Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

NHS Language Excluding Women

208 replies

PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:10

I am adding this in the Chat section, not a dedicated Feminism/Gender section or AIBU because I would like to have a wider and preferably not heated discussion about this.

I came across this NHS page:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-cancer/causes/

and the language:

Anyone with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix.

has made me feel very uncomfortable. This page was recently reviewed, September 2021. It's the second time I came across this on the NHS website, I can't find the other page now.

Whilst I understand everyone's right to perceive themselves how they wish to, feel how they wish to about anything including their own gender, and that to be respected, I do not understand why this page does not refer to women. Women are by far the main and key group of interest here. I personally do not identify as a person with a cervix. I identify as a woman, always have and always will, and I would like to be referred to as a woman.

I do not understand why this term is being eradicated. It's not an inclusive approach by any measure.

Am I missing something? Is my thinking flawed? Is the same happening with the term "men"?

OP posts:
DuggeeHugPlease · 04/01/2022 23:21

I agree that paragraph is problematic and would be better rewritten to include the word women.
This is especially important for those for whom English isn't their first language or those who don't understand what a cervix is.

However in their defence they do use the word women further down the page:

"All women and people with a cervix between the ages of 25 and 64"

There's no reason women shouldn't be used alongside any other terms that may be relevant eg transmen

Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:30

Yes, I saw it is used later on, but this is the opening paragraph and it doesn't sit right.

I agree with you entirely @DuggeeHugPlease.

OP posts:
5zeds · 04/01/2022 23:37

Can people with a cervix (females?) get cervical cancer before the age of 25?

DuggeeHugPlease · 04/01/2022 23:38

Out of curiosity I looked at the NHS page for prostate cancer and from a quick scan I can't see any mention of trans or non binary people so it would seem that this is only being targeted at female diseases.

OrangeShark27 · 04/01/2022 23:40

I don't know, I see your point but I disagree that it's erasing women. In this case that statement is clearly saying even if you don't call yourself a woman you can still get cervical cancer, which is valid. It's clearly a statement aimed specifically at trans people, and it would be foolish to encourage trans people to get smears by calling them women

They do use the word women later on.

Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:40

@5zeds Yes, they can - the NHS page says it's more likely under 45. The other paragraph mentioned above refers to the screening.

OP posts:
OrangeShark27 · 04/01/2022 23:41

And also I guess discouraging transwomen going along for a smear for shits and giggles.

Hapoydayz · 04/01/2022 23:41

It almost wouldn't be as bad but they don't do the same for prostate cancer and don't refer to males as just people. Only erasing women.

Clymene · 04/01/2022 23:42

Funnily enough @DuggeeHugPlease I did the same thing.

Here's the wording:

The prostate is a small gland in the pelvis and is part of the male reproductive system.

The chances of developing prostate cancer increase as you get older. Most cases develop in men aged 50 or older.
For reasons not yet understood, prostate cancer is more common in black men and less common in Asian men.
Men whose father or brother were affected by prostate cancer are at slightly increased risk themselves.

Makes it very clear that it is a cancer which only affects men. Trans women and non binary men are not mentioned

Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:42

@OrangeShark27 Why doesn't it say then:

Women and anyone else with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix. ?

OP posts:
Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:47

Right, so I can no longer be called a woman by the National Health Service because a person who might not be eligible for a smear might go in for shits and giggles?

What next, Women's Services and Women's Clinic will be renamed "Services/Clinics for People With Organ A, B or C (choose your option depending on the issue)"?

The prostate cancer page was reviewed in October 2021. How is this ok?

OP posts:
girljulian · 04/01/2022 23:48

I think this is fine -- they're trying to make sure that trans men and young non-binary people, of whom there are suddenly very many, realise that they too are susceptible to cervical cancer and should still be tested even if they don't identify as female.

I do think the page about prostate cancer should have equivalent language (men and anyone with a prostate) but I suppose there could be an argument made about the fact that cervical cancer can be very aggressive and dangerous, whereas prostate cancer tends to be slow-growing and also trans women are much less likely to get it due to hormonal intervention in the first place.

user014572 · 04/01/2022 23:52

Original: Anyone with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix.

I agree, it's unclear who the target audience is. Public health / public service communication should be carefully worded to be as comprehensible as possible for all readers.

It wouldn't be too hard to communicate with and target at-risk groups more clearly:

Any women with a cervix can get cervical cancer. Trans and non-binary people with a cervix can also get cervical cancer.

