NHS Language Excluding Women

[PurplePansy05]

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"?

@PurplePansy05
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?

I agree with you on clarity, but ignoring transgender people is not the way forward. Biology at birth isn't everything - hormones and surgeries do affect a lot of medical issues. I would say you need general information which is clear for most people, with clear signposting of where to find more information if you are trans or non-binary.

I feel Cancer Research UK have it clear. Main info (extract below) and then a clear FAQ about how being trans/non-binary affects things.
www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cervical-cancer/getting-diagnosed/screening/about

The NHS cervical screening programme invites women from age 25 to 64 for cervical screening. You get an invite every 3 years if you are aged 25 to 49. After that, you get an invite every 5 years until the age of 64. You need to be registered with a GP to get your screening invitations.

Cervical screening is also for anyone within this age range who has a cervix, such as trans men and non-binary people. You can talk to your GP about this.

In terms of your original concern about the NHS page, I think it is extremely unlikely that the page replaced one that said "Women have a cervix." A line has been added in to flag that this info is relevant to some trans and non-binary people.

@BleuJay

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

The end.

...yeah? The page isn't talking about trans women (biological males) at all. It's just trying not to scare off young biological females who identify as something other than women, which is the case with a lot of teenagers today, for better or worse.

I also think people get the wrong end of the stick when worrying about the word "mother" being used -- they think it's about trans women (biological males) but my lesbian friends find that "the pregnant partner" prevents the non-birth partner feeling erased as a mother. They are both mothers, it's just specifying which element refers to the pregnant person.

A few reasons, as mentioned above trans women were booking in for smears. Also non binary/trans men are being missed from screening calls as they are not on the female register as such which is a massive it program fault which needs rectified along with a lot of other NHS systems but of course no funding. I do agree prostate page should be the same wording but I guess they have not came up against this problem as there is currently no routine screening for prostate cancer.

Why would a female non-binary person not be registered as female on their GP records? What would they be registered as?

@solidaritea Agreed, that's clear and appropriate wording from CRUK.

I didn't say the NHS website stated previously that women have cervix, I can only assume it referred only to women and it's been updated in a manner that I don't find acceptable.

Re the prostate and screening argument. The page I linked up is about the illness - cervical cancer. Screening is mentioned in one of the paragraphs. Comparing prostate cancer page is absolutely a like for like because it is dedicated to another illness. Both pages should be clear to the audience who may be affected, that's the primary purpose. And if you go down the gender identification route then they should be respectful of all people's choices as to how they wish to be referred to, not just selective groups.

[quote solidaritea]**@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.[/quote]
Although India Willoughby insists that India has a cervix, and offered to show it .
So perhaps still not clear enough.

How about, "Females are born with a cervix and, between the ages if X and Y, will be invited for a smear test".

As transmen are female they are included and as transwomen are male they are not.

Along with cross sectional diagrams of female genitalia to show that a cervix is part of female biology.

Again, TRAs will argue that transwomen are female, not male.

@PurplePansy05

You've misunderstood my point about the previous version. I suspect that the previous version didn't mention women here either. It was just the same, without the sentence mentioning other people with a cervix. So women haven't been erased, it's just that other groups have been explicitly mentioned.

As a pp noted, these groups aren't routinely called for cervical screening if not registered at their practice as females, so it is very important that they know that cervical cancer can also affect them.

@DuggeeHugPlease

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.

This is the real problem.

These things are only EVER targeted at women.

The TRAs can lie, but sex exists and in healthcare female catheterisation damages males, so the word female needs to exist...for females!

[quote Solidaritea]@PurplePansy05

You've misunderstood my point about the previous version. I suspect that the previous version didn't mention women here either. It was just the same, without the sentence mentioning other people with a cervix. So women haven't been erased, it's just that other groups have been explicitly mentioned.

As a pp noted, these groups aren't routinely called for cervical screening if not registered at their practice as females, so it is very important that they know that cervical cancer can also affect them.[/quote]
@Solidaritea why would a female non-binary person not be registered as female with their GP and therefore get cervical screening reminders?

@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?

David Lammy thinks men who be out on a skirt can magically grow a cervix. This is where we are now.

@moolia, they can be registered as "i": www.weobleyandstauntonsurgeries.nhs.uk/website/M81018/files/Changing%20Your%20name%20and%20Gender%20with%20the%20NHS.pdf

Not using clear and concise language in medical documentation will cost women lives. By all means include Transmen and non binary people - but not using the word woman is an absolute shitshow from the NHS who are supposed to be trustworthy, not supporting any ideologies, and inclusive of women with disabilities which mean they struggle with written documention or women who don't speak English as their first language.

It's really really important to complain to the NHS about this. They and all the others who are erasing and confusing our words for ourselves must be held accountable. Women really need to take action en masse, to reverse this lunacy.

It’s total insanity. The NHS website should be talking in terms of medical issues. Only female people ( no matter how they identify) have a cervix. Girls who identify as non binary or trans or boys know they are actually born female. It can’t be news to them!?
This crap is everywhere now. I had to re write a message at work about ovarian cancer that didn’t use the word woman or female once! It’s fucking dangerous “ ooh this bad cancer that affects…people”
Woman is not dirty word it’s just factual.

