Righto...

Is anyone who uses this Assigned Female At Birth phrase ever going to acknowledge that apart from no one doing the actual assigning, babies are correctly and accurately sexed all the time before birth.

The 'At Birth' but annoys me, obviously I could be missing the point here...

The assigned bit is bullshit yes but it gets the message across.

If this replaces the women one well there is a problem

Yes I do get it now... I suppose this makes sense with who it is targeting...

I'm not actually bothered about this one. It's obv aimed at trans men. If we as women have another one aimed at women, then what is the harm.

We can have both.

This one is just more targeted at a smaller group.

I haven't read and I'm sure this has been said, but ...

what does a woman who speaks no English, or very poor English, see and think when they see that advertisement?

"Assigned female at birth" isn't inclusive. Why doesn't it say "women" anywhere? I was identified as female well before birth - they did a test pre-birth, and and the chromosomes showed I was female. You can't just willy-nilly recategorise people against their will. I was a girl, then a woman, and now I'm supposed to re-identify myself as "assigned female at birth". I don't feel included in that category, therefore it's not inclusive.

It's also dismissive of the female life experience to term being a woman as 'assigned at birth', like my lived experience as a woman is simply a label that was attached at birth, like a wristband.

It's fine to list trans-men, gender non-confirming females or whoever needs to have it spelled out that biologically, they are females, therefore need medical provision and care for females, but women should not be erased under the guise of inclusivity. Because that could have serious medical consequences for a large number of people, not just hurt feelings.

Because if you argue that trans-men won't go for check-ups if they are not listed, then you can argue the same for women. So if women are likely to see this advert, they should be listed, and not be referred to a separate one.

Because I think the purpose of this particular ad is to make a particular group of people more comfortable with the idea of engaging with cervical screening, I think referring to them as women would be counterproductive.

Would I be fine with a different ad for cervical screening referring to women? Certainly.

Women, trans men and non binary females?

As the group of trans-identified female people is likely to be quite small (perhaps 0.5%, based on the census and including non-binary), if this is the only ad it is extremely biased. But even if it is an ad aimed at that sub-population only (and that should be made clear), the description is illogical as trans men are, based on the language of the gender identity beliefs, all assigned female at birth and many of them have a cervix, so they are covered in the third set described as well as in the first. The second set described includes all gender non-conforming people, whatever that might mean, and many of those will have prostates.

As an aside, I detest the muddle this is causing of the basic language we need to fight against things like FGM, the missing girls in the world, sexual trafficking, sexual violence, the sex pay gap, and so on.

But this overall approach forces all of us to treat 'woman' as a feeling inside our heads as our biology no longer is allowed a term of its own. Nobody asked us if we want to have this done for the sake of 0.5%. Surely there are ways to be inclusive without excluding so many people's basic self-definitions of themselves.

I think I would be ok if the ad actually mentioned the word woman. Or another ad mentioned the word woman. And if women weren't referenced by a female body part.

I also don't understand why people supporting these ads say it is good as to not offend transgender female people by calling them women, but when women say they are offended because it omits the word woman, women get told not to be offended so easily....

literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having 'very poor literacy skills.' They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems. This is also known as being functionally illiterate.

Many adults are reluctant to admit to their literacy difficulties and ask for help. One of the most important aspects of supporting adults with low literacy levels is to increase their self-esteem and persuade them of the benefits of improving their reading and writing.

Probably behind ones left elbow just above the prostate.

Just where do you think the cervix is located?

I think it's not aimed at disseminating the information that transmen and non- binary females have a cervix. It's about overcoming other obstacles to their engagement with screening. The language used is about making them comfortable to engage.

I'm all for targeted advertising of public health messages. So this sort of thing produced alongside campaigns in community languages etc

There is no "inclusive for all" single design and wording. The closest you could get to this is something following the principles of 'easy read'. So it was accessible to people with LD and non native English speakers. That would be far from this overly wordy example.

Well. it should be. All the ads should be comprehensible to low information, special needs demographics. People in those demographics may also identify as transmen. The ads are not supposed to be some special wink, wink supercool nightclub invitation. They are supposed to disseminate vital health information.

I don't think it's trying to reach out to a low information demographic.

The real issue is some people want to change the meanings of words and enforce this change on women without consulting them and without their consent. This ad is exclusive to half the world's population.

The reality is that the word used for human adults of the female sex, while offensive to some people, doesn't change the fact that these people are still adult human females. That reality cannot change no matter what words they use to describe themselves. There are some people who have associations with the word woman, I get that. But does this mean they truly believe they aren't women? Not sure. What the hell do they think women are? This is never, ever answered. I suppose some are genuinely confused, but some seem to want to make unreasonable demands.

I don't want any transman to get cancer. If the campaign goal was truly to reach out to transmen, it would approach it differently like, "Are you a transman or a female non-binary person? If yes, you may still need to get a cervical screening. Ask your medical doctor for more information." This is EXACTLY the kind of communication strategy used when reaching out to low-information demographics who struggle to understand they are included in various risk groups. While some transmen aren't dense and are aware they are female, some may be truly confused and then an ad like I suggested may reach them.

But that's not really the goal of this ad, is it? It's about virtue signaling not health prevention.

No it doesn't. And it's that ad that's the problem. Not this one, which is clearly aimed to encourage women who may not have gone for a smear otherwise (however illogical their reasons). And potentially to save their lives.

This

It still doesn't say the word woman.

Yet I think most posters are objecting to the one in the OP.

Can you circle the photo where woman is?