SirVixofVixHall · 04/01/2022 23:52

Or “cervical cancer affects women and all female people who still have a cervix however they identify “ , or “ any woman who still has a cervix can get cervical cancer, this includes female people who may not identify as women, eg transmen. “

nocoolnamesleft · 04/01/2022 23:54

Not fine. By not making it clear up front that they are primarily talking about women, they risk excluding women for whom English is a secondary language, or with learning difficulties. It would be so, so, much clearer if they talked about women and...

Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 04/01/2022 23:54

I don't disagree with promoting the knowledge amongst all eligible groups. But surely the NHS ought to be inclusive and removing the reference to the most affected group (numbers wise) isn't so. I don't wish to be called anything else than a woman either, much like the representatives of all the other groups have the right to be referred to as they wish.

OP posts:
Franca123 · 04/01/2022 23:56

It is chilling. I felt quite sick reading about fallopian tube tieing on the NHS website. It has made me question my support for the NHS in it's current form. I find it all very upsetting.

solidaritea · 04/01/2022 23:56

"Women and anyone else with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix."
What this does, technically, is exclude transwomen from the category of women (as transwomen don't have cervixes). However, I agree that it would the most useful definition and what I think should be used. It is what was used further on. I think it is important that we don't tie ourselves in knots over the language when it matters.

It is really strange to compare to the prostate cancer page, which was also updated this year. By referring to men throughout, they are excluding all trans people. However, I think it is very likely that this is simply because the pages were updated by different people/teams. I looked it up and transmen can get prostate cancer even if they've had their male genitalia removed. I would hope that these people are made aware of this during their treatments/surgeries, but the prostate cancer page should be clearer.

Clymene · 04/01/2022 23:57

@girljulian

I think this is fine -- they're trying to make sure that trans men and young non-binary people, of whom there are suddenly very many, realise that they too are susceptible to cervical cancer and should still be tested even if they don't identify as female.

I do think the page about prostate cancer should have equivalent language (men and anyone with a prostate) but I suppose there could be an argument made about the fact that cervical cancer can be very aggressive and dangerous, whereas prostate cancer tends to be slow-growing and also trans women are much less likely to get it due to hormonal intervention in the first place.

It's nothing to do with them being confused.

This is about the word women no longer meaning adult human female because it upsets some men.

BloomingTrees · 04/01/2022 23:58

Prostate cancer can be aggressive and dangerous.
It's erasing the word women. This will not help women.

solidaritea · 04/01/2022 23:59

@user014572 Any women with a cervix can get cervical cancer. Trans and non-binary people with a cervix can also get cervical cancer.

Really clear inclusive statement. Better than mine above.

Blue4YOU · 05/01/2022 00:03

How the fuck is anyone without a cervix at risk of cervical cancer?
Are we in a work pretending that a cock and balls and a dress and a bit of an attitude can give you a cervix?
I’m no expert on how great sex reassignment surgery works - but it’s news to me that cervixes get made out of extra tissue or whatever.
Absolute bollox.
I think I’ll start (yet another campaign) to the NHS.
Who wrote that piece of shit guidance?

Original poster
PurplePansy05 · 05/01/2022 00:04

I find this trend to remove the word "woman" very worrying and uncomfortable personally. The same happens in the US, there are no "pregnant women" anywhere anymore, just "pregnant people". Not "pregnant women and other pregnant people", for example. Another word that is being eradicated is "mother". You see it all over US parenting websites.

I am also concerned whether medical websites and scientific journals are not becoming unclear scope-wise in a sense that (and apologies if this offends anyone), wouldn't it be clearer if they referred to biological sex rather than gender? Would this be wrong? And if so, how?

OP posts:
solidaritea · 05/01/2022 00:05

@Blue4YOU

How the fuck is anyone without a cervix at risk of cervical cancer? Are we in a work pretending that a cock and balls and a dress and a bit of an attitude can give you a cervix? I’m no expert on how great sex reassignment surgery works - but it’s news to me that cervixes get made out of extra tissue or whatever. Absolute bollox. I think I’ll start (yet another campaign) to the NHS. Who wrote that piece of shit guidance?
Nowhere does it say that people without a cervix are at risk of cervical cancer.
BleuJay · 05/01/2022 00:06

Men do not biologically have a cervix because it is part of the female reproductive system.

The end.

Swipe left for the next trending thread