Ovarian cancer definition

Surely it would be quite easy to set up a questionnaire to see what the impact is? Do they not have to check the what they publish is understandable by everyone?

A study done about five years ago showed that roughly 40% of British women had no idea what a cervix is.

When the American Cancer Society came out with new recommendations about cervical cancer screening and only stated that they applied to all individuals with a cervix (women was not mentioned at all), this caused additional confusion as there is also the cervical spine (neck) which all humans (so also men) have and so on.

None of this information is intended to be clearer overall; the changes are made because of the new inclusiveness which is about an extremely tiny population percentage, and people in it surely know which biological sex they are.

If they do not, then their medical advisers have committed malpractice to allow them to believe that their entire body sex is now different.

But this is also about avoiding mentioning anything that might bring on gender dysphoria, even if doing that causes far greater harm in the rest of the target population. The same thing as we see in all issues when it comes to women: Our needs are not prioritised.

Women make an appearance on the page about Causes of Ovarian Cancer (page 3, if you like), but not the introductory overview page.

I’m pretty sure most of my female relatives over 60 haven’t got a clue what these words really mean. I found the revised version was a very different message. One said basically it’s an older woman’s problem and the other that this was the most common cancer for women (a fact I didn’t know despite decades of gynae/fertility/urinary treatment/surgeries).

WOMAN IS NOT A SHAMEFUL WORD.

That's because this is your working lexicon. Words you use daily.

Think it through, Your job, in healthcare, is to provide clear communication and treatment to as many people as possible.

Transmen as a % of the UK population
Transmen without English as their first language as a % of the UK population

Women as a % of the UK population
Women without English as their first language as a % of the UK population

Why are you aiming yourself at the smallest, more niche cohort?

Why are you not advocating for that cohort to have cohort specific education, leaflets, etc?

Additional information is required for a specific cohort. Not the whitewashing and bastardising data for the majority.

Also, I read here that the NHS has explained the differences in how often women are erased vs. how seldom men are erased as just having to do with which pages have been reviewed more recently.

But this cannot be the whole explanation as yesterday the page on womb cancer had no mention of 'women' or 'female' while the page on prostate cancer had many mentions of 'men' and at least one mention of 'male.'

Yet the most recent review dates on the two differed by only three days. The pages on womb cancer were reviewed on October 21, 2021, the pages on prostate cancer on October 18, 2021.

So no, they were not planning to erase the male sex, too, though they probably are doing that right now because of the criticisms.

I've been trying to work out how to express nmyself on this. Thanks. Those are the calm words I needed!

I've created a file on this difference overall from 2018, and the differences are vast, both in the media about health, on various feministy organisations and in at least some governments.

Ireland erased women from their cancer information pages, too, and it took a tremendous push to get that banned word back even once.

A recent article in the Vanity Fair about Roe v. Wade erases women but keeps men as biological categories in the same sentence!

A lot of people are extremely upset about this because, among other things, they think the government should not get to treat 50% of the population like second-class citizens, and that pregnant people should be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies, just like men can decide to, say, have a vasectomy without a bunch of elected officials weighing in.

This must be an intentional difference. It may be driven by subconscious sexism, i.e., women are expected to step aside for others but men not so much or by sex differences (innate or acquired or a mix) in how 'inclusive' each sex is.

Well great that he is making the right noises but he is the Health Secretary, so he should make it his business to know about this erasure of appropriate female biological language and reverse/stop it.
Time for the Conservatives to begin the practical roll back of all this 'gender identity ideology' nonsense not just the right soundbites from a few.
To be fair the guidance for schools was revised several months ago but it seems schools are still doing the Stonewall thing.
Even Priti Patel has come out and said about the fudged crime statistics that 'these are not women's crimes' but it is still happening.
The most that can happen is that the UK Government gets it right at long last (e.g. Cass Review) and then we can hope the devolved administrations are forced/feel obliged to follow.

Language matters. Not all parents educate their children at home, they don't talk about bodies, development, puberty, sex and sexuality etc. so for some children it falls to schools and the internet.

So what happens when children are being taught that around 50% of people will experience menstruation. There will be boys waiting for their periods to start, potentially ignoring serious illnesses if they actually bleed from their genital area!

How do they know who might have ovaries?

Not all schools will follow this mantra, but even if only a couple do we are seriously letting our country down. Children believe what they are taught, we owe it to them to be accurate.

