Macmillan Cancer Support

As a teacher of ESL, I don't consider that sentence would confuse or mislead any woman (or man) with limited English.

As an ESL speaker who is also in contact with many other ESL speakers, I know that this sentence is confusing and misleading. And I know many ESL teachers are concerned that the imposed changes in language arising from this ideology are confusing for their pupils, so I have my doubts your assessment is an accurate reflection of your pupils' understanding.

The only context in which I knew about health issues related to anything "cervical" was spinal injuries and illnesses. Like the one my aunt suffered from.

I only learned about the word cervix when I was pregnant and the midwife explained what happens to the neck of the womb when you go into labour.

Yes, that is the word for cervix in my language - neck of the womb. That's what I thought the word was in English. That's also how the midwife explained what the cervix was - the neck of the womb.

And my English skills at this point were already near native level. Yet I still did not know the word cervix.

But we don't even have to restrict ourselves to ESL speakers. Almost half of all women do not know what a cervix is. Various surveys have all returned the same result.

ESL speakers do not make up that large a group. There are many many native speakers of English who do not know that word and who would not know that this sentence

"Each year, more than 3,200 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer in the UK."

refers to a cancer of the female reproductive system, that is, a cancer that only women can have.

Any health campaign using language that almost half of the target audience cannot understand is an embarrassing, abject failure in health communication. According to a friend of mine whose job includes writing health campaigns, this is an unacceptable, wholly misguided deviation from accepted practice and above all it's negligence that will cost lives. Real lives.

Given the recently publicised scandal in Scotland caused by miscommunication about cervical cancer in one particular patient group, I can only hope that at least NHS Scotland will rethink its approach to cervical cancer communications and speak to women about women.

FFS I just donated to them today. I don't mind if a company uses gender neutral for men as well as women, but they so rarely do. It comes across as extremely misogynistic and kind of sinister to read 'men' alongside 'people with vulvas'. No.

Well exactly littlebrowdog.

And that’s before you think about explaining that there are quite significant health consequences when some people don’t menstruate.

We recognise that not everyone identifies with gendered language and by providing gender neutral policies

I don’t identify with gendered language (why would most people?)

That is why it is important to me that ‘woman’ can be used to refer only to sex.

Stonewall may wish to live in a fantasy world where we can identify out of sex. I can’t.

🤣

Stonewall advice gives LGBTQ+ individuals an alternative way to identify which is right for them. We recognise that not everyone identifies with gendered language and by providing gender neutral policies and cancer information, we are allowing everyone to access the information which is appropriate for them. For example, we use gender neutral language in our cervical cancer information so that anyone who is concerned about cervical cancer or has had a diagnosis feels like we are able to provide support to them – moving towards our goal of supporting everyone who is living with cancer.

So why is their info on prostate, testicular etc not 'gender neutral'?

At least try to appear logically consistent.

I suppose one could argue that anyone looking at their site to get info/support for cervical cancer is likely already to be aware that they have (or had) a cervix. It is the literature around cervical screening that most needs to make it very clear which sex has a cervix.

On one of the previous times this came up for discussion, I was surprised to learn that there was a crossover of confusion between HPV vaccination such that some people were interpreting cervical to mean 'head and neck cancers' (because of the cervical spine) and the role of vaccination in preventing transmission via oral sex.

There is a need for clear and unambigous language that addresses the actual rate of health literacy.

we are allowing everyone to access the information which is appropriate for them
Nope, you are making information less accessible. That's the point.
I suppose one could argue that anyone looking at their site to get info/support for cervical cancer is likely already to be aware that they have (or had) a cervix. It is the literature around cervical screening that most needs to make it very clear which sex has a cervix.

It reads like smug, captured SW rhetoric to me. Not particularly kind.

We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

Can’t help but think about the current thread about women who face life changing injuries after child birth. Does Macmillan think this kind of thing can be avoided if you simply don’t identify as a woman or a mother? Or are they only interested in the gendered ‘feminine’ sense of the word ‘mother’? Mustn’t think about the bloody reality of sex.

