Righto...

These are some gems (these are the ones I remember off the top of my head) that I had from my GCSE sets as a teacher in the 90s and 00s:

1. you have to put a condom on to get pregnant
2. the cervix is the bone at the base of the spine
3. the female navel is where the male penis goes into to get her pregnant
4. wee comes out of the same place a baby does

This is why adverts have to be very, very clear and use the correct words. And why pupils should be taught correctly.

I'm sick of the "othering" of women.

To me, when you erase the word woman you erase a history of meaning and understanding, of a fight for equality, of a position and perspective in the world, of a feeling as a type of body and 'other' who was originally viewed in relation to men and has since (and very recently) become a word to be proud of, a full encapsulation of what it is to be an adult human female. It is NOT just another word for female. It is who I am and my position in the world.

Just like the word mother comes from a centuries upon centuries of women, mothers, birthing infants, dying for infants, giving life with their bodies and putting all else aside for those babies and children across wars and famines and terrors. A mother is more than just a word. A word that can be replaced.

I do not want these words erased.

Why is it ok the stake a claim on some words, but not these words?

Do you know what, I changed my mind about not agreeing. I do think that I prefer the word woman to female. There's something a bit incel-ey about being referred to as "a" female. I'm female, I'm a woman.

To me, it's othering of trans people. It's saying that they are a separate entity undeserving of the same input and care that other demographics of an overarching group. A way to test this is to see if when applied to another demographic, would it change your message or would it change how you felt about something?

So I think about if the poster had been of a disabled woman, would people have been upset that the advert showed a woman that didn't represent the majority of women? Or would you feel pleased that marginalised or minority groups were being given a slice of mainstream representation?

This is of course separate to the language issue. While I don't agree, I can at least see why some people take issue with the word woman being used instead of the word female. But some people on the thread definitely took issue with the fact that there is a trans man on one of the posters as in their minds, they're not enough trans men in the world to bother advertising to?

What does it say about attitudes to transpeople?

Surely it is also criminally negligent of these organisations to put women at risk by creating campaigns which are not clear on target audience
Every woman who ignores a tweet from a health board because they don't know what a cervix is could potentially die because of this

It's not "how I want the discussion framed" fgs. It's what it says about attitudes toward trans people.

This is what I mean about side stepping etc. Apparently language is important and people must understand nuance about how words are use and ideas are put across.

But not when it's for the stuff we don;t agree with! Then it's just thought policing and violating freedom of speech 🙄🙄

Ok. So we are really just back to how you want the discussion framed.

As I said. Crack on with that.

You don't need to keep using the word hyperbolic, I'm hardly going off on an expletive filled rage.

I do feel like there is an underlying reason for you disagreeing with me since on the surface it seems like we both agree. I not only have no problem with acknowledging where genuine, good hearted (or even bias, prejudicial to women) attempts to forward trans rights and dignity, have come at a direct cost to women, I think it's important to do so because it's a real and demonstrable phenomenon.

What I don't agree with is the need to frame the discussion with against the trans screening poster, which plenty of posters have. Even if they have not been outwardly derogatory, the fact that it is even needed to be framed that way, in the context of society we live in and feminist conversations around the topic, is important and significant to me.

”I'm saying that arguments against trans representation seen to dip dodge and dive criticism and only bring up points when it's useful to deflect said criticism, but then these are dropped or whatabouted later on.”

Please explain this. I am obviously not understanding your point.

Is this criticism aimed at me? At what I have said?

Or are you attempting to say that we cannot blame ideologically driven organisations? when we also have heard from many transitioned female people that this is not actually something they want overall. That they don’t want the word women be avoided?

Because we often have conversations with some transitioned females about this. And get their thoughts as to who is doing this.

But please explain further.

It's not a model posing with a child. The woman (Donna) appears to be bit of a figurehead for the campaign, and appears in much of the media publicising it. I linked the ITV story yesterday, which very much references women, appropriately. One part of this campaign has been amplified, and that is affecting the messaging. I think it probably could have been predicted, and I hope it is having the impact it should in Jersey at least, although I think the OP is local, so maybe not, sadly. Lessons hopefully learned.

Nobody is objecting to including any affected group. What we are objecting to is the erasure of the majority group women, all to satisfy a group of male people, who don't like the word "woman" used in female health matters ,as it excludes them. The same group could care less about transmen being excluded by the use of men in male health matters. Patriarchy personified.
.

Nope, didn't say that, just saying it's a contradiction. In case it's been lost on you, I've said throughout that I understand and agree that there should be no problem using the word woman (though FWIW I as an adult human female also have no problem being called female).

I'm saying that arguments against trans representation seen to dip dodge and dive criticism and only bring up points when it's useful to deflect said criticism, but then these are dropped or whatabouted later on.

And why can’t we then mention that this is one of the conflicting areas where ideological thinking and support has negatively impacted on women and girls?

Because to highlight why this has happened is …. what? Victimising people (by discussing it and why it was done, and who by)? Mean? Highlighting the negative aspects of a movement? Making it clear there are conflicts despite being told there is not? Showing the lack of thought and tolerance of this type of guidance and policy, despite it being consistently described as being tolerant and thoughtful?

please do accuse us of ‘victimising’ people and ‘being angry’. It isn’t new. It is a daily occurrence. Or are you saying I am doing this and not a ‘general you’… because I am comfortable that I am not angry and I am not victimising anyone despite your hyperbolic assertions.