Thanks @girljulian. Wow, so they are registered as "indeterminate".

I noticed that form says "If patients wish to change their gender marker, they must request this. The practice will have to notify PCSE and should make the patient aware of the possible time scales and implications of changing their gender marker (e.g. changes to recalls for cancer screening services)."

How do we complain?

They've made a mistake oops!

They've left one bit with the word woman in it! Come on NHS!

They say can have female doctor.

With all of this why can't female just be used? I mean that's miles better than people with a cervix in terms of the number of people who see info like this around the place.

I know the use of the word woman to mean bodies with vaginas is now an outrage.

Why is it the done thing to avoid female as well?

Why is that not used? Has the meaning changed without me noticing?

Oh I read all the pages btw only saw woman once and female once.

@Enough4me

The TRAs can lie, but sex exists and in healthcare female catheterisation damages males, so the word female needs to exist...for females!

I read that Stonewall were urging GP surgeries to allow trans people to change their sex marker on their medical notes if they wish so TW could change their sex marker from M to F. And they don't see how this could cause medical issues. All the transmen who will not be invited to a cervical screening because they've changed their sex to M on their medical notes and all the TW needlessly invited to something they don't even need.

I agree with you OP and might complain to the NHS. Although they've used women later on, not to use it at the beginning is clunky and offensive. And potentially misleading.

Girljulian-

'I also think people get the wrong end of the stick when worrying about the word "mother" being used -- they think it's about trans women (biological males) but my lesbian friends find that "the pregnant partner" prevents the non-birth partner feeling erased as a mother. They are both mothers, it's just specifying which element refers to the pregnant person.'

I think there's a whole load of other factors here tbh.

1. We're mammals. Female mammals grow and give birth to babies. Before formula, same as all mammals, breast milk, generally from the mother, was to the difference between life and death.

For other mammals. We've all seen nature progs where there are new babies. In situations where the mother dies while they tiny, or gets separated from them. There's doom music and sad voice narrator. Why? If in mammals the mother is vital. What makes us so different that we can just discard the word that links a mother to her young?

1. Pregnancy the baby knows your heartbeat as the constant background while they grow. Human babies are born very dependent compared to other mammals. The constant is mother. Heartbeat. Food. Important.

Yes babies have others hold them and yes others feed them and etc. But the specific relationship between a woman and her child is different. I thought this was woowoo nonsense until I had my own children.

1. In some USA States with gestational surrogacy. The birth certificate has no mother on it, if it's a single man or male couple who are the commissioning parents.

No mother. That to me feels really totally wrong.

1. In UK woman who gives birth is legal mother. Push for few years to move to USA style approach of some states. Binding contract. Gestator. Commissing parent/s can become legal parents before birth. Gestator (mother) nothing to do with the baby she has inside her. Such a male view of reproduction. Anyway moves for few years for UK to change laws to California style system. govt consultation think we will see changes to laws.

1. This should be about baby. What is best for them. Babies have one mother, the woman who bore them. That is important and it's a fact. Unless the definition of mother is to be changed. It's also important to recognise what it involved for the woman who carried and birthed the baby.

Across the world usually the first sound babies make is a minimum sound. And mostly the person a newborn knows is of fundamental importance is their mum.
That's why in a huge number of languages, the word for mum is similar.
Next sound generally dadada and that goes to second person generally dad.
I imagine this means that babies around the world and for millennia have been doing it wrong?

It's only humans where newborns being separated from the woman who gave birth to them is aok.

It's only humans I'm pretty sure where the word mother, mum can apply to someone other than their... The female who carried and gave birth to them.

Will that zoo prog call pregnant giraffes etc gestational carriers? No. They will 'become a mother', mum is feeding her baby well etc.

Last one!

What is it about human women and the babies we have that makes us essentially in some circs nothing to do with it babies?

News recently about women being forced to hand over newborns for adoption in mother baby homes.

The women had never dropped to thinking, loving, wondering about, for years and years, their missing baby. It impacted their whole lives. They were devastated, never got over it.

The children who found out, they too were very affected. Who was their mum, where was she? Was she alive? Did she think about them?

Some were reunited. Some children learned their mothers had died.

Should that be. Some realised the pregnant person who ??? gestated them was dead?

The words, words that obviously would have been amongst the very first when we developed language. Words that will exist all over the world and always have.

Why are they verboten? No one checked if that was ok with the 50% of people they were for!

Problematic words. Don't use them!
Woman
Girl
Mother
More?

And what's wrong with female? I mean I don't want to lose our words but why isn't female used instead?
Why not women and?

Why this dividing us into body parts that focus on our reproductive biology?

Bodies with vaginas
Menstruators
Pregnant people/ gestators
Etc.

It's dehumanising and just grim.

My daughter isn't a menstruator. She's a girl FFS. At a push, a juvenile female human.