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

Completely agree Packing.

I'm not sure why the word females couldn't have been used. If it's true that "no one is denying sex is a thing!" surely 'females over 25' would be an acceptable way of putting it. (And yes, I'm aware females has now been co-opted as well.)

My take on this is that this sort of thing gets published when people haven't been trained properly as reporters, don't go out and search for actual stories, yet somehow get jobs as journalists.

The writer is supposed to be a political correspondent. There's an eleventy-billion political stories out there waiting to be told but no, instead we get a brain fart about how to talk about the medical assessment of deep viscera only found in females.

Fuck me.

It makes a change to see the woke championing transmen though. Usually they barely get a look in. I don't really understand how biology is important on this issue but it's exclusionary the rest of the time. If we start a club for people born with a cervix will that be inclusive or exclusive?

Trans men are already lifetime patients with their need to be prescribed continuous testosterone to maintain their appearance. They are engaged with the health service far more than most people already. Surely their care includes information about the screening and check ups they need already without all this virtue signalling.

I can't believe that this is about letting transmen know they need a smear as if they are disengaged from the system when they have made themselves completely dependent on regular engagement already. Or am I missing something?

Sense of humour failure? The TRAs are watching and they have no sense of humour, sadly.

I tried to say, in a witty way, that it isn't healthy to be overly obsessed with women's reproductive organs.

Will this get reported as well?

Just to make it clear: I entirely support the clear, direct messaging on these websites and understand that this is the way to address a serious male health problem. I’m in no way belittling it.

And one more for luck. Sorry it’s all so triggering, lads.

Is men’s healthcare similarly required to be inclusive?

Er, no. I harvested this from a quick web search.

LITERAL VIOLENCE. What about women with prostates, eh? What about non binary people with testicles?

It is as clear as day that the battle will only be fought over who are permitted to call themselves women, and if people like the writer of that article can’t see the howling sexism in that, I really can’t help them.

@HPFA
Oh, the New Statesman has already jumped on Movember, only it was to accuse it of being racist because, like, tashes are really popular in India.

www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/11/why-movember-isnt-all-its-cracked-be

I shit you not...

I find this whole ‘cervix haver’ argument really disingenuous. It’s not about trans men at all, like people with intersex conditions they’re just useful and conveniently silent props to be wheeled out when required. The real reason is transwomen’s feels not being validated by their obvious lack of womanly biological bits, exactly the same as their gaslighting of lesbians.

Many of the arguments illustrate good reasons why it shouldn't be possible to change your sex marker on the NHS. People wring their hands about TM not being caught in campaigns or be in receipt of smear test letters, but surely that would all be solved if they weren't allowed to muck around with such essential information!

Of course it’s nothing to do with healthcare.

If it was, not only would there be similar calls for inclusion around term men, but more seriously, they would they not exclude women who have had their cervix removed often because of a risk of cancer who are no longer being targeted when often they are most at risk.

I don't have a subscription but personally I wouldn't cancel over one article - it's the overall balance that matters to me. I think it's always useful to see what the opposing arguments are - and they're pretty feeble in this case.

• @wellbehavedwomen is absolutely right. If this was really about improving access to healthcare there would be an equal focus on male-related issues. There isn't. Apparently trans people aren't hurt or triggered by references to men having prostates or anything similar.* The part I don’t understand if that if all of these organisations have been approached by the activists and are sufficiently convinced by the ‘inclusive’ argument why don’t they make their own leap of logic and update the men’s anatomy equivalent? Are they being explicitly told not to by the activists and if so why are they not questioning the whole issue? Are they of the mind that the uptake rates for men in screening are so low that they don’t want to put men at risk and if so have they deliberately ignored the fact that they are putting women at risk?

If this is a public health matter why haven't they market tested it. Ask the question 'women between the ages of 25 and 60 need a smear test' and 'Cervix havers need a smear test'. See how many people think it applies to them and translate into lives saved. They haven't done this because I think they know the answer. Even a couple of percentage points is massively significant and if it showed a 20-30% difference to not use the better message would be criminal. Let's ask why this hasn't been market tested.

