be generic, then it is women AND transmen or Use female.

In this era where communication is inexpensive and can easily be tailored, why is this even an issue?

Oh yes... deliberate erosion of the word women so it lacks meaning and males can claim it too....

That's an excellent post wellbehavedwoman The internalised fawning misogyny from so many women on the left is enraging - throwing their less privileged sisters under the bus without a thought

Most are either to young to remember, or have conveniently forgotten what being a woman means and implies.

Indeed for Mhari Black to be elected as an MP at the age of 19, a woman, and a lesbian, is a privilege indeed. Or those young 'women of colour, such as Ash Sarkar, now have an influential public voice is in total thanks to what previous generations of women have achieved.