Our biology is determined at conception and no matter how a person identifies, biology won't change. Science is not science if it has to take into account feelings.

Complaining about this exclusionary nonsense doesn't make me right-wing.
If we must, say "women and transmen". Don't waste my time with "non-binary". That's as meaningful as "Scorpios" and "Leeds United supporters".

Well hardly any of the ladies with learning disabilities that I work with will know they have ovaries and loads of the men may well think they do have. Honestly not sure many my non medical 85 year old plus relatives and their cohort would have much idea either. But hey, better to not offend than to save a life it seems.

Apologies if someone else has already posted this, but Sajid Javid has said:

“Well, look, I haven’t seen that particular report, but I have heard of instances like that and I don’t think it’s right.

“You won’t be surprised to know that, as the health secretary, I think that your sex matters, your biological sex is incredibly important to make sure you get the right treatment, the very best treatment.”

That’s good news. Mainstream media starting to notice and report on this insanity. The wheels are starting to come off the gender juggernaut.

This exactly.

I've long thought how cruel it all is. Rich middle aged men have peddled the lie that people can change their sex when they really can't amd actually trying to leads to long term medical issues and damage to sexual function. And now we've got a whole generation of entitled/ traumatised / ASD (take your pick) kids and young people that have to have a crashing realisation at some point that it was all a big lie and virtually no one outside of their bubbles believes that TWAW never mind can somehow magically become the opposite sex.

You can see it at the moment with the cyclist and when they come on here. Butt hurt horror and astonishment that women haven't just stayed kind and capitulated and pretended to believe in their fantasies. Its cruel really.

The fact that male cancers still mention male tells us everything we need to know. Women are still thought of as second class citizens. It is eraser of women and our rights and it is insidious.

The issue is that we tell trans women that they can become female. Or rather, some people working in trans issues have told them this. The literature says "male to female transition" and that's not true. No one can change sex. That lie is doing harm to people who are vulnerable, and being exploited by those who have nefarious reasons for wanting to be seen as women.

But the removal of women is not because of transmen, its because it points out that TW are not actually women.

Ovarian cancer affects women and transmen. Yes transmen are women but adding them doesn't erase women, and solves the issue of spreading the message clearly.

That's a very good point

This. The knowledge is lost. It is taking women (and men) back to medieval times in their lack of understanding of their own bodies and how they work.
Just as owing to the ideology of gender identity being promoted in schools, many children probably now think it is perfectly possible to change sex...even though it isn't.

I happened to be looking up NHS advice re ovarian cysts which states the ovaries are part of the female reproductive system.

I suppose referring to female anatomy is something

Anyway I then searched for "Women's Health" on the NHS site.

A woefully inadequate list imo. But then my Hospital used to have a Women's health directorate and that has now gone completely having been subsumed into a wider department for families and other things (sorry, I noted this some time ago and need to go into the hospital website to check what is covered by the new directorate, point is dedicated Women's health dept has gone).

If they were genuinely concerned about the well being of transmen they would be seeking other solutions: Find a good copywriter who can compose acceptable, grammatically correct (not 'women and...') phrasing. Produce specific material for transmen. Seek out transmen who would be willing to front a promotional campaign. All off the top of my head and it's not even my job to think about it.

Times radio will be talking about the NHS using gender neutral language this afternoon (Mariella Frostrup show). There is plenty of time to tweet, text or email your thoughts.

Text: TIMES and your message to 87222 (Texts to this number will be charged at your standard network rate)
Telephone: 0333 0032353 (Calls to this number will be charged at national rate)
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: #timesradio
Facebook: #thetimesradio

The absurdity is that all trans men, as much as they think of themselves and live as men, know they were born female, so would (or should) be alert to any medical information related to women.
perhaps what is needed is for medical records to identify people as male, female or transgender so GPs can send relevant advice to the correct people - ie information about women’s health would be sent to women and trans men. There is no reason for a transman to receive information related to men’s health — but if their GP records only identify them as men, that is what would happen. Or perhaps when people registers with a GP, they should be asked to identify which medical information they wish to receive — ie transwomen could elect to receive information about male health or about both male and female health since I assume some women’s health information, ie about HRT, might be relevant to them.)

It's disgusting. And we are forced to pay for this system via our taxes despite no option around how we'd like women to be represented on their information sites. This includes the simple fact that the new language is actually far more confusing to everyone.