*nepeta

The author has not really followed the field if she doesn't know that many of the vocal activists demanding inclusive language are nowadays nonbinary persons with cervices who don't experience gender dysphoria (if I got that right).*

Yup, and the replies to her really back that up. The suggestions re "women and trans men" or a separate campaign for trans men are being met with "What about non binary and gender fluid people?"

Here's one of my arguments against "individual with a cerix".

Take the following examples of unfairness:

• Young people who menstruate missing school because they can't afford sanitary products
• People who have given birth being more likely to be made redundant
• People with a vagina more likely to be trafficked for sex
• People who experience menopause not getting support from employers they need

If we specify these in terms of the relevant body part, it obscures the fact that we're talking about a (massively) overlapping group of people, and what they have in common is a female reproductive system. (What was the word again?...)

What if we looked at all those menstruators, vagina-havers etc. as a single group, and found that statistical analysis revealed other problems e.g. that this group gets paid less than those outside the group, that they do more of the unpaid care work, that they are more likely to die when they experience a car crash, and if they have a heart attack, it is more likely to be misdiagnosed.

None of these problems are directly related to any one reproductive organ or function. They are related to having a female reproductive system, and the power imbalance that goes along with that. You can't reduce this down to individual biological organs and functions.

If only this group could name itself, and organise itself to protect its rights...

@wellbehavedwomen is absolutely right. If this was really about improving access to healthcare there would be an equal focus on male-related issues. There isn't. Apparently trans people aren't hurt or triggered by references to men having prostates or anything similar.

I suspect when Movember comes round a few trans activists will realise it might be a good idea to "protest" about this. It would actually be a good idea to start having some plans in place for November.

In the comments following Lush Edinburgh's facebook post last night, I saw several photos of classic books, films and song lyrics all edited to change the word Women for "menstruators" or "people with a cervix". It was funny, but really highlighted how ludicrous changing the language is.

I do agree with the writer insofar that it wasn't just a 'silly' tweet'. I think the endgame - whether CNN were aware of it or not - is far more sinister than that. wellbehavedwomen has already explained it better than I could.

There was a time when I would have compromised on 'Women and trans men' but I now think that this is about a medical procedure and that bringing gender into it just confuses matters. I would however support a campaign along the lines of, 'Transmen, you need get your cervix checked!' I'd also support one for transwomen on prostate checking, although I think men need to take the lead on that.

Also - and this is just a personal gripe - 'individuals' is so long winded and pompous in a message that should be clear and simple. Why use 5 syllables when you can use 2?

As well as the word woman, do we now also need a campaign to raise awareness of the meaning and extreme usefulness of the term AND? I mean, ffs: if it’s genuinely all about inclusiveness of trans men, then why the fuck aren’t they talking about “women AND people with cervixes”?? (And how the hell does one pluralise cervix?)

I think I know why: if the problem is genuinely about inclusiveness, and it’s solved with an AND, then we wouldn’t be talking about about women having to share their services with anyone who happens to self ID as a woman. We’d be talking instead about investing in a third set of services - toilets and DV shelters for a start - for trans people (and trans women in particular). But that’s not the focus, for 2 reasons I think.

1. For all the rhetoric about valuing trans people, there doesn’t seem any appetite to actually spend additional public and/or private resources on them, so when it comes down to it, the scant resources spent on women instead have to be shared (side note: domestic violence shelters grew out of the women’s movement. Where is the trans equivalent of this? Do they exist?)

1. There’s a chunk of the TRAs who I don’t think are actually genuinely interested or concerned about services for people in need or who are vulnerable (see above re shelters) - it’s rather all about “passing” as a woman for them, so access to women’s services is the be all and end all; it’s about psychological affirmation, not bespoke parallel additional services that would address both the need of trans women AND keep women safe

Women, however, can fuck right off, clearly.