In fairness, I assume this kind of thing is generated by somebody who works in marketing and communications who has swallowed ‘be kind’ without appreciating why it’s so important to use clear language to refer to sex.

We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

That's big of them

I wrote them asking if they were still SW members this is the very disappointing response i got;

"Thank you for your email of 16th June expressing concerns about Macmillan’s affiliations with regards to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. First of all, I apologise for the lateness of this response, we’re currently receiving unprecedented volumes of enquiries and this has caused delays getting back to our supporters.

We know that people face health inequalities (especially around cancer care) due to their sex, gender identity and sexual attraction, and we strive to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support everyone living with cancer. Macmillan is a member of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme; which is an important support tool within our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy as it enables us to understand the barriers that LGBTQ+ people face in the workplace and the community. However, we will use the support and advice that is right for our organisation as the programme allows us to do. At present we don’t have any formal relationship with Gendered Intelligence or Mermaids, but we have used Gendered Intelligence previously and don’t rule out the possibility of using these organisations in the future.

Our sole aim at Macmillan is to ensure everyone living with cancer receives the support which is right for them. Stonewall’s advice on legislative practice is in line with The Equality Act 2010, which has always said that individuals do not need to have any medical treatment to be protected under the legislation; Stonewall’s statement can be found here. We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

Stonewall advice gives LGBTQ+ individuals an alternative way to identify which is right for them. We recognise that not everyone identifies with gendered language and by providing gender neutral policies and cancer information, we are allowing everyone to access the information which is appropriate for them. For example, we use gender neutral language in our cervical cancer information so that anyone who is concerned about cervical cancer or has had a diagnosis feels like we are able to provide support to them – moving towards our goal of supporting everyone who is living with cancer.

This is in line with our wider organisational commitment to make our Macmillan more representative of society and accessible to all. We value and record all feedback and use this to help us continuously drive through developments and improvements within our organisation. I hope my email has helped explain why we our continued membership of Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme helps us in supporting the trans community and will ultimately help us guarantee we’re there to help everyone find their best way through from the moment of diagnosis, so they can live life as fully as they can."

It's always "person with a cervix" for women in need of healthcare, then the news reports have to say "woman" when referring to men who identify as a woman who committed a crime.
They're never a "person with a penis" then are they.

I find it offensive and buttock clenching. I don’t know anyone on real life who uses it or finds it acceptable. But I guess my feelings don’t count?

The moderation guidelines seem to allow the prefix "cis" to be used by those who believe that women are a subset of their own sex class.

I'd like to know if it those of us who do not share that belief are allowed to use the prefix "real" in the same manner without getting deleted, or banned?

A majority of the women using this board consider "cis" deeply offensive, especially when it is used in a manner intended to provoke.

So, can we please have fair turn about, and be allowed to use the prefix "real" in the exact same manner to describe ourselves? I feel this would sooth hurt feelings and be conducive to a balanced discussion.

If the moderation policy does not allow this then I would very much like to see posts using the prefix "cis" being deleted, and repeat offenders given warnings and bans.

Thanks @Leafstamp I’ve used the form to complain. I’m hoping they keep some sort of stats!

Yes, it is. Would have been a good idea to include super-sections on men's and women's cancers too, I think.

That would be good.

Here

Screenshots were linked on Twitter.

And I'm impressed by the analytics. What did you do? (Ignore if this is a trade secret - I'm scarcely above the level of running site:[X domain] searches.)

Over the whole website the word man is mentioned 1031 times. Woman is mentioned 48 times.
I know that cancer affects more men than women, but not to an extent that explains this discrepancy.

Ah ok, quite right. Is that signposted from the main page?

Yes, it is. Would have been a good idea to include super-sections on men's and women's cancers too, I think.

How do I know if I have a cervix? Is it labelled somewhere? How does my husband know if he has a cervix? Is there a easy test to find out? What about my sons? At what age should they be finding out if they have a cervix or not? Are they given out randomly? All help appreciated.

There's separate advice for breast cancer in men.

Ah ok, quite right. Is that signposted from the main page?