It does mean that any one reading these posts begin to see it as a tactic used to shape the discussion at the very least, if not control it.

”I'm saying that I don't understand the relevance in further victimising trans people by being angry and holding up examples of trans representation as evidence of the erasure of womanhood, even though the material in question still refers to female people.”

Oh. You are saying be kind and don’t mention why the language has changed. I see.

Good to know. We can support the tailored ad for the trans people, and we can discuss the failure of clear communication for the general population of women and girls.

But we cannot mention why and where the changes have been made in the first place.

I do see, thank you.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You're calling me out for hyperbolically saying that the existence of trans men is being blamed for your asserted erasure of the word women, yet in the final paragraph of your post, this is exactly what you're saying?

I'm not saying it's wrong to want to advocate for the use of the word women. I'm saying that I don't understand the relevance in further victimising trans people by being angry and holding up examples of trans representation as evidence of the erasure of womanhood, even though the material in question still refers to female people.

“I'm saying that you are, because you're arguing that it's not reasonable that they're included and blaming their existence for this "forced use" of the word female instead of women.”

Yes. It has been well documented that some EDI consultancies and LGBT lobby groups have inadvertently shaped other organisations policies, including communication policies, to use what they deem neutral language. I am happy to dig up examples of documents. Some people in positions of influence in organisations have either over delivered and not used additive languages or have believed they were doing the right thing. The end result is this outcome.

One ad tailored to the target and should hopefully work. Two ads that use language that is ‘neutral’ and therefore missing the ‘plain and accepted use of language description’ - women. And girls.

You, it seems, are attributing hyperbolic reasons such as ‘blaming their existence’.

Are you going to try to deny that the well established language women use to describe themselves has naturally evolved to not be used at all? That the two ads aimed at the general population just uses naturally evolved language?

Really? You think marketing teams would have just naturally started not using ‘woman’ or has there been great efforts over the past 5-7 years to force the language change. Either with good intentions or not.

You may just have misgendered the model posing with the child. Nowhere does it say it is a natal female. That might easily be one of the MTF who are indistinguishable from ‘cis’ women, whom we are always hearing about.

And before you say it must be a woman because it has a cervix, I should like to remind you that the Honourable David Lammy MP has informed us that it is possible to ‘grow’ a cervix (. Where none was before?). The Leader of the Opposition refuses to commit to the gender of people with a cervix.

So you may have misgendered. That is literal violence. Educate yourself. Etc etc etc

”If I've misunderstood you then clearly we are in agreement so what exactly is the problem?”

err.. Because you keep accusing me of things I am not doing. I suggested you actually read my several posts on the topic. Have you?

Are are you just determined to do exactly what you accused me of and making it combative, emotional and controversial?

Have you bothered to realise there are quite a few posters now discussing the two general ads? The discussion has moved on.

“You are making it controversial, emotive and combative”.

Perhaps this is projection, seems to be the case indeed.

Oh that's just bloody useless. No mention of any intended market. Even the colour combination makes it hard to read, the whole thing is just bizzarre . Talk about missing the actual objective of getting people to instantly understand.

Who is ‘ignoring’ the needs of trans people? There is an ad tailored to them.

I'm saying that you are, because you're arguing that it's not reasonable that they're included and blaming their existence for this "forced use" of the word female instead of women.

Instead of agreeing that yes it's reasonable to advocate for the use of the word women if you want and that it doesn't need to come at a cost to trans mens' representation, you seem to be arguing with me.

If I've misunderstood you then clearly we are in agreement so what exactly is the problem?

”Why do you only consider it a success if in addition to referring to women as, women, they also stop referring to trans men as not women?”

Again. I am discussing and have been consistently discussing the two general ads. I have been pretty clear that the ad targeted at trans people is fine, I don’t think it is brilliant in its application, it could be improved.

“You are making it controversial, emotive and combative”.

Perhaps this is projection?

Who is ‘ignoring’ the needs of trans people? There is an ad tailored to them.

“You are making it controversial, emotive and combative because you're focusing on the trans people. You don't have to.”

And you think that the forced change in using ‘female’ and one general ad with not even that is not based on people’s emotions?

I think you are either missing the point or you are well established in allowing bias to accommodate a small group of people. Or you have missed my other posts.

“it's demonstrable that trans men do not want to be referred to as women. ”

And the same has been said by many women that they want to be. There is a ad tailored to trans people. There are two ads for women and girls.

I repeat, the general ads for women and girls have failed because they are using have been written to guidelines that are, if you want to get really emotional, anti women and girls. Because they are not using the language women and girls use for themselves in this instance.

”Just because you don't like that or don't care doesn't mean that representation for them should be avoided or diminished, because in your view the fact that it is factually correct that both trans men and women are all biologically women, there's no need for differentiation.”

You have obviously not bothered to actually read my posts.

So what is NHSGGC's excuse for not even mentioning any of the possible groups affected. So much for prioritising Women's Health, if you can't even acknowledge who is affected by cervical cancer.