Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

"A third of people across the UK are overdue their cervical cancer screening"

38 replies

PlasticAcrobat · 20/06/2025 17:26

A third of 'people', Really? Well, that's not so bad because 50% of 'people' across the UK are men, right? And they won't get cervical cancer because they don't have a cervix.

So only a sixth of people across the UK are endangered by this low-uptake of screening? Phew. Perhaps, then, it doesn't matter so much if the guardian writes bullshit misleading copy on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/20/third-overdue-cervical-cancer-screening-uk

One in three overdue for cervical cancer screening across UK

Screening rates are declining, with some parts of England at greater risk due to low uptake of HPV vaccine

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/20/third-overdue-cervical-cancer-screening-uk

OP posts:
BreakingBroken · 20/06/2025 18:36

5-11% of cervical cancers are not hpv related. how is it appropriate to do a test that will not pick up 5-11% of cancer in women? the hpv screen especially self screen is cheaper but not appropriate for those who are unlikely to be sexually active with other partners with whom they have had decades of negative tests with.

ToClimb · 20/06/2025 18:32

BreakingBroken · 20/06/2025 18:27

@ToClimb it's inappropriate because it does NOT actually screen for cervical cancer, abnormal precancerous CELLS which is what use to be done (although not easily at all times and some false positive results) which is most likely the type of cancer older women in monogamous relationships will have. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease so for the many (especially older) people it's not screening for the type of process that will lead to cancer.

Yes but if they do a home screen that's all it tests for anyway, so it is appropriate.

Kelim · 20/06/2025 18:31

Well of course they are as it's impossible to contact the doctors as they only take calls between 08:00 am and 08:01 am and your call is held in position 49 in the queue.

I haven't seen a doctor for years. Does the NHS still exist? Does the council exist? I'm not convinced tbh.

BreakingBroken · 20/06/2025 18:27

@ToClimb it's inappropriate because it does NOT actually screen for cervical cancer, abnormal precancerous CELLS which is what use to be done (although not easily at all times and some false positive results) which is most likely the type of cancer older women in monogamous relationships will have. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease so for the many (especially older) people it's not screening for the type of process that will lead to cancer.

ToClimb · 20/06/2025 18:15

BreakingBroken · 20/06/2025 18:03

@Sandy420 my seriously 70 yr old monogamous friend who’s been married since the age of 19 AND has never had an abnormal screen thought the mail in self screen was appropriate.
for many seniors the HPV screen is not appropriate.
Similar age and length of marriage to one partner and me like many won’t be bothering with an HPV screen.
I want screening for abnormal cells which is no longer available where I live.

That is all they test now, for HPV so I'm not sure how this is inappropriate

BreakingBroken · 20/06/2025 18:03

@Sandy420 my seriously 70 yr old monogamous friend who’s been married since the age of 19 AND has never had an abnormal screen thought the mail in self screen was appropriate.
for many seniors the HPV screen is not appropriate.
Similar age and length of marriage to one partner and me like many won’t be bothering with an HPV screen.
I want screening for abnormal cells which is no longer available where I live.

Sandy420 · 20/06/2025 17:47

On a different tack mine is due but I think I'm going to do an at home HPV test instead. I wonder how many others are now taking that route?

HermioneWeasley · 20/06/2025 17:47

I reckon my son is overdue his, I’d better remind him

Theeyeballsinthesky · 20/06/2025 17:43

Blimey I better check DH isn’t overdue for one

Original poster
PlasticAcrobat · 20/06/2025 17:40

Sorry, i shouldn't have said 'mammals'. I should have said 'mammalian gland owners'. Apols.

OP posts:
Original poster
PlasticAcrobat · 20/06/2025 17:35

My best guess is that the author felt forced to say "women" later in the article because they were citing research that used that frightful term. That's the only reason I can think of for the confusing disparity of language, which makes the article even more opaque.

Comical how the headline just gives up all together and opts for the completely unqualified "one in three". One in three entities? Mammals?

OP posts:
SereneAquaPoet · 20/06/2025 17:33

I suppose it's an improvement on 'cervix owners' (sarcasm)

TheSpottedZebra · 20/06/2025 17:32

Well they mean women, but didn't want to say as it's... terfy? Or something.
Amazingly it took until paragraph 9 to say WOMEN.

There was a mention of girls and boys with vaccine rates in paragraph 6.