Ovarian cancer definition

The government need to issue a clear directive to the NHS to stop the rot. Gender identity ideology out of public services.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/testicular-cancer/

Men seems to need clear direction so they get it.

The wording is true... Anyone with overaries can get ovarian cancer.

Ovaries are internal though - unless you've had children (maybe periods? I'm an educated woman, but I have no idea if you can have periods without ovaries), how would you know if you have them or not?

I mean, even a cervix can be felt manually if you're determined enough, but ovaries are only known about by deduction.

They need to say women. They need to be clear - all women's health issues, but especially when you can't actually know if you have a particular organ because it's internal.

I disagree..if you do not have English as your first language and your a transman and you saw a poster say in the GP surgery saying "women must have cervical screening", I think there is just as much chance you'd think you didn't need this as your a "man" in your mind.
And we might not like it but "woman" now to many people does not exclusively mean a biologically female adult.
Hence the need to try to make medical advice clear as to who needs what.

No transman is unaware that they have a woman's body ,no matter how poor their English is, They may not like this fact but they know that anything to do with a woman in health literature also refers to them. Males who identify as women don't appear to have the same difficulty as most male health literature only refers to men.

My cat has ovaries, can I take her in?
On the other hand I have one of Jess's embroidered ones on a handbag? Does that count?

What about one in a jar in formaldehyde? They haven't said.
I am so confused.

Let's go back to basics. "Female cancers", "male cancers", "men" and "women" are clear, simple words that have been used successfully by the medical profession for ever. They are the most useful words for those who do not speak English as a first language, and those with learning difficulties.

If there is evidence that people are missing screening because they don't understand the language used, then that of course needs to be investigated. So where is this evidence? If it's trans men declining cervical screening invites because they genuinely think they are now actually men, then the issue is what they're being told either by health professionals or by online bullshit. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.

I refer you to the instance of the prominent trans man who gave birth and then expressed surprise that breastfeeding is not possible after a double mastectomy. Vulnerable people are being lied to about what being trans actually means in terms of healthcare- this is outrageous.

😳

speechless

I am an ovary free person, due to them being removed due to …. Da da daaa Ovarian Cancer

Fear I am confusing the definitions of woman 🙈

In which case, that's where the education resources should be targeted - to those people. We're clearly in a hole, we need to dig our way out of it, not dig deeper.

They "might not like it", but it's better for everyone, including them, in the long run.

Exactly.

It is interesting, as I felt it was pretty obvious and very clear... Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer...

I'm generalising from this but it holds according to the disappointing results of this survey. I recall previous discussions on FWR about the explanation of a penis in a transgirl as a large clitoris where MNetters have confessed that they had no idea that the vagina and urethra were separate despite having given birth.

Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

Gribble KD, Bewley S, Bartick MC, Mathisen R, Walker S, Gamble J, Bergman NJ, Gupta A, Hocking JJ, Dahlen HG. Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language. Front Glob Womens Health. 2022 Feb 7;3:818856. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856. PMID: 35224545; PMCID: PMC8864964.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864964/

inews.co.uk/opinion/british-women-are-still-clueless-about-their-bodies-because-reproductive-education-is-not-cutting-through-1625824.

Can't find the thread I wanted but: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3647376-Queer-theory-for-kids

And we might not like it but "woman" now to many people does not exclusively mean a biologically female adult.

In which case, that's where the education resources should be targeted - to those people. We're clearly in a hole, we need to dig our way out of it, not dig deeper.

They "might not like it", but it's better for everyone, including them, in the long run.

If you have a cervix you can have a smear... If you don't you can't.

Even those women who do know what a cervix is only know that they have one because at some point they were told "women and girls have a cervix".

Statements like "if you have a cervix" rely on someone else to do do the dirty work.

And yet the nhs page for prostate cancer still uses male and men... I wonder why?

double standards and sexism

As a woman who has had ovarian cancer in my early 30's - and had full oopharectomy and hysterectomy but still is at risk of recurrent ovarian cancer - i find this extremely upsetting.

So what should the public health messages say if 48% don't know what a cervix is?

That women and other people with a cervix (to be inclusive) in the given age group are likely to need a smear. Or use "female"

We do have a word. The colonisers can fuck off. Female people who think they are men need to be targeted individually as a special interest group.

"Trans men who don't have English as a first language" are a minuscule group of people in the UK who don't justify obscuring language for everyone else.

So what should the public health messages say if 48% don't know what a cervix is?
How would saying "women need cervical smears" change that fact over saying "anyone with a cervix"
If 48% of people don't know what a cervix is.. I can't see how using all or women makes a fig of difference

And if woman doesn't mean adult human female, then why don't we have a word that does mean adult human females. It would certainly be very useful in this instance. We grant animals with the dignity of having words for the female sex - sow, doe etc. why don't we respect human females in the same way?

I disagree..if you do not have English as your first language and your a transman and you saw a poster say in the GP surgery saying "women must have cervical screening", I think there is just as much chance you'd think you didn't need this as your a "man" in your mind.
And we might not like it but "woman" now to many people does not exclusively mean a biologically female adult.
Hence the need to try to make medical advice clear as to who needs what.

If you have a cervix you can have a smear... If you don't you can't.

Something like 48% of women don't know what a cervix is. Clear plain language is needed. You might be a GP, but you don't understand the communications issue.

As someone who had ovarian cancer at a young age I find this gut wrenching. Having a full hysterectomy in my early 30s make me feel like less of a woman, all this just compounds the issue.

I was also told by my oncologist that I could get ovarian cancer again. Not sure how this squares with the 'people with ovaries' line.

I remember thinking why don't they just say anyone with a cervix. If you have a cervix you can have a smear... If you don't you can't.

But that assumes people know what a cervix is. You're overestimating the general public's anatomy knowledge.

Even ignoring uneducated native speakers, I can assure you the population of non-native speakers who wouldn't know the word "cervix" is far, far greater than the alleged "inclusion" group here.

The extra words are necessary to try to explain who we mean.

All of it could be skipped if we just used the word "woman" in the way we've always used it, because everyone already understands what it is. It will certainly be one of the first words learnt by any non-native speaker.

This pretence that "woman" means something other than "adult human female", and then avoiding using it due to that pretence, is what is making the mess. So let's stop pretending. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Good bit from Jon Pike on Andrew Doyle's GB News talking about the mess we've got ourselves into by taking away words - in this case "female": twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1533523518607998979

@HipTightOnions
Excellent point.
My view (appreciate its only mine) is wording, teaching etc should focus on biologically female/male.
That no you cannot change sex... You can choose whatever flipping gender you feelz...want...yiu can be a bloody carrot if you want but biology is not changeable.
Medical advice needs to reflect this... Hence the "all people with....." wording does seem to me to be basic way of getting a cross who needs what screening etc.
It could be "all biological females...."

There was but those comments were a load of guff - mens ones are being done at the same time

I can't remember the thread recently which was discussing the wording about some other health screening, was it cervical smears???
The wording was so wordy... Trying to be inclusive, something like "women with cervixs, transmen, people with a cervix, anyone else.. Blah blah..." I remember thinking why don't they just say anyone with a cervix.
If you have a cervix you can have a smear... If you don't you can't.
End off.

We may know we have ovaries but how are the next generation supposed to know?

"You have ovaries because you're a..."