Smear tests should not refer to women says study

Jane Clare Jones has a thread (my italics to replace her ** which wouldn't work here):

We have repeatedly said we would accept 'women and other fill in whichever function which would include trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

But that is not the point. The point is to sever all connection between the concept 'woman' and female people.

When Nancy Kelly gave evidence to WESC, she point blank admitted that as far as she is concerned, we only ever need to refer to female people when there is a specific context, and that then we can be referred to by our relevant functions.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1394933884333273089

Study in British Journal of General Practice says smear test invititations should be gender neutral to encourage trans men to get tested.

The stated, actual reason why those who were in this specific target patient group didn't attend wasn't a language problem, but the fact that the actual test is done on a part of their anatomy that painfully reminds them of being female.

How does inviting "all cervix-havers" to the test help when having a cervix is what this patient group doesn't want to be reminded of?

I wish this wasn't so illogical [sigh]

Approximately half of women in the UK don't know what the word "cervix" means.

But sure, go and prioritise less than 1% of the population, who I suspect are more likely than average to have good knowledge about their sex organs (given that they expend so much energy thinking about them, and want to start calling us all cervix-havers, uterus-havers etc.).

Thanks @sophoclesthefox. I have completed the survey 🙂

Or that needs to be added is to women is ‘and trans man and non-binary’, to all leaflets.

Would that be OMaleAB NBs or OFemaleAB NBs?

Still gobbledegook.

How many of the 73 ineligible for cervical screening were women?

Were the opinions of those ineligible for cervical screening included in the analysis? If so, why?

What is happening to our society? Common sense is disappearing fast. When I was young there was a real need for the rights of women to be established. If a salesman wanted to sell you something he had to speak to your husband. Women earned less for doing exactly the same job in an office for example. You couldn’t sign up for anything without your dh’s name attached to the account. Opportunities for jobs were far less for women. I can remember the fuss made by bus drivers when women were allowed to drive buses. Get home and stay in the kitchen they called out. Unbelievable but I am an o,d woman. The trouble is, as I see it, is that all the good intentions to establish equality for everyone has been highjacked by a ridiculous element in society which makes a mockery of all the work that has gone into improving things. If it gets any worse we will all be in straight jackets and afraid to live life in a stress free fashion.

So thick. Women who identify as men, know they are women, that’s what makes them trans. 🙄

I think language has been based on men throughout history. It’s our turn now. So instead of men I will refer to them as cervix nonhavers.

Or that needs to be added is to women is ‘and trans man and non-binary’, to all leaflets.

For a start 53% of the participants in this research had never had a smear test as they were too young (18-24). So, they are anticipating problems where there may be none (some of those who had smears said staff were great, very understanding etc).
Also, the main issues seem to lay very much with the individuals themselves, rather than the service. If you look at the 3 main reasons for non attenders, they were (by quite a margin) ‘I will experience dysphoria’, ‘I am embarrassed about that part of my body’ and ‘I have never been invited’ (presumably because they chose to register with their GP as male).
If this research contributes in any way to changing cervical screening information materials to erasing women in cervical smear information and services, it will be a disgrace. I can see no problem with transmen having their smears at a trans-specific health clinic (as the majority in this research would prefer) or with the NHS producing a leaflet specifically for transmen . But leave existing women centred information and services as they are!

And did penis havers mental health get used or were you just ignored?

I'm half inclined to just go along with this crap at this point on the sole condition that ALL references to men's health are aggressively treated in the same way. My uni had a 'men's mental health week'. Nope. No more. It's 'penis havers mental health week' from now on. I want to see the terminology unrelentingly call men 'prostate havers', 'ejaculators', the works. Why is it only ever women who seem to be negatively impacted by the gender stuff?

What is wrong with women and people who have a cervix?

It's inaccurate. No other people have a cervix and I think it's asking for big trouble further down the to pretend that there are - this is how we got into this mess
I think the NICE paragraph is much better

Agreed. You cant change sex and no one should be being lead to believe they can and no one should be being advised on a treatment plan that is reliant on anyone but the person involved. I think.this is where some personal responsibility shoukd he taken. You cant control what others do so you have to work.on yourself to accept that so that you can access medical care without every one involved forced to comply with unreasonable demands.
Disease and Medicine deals with facts it doesn't care that you hate being old or disabled or female etc

I think this highlights additional problems with using 'kind yet inaccurate' language.

The words men and women are useful terms in medicine. They tell us whose suspected appendicitis could be an ectopic pregnancy and whose couldn't. They tell us who will be rendered infertile by a silent std and who will be largely unaffected, but their partners not. They tell us whose iron levels are dangerously low or who is just on their period.

Add in language that distorts this or shields who is really what then the danger of mistakes is introduced. Not only on behalf of the medical professionals, but by an individual too. Who's to say ten year olds told they can really change sex truly understand they'll still need to have smears because they have a cervix. As Jade Goody's case shows, smears are absolutely vital and it should not just be assumed that the public understand why and who should get them.

We need more direct, transparent discourse on the subject, not less and if one girl in this new cohort of transmen dies because gender ideology led to a misunderstanding it is one too many.
The same as if one speaker of English as an additional language dies. It's unacceptable. Clear language saves lives.

So many issues with this but my main one would be is the health of transmen actually impacted by using the word woman?

• Don't FTM tend to be younger, more middle class, more educated than the general population? Wouldn't they be the demographic that KNOWS they have a cervix. We are always being told transpeople know their bodies and identities better than CIS anyone else so why not this?

• Aren't the majority of FTM largely in the generation that has had the HPV vaccine so the risks of an issue much smaller than general population?

• Also don't transmen tend to be female attracted and less likely to have sex with penis-based men lowering their risk of cervical cancer even further?

Basically this has nothing to do with the risk of cancer going undetected and everything to do with the removal of the word woman.

In total there were 137 participants; 80% identified as transmasculine,18% as non-binary, and the remaining participants reported other noncisgender identities

WTAF does this mean??

Because then you'd be excluding the non binary cervix havers

This is all so exhausting, the endless peddling of such garbage - " people with a cervix -" when according to my biology lessons, only women have cervixes. I hope there will be some meaningful pushback soon by society at large on this nonsense.

Applauds HazeyJaneII

The fact that the NHS is only listening to these lobby groups intent on erasing women's identity, language and health provision in favour of their toxic ideologies is so depressing.

I am so tired of this
People with learning disabilities have poorer health outcomes and higher possibility of avoidable death than people without. In a recent (massive) review into this it established that poor communication plays a large part in this.
....but this gets thrown into the verge when the juggernaut of hurt feelings hurtles through. When I have tried to politely point out the importance of clear concise information that names who the health message is targeted at, people tie themselve in knots to prioritise the feelings of one one group of individuals over the actual lives and health outcomes of people for whom so much of society is inaccessible. It is appalling.

On another note...I am an exhausted middle aged woman who, as a parent carer, spends most of her time prioritising her child's needs. My health has fallen off a cliff after a year of shielding and caring. It feels, as I enter into the invisibility of knackered middle aged womanhood, and try to access help for non stop heavy bleeding, worries over how to manage appointments and look after myself whilst tying to care for another, that in losing the ability to name women, females, girls in their health is just adding to that feeling of being the invisible bloody woman (quite literally in my case)
One last thing...we have centuries of shame and embarrassment over talking about women's health issues to try and climb over. I don't want the language around women's health to obfuscate and hide because it is triggering to a group of people. I hoped my girls would grow up in a more empowering time, when they didn't have to shie away from naming themselves and issues that concern their physical well-being.
Rant over