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"?

@ErynIsTrans explicit question: would you be opposed to the NHS centering, by which I mean hyper focusing , on female as a sex class in order to understand female health?This goes beyond reproduction and impacts every organ, statistic and body of medical knowledge about the female body.
I'm happy for the NHS to center the intersex as a group in order to understand their healthcare - which it does to some extent. I'm happy for transpeople to be considered as one or two groups and for all of these groups to be hyper focused on the group at hand. No inclusion required. Pure biological reasoning.
Would you be opposed to the sex class of women being treated with the same respect i.e. centered in their care?
To me this is the crux of the question and the leaflet is the tip of the iceberg.

No, it's not happening with 'men'. The wording should say 'women'. The fact that 'Mother' is also being erased is endemic of this ideological bullshit.

It's always instructive too, of course, to remember that the ingrained misogyny of all our history and culture, is that women and women's needs must always be othered, defined and dominated by men and men's desires. In order that men can assert their dominance over women as the "other" who never gets to speak for or define herself.

Of course the first and easiest thing to do, for those who wish to "identify" as not women, is to act as men do in establishing the hierarchy of who gets to be prioritised and to control language (the non-women), and who gets to have language imposed on them or to have to accept things they don't like and put up and shut up (the women).

Perhaps those who are "afab", but feel they must absolutely insist 1. that they are not women; and 2. that women must accept being called what the not-women want to call them; might usefully examine their own internalised misogyny before going about lecturing other people on "inclusivity".

@Givemepickles

I feel the same OP. I'm pregnant and somehow the erasure of women feels even worse than before I was pregnant. My NHS clinic asked what sex I was assigned at birth. My maternity letters refer to pregnant people. The NHS booster page referred to pregnant people. How can I trust these people with my care of they don't even respect my sex and the very unique, miraculous, risky experience that comes with it? I feel totally unempowered and erased at what should be the most special time of my life.

I'm really sorry you had this experience. Even 8 years ago when I had my DD there was none of this. Yes, it's exactly the opposite of a feminist celebration of power and agency in the female body, childbirth and motherhood. And yet we're being conned into the idea that it's progressive!

I'm not someone who is all flowers and woo about birth being feminine and empowering (I had a traumatic birth and spent a lot of it shouting "This is nothing like the fucking hypnoborthing videos!" ) -- but I also think that women's agency and bodily autonomy is only further eroded and objectified by this language that pretends we aren't even women, just "persons" with a collection of body parts, like a service delivery route for the production of other humans.

The really massive questions here are. Why use language that requires a certain level of reading/ vocabulary that stacks of people in UK don't have. Or haven't learnt the English for etc.

Rather than ANY of the following.

1. Women and trans people who have a cervix. (Then explanation of what cervix is and what sort of humans generally have one).

1. Female people

1. Female people including those who are trans

1. What I would do as clear, reassuring, specific to those who should have smears.

Main page women all through. Button on all pages that need to consider trans people clearly obvious on the page 'If you are trans, please click here. We have developed a page/ section on site in order to provide the best care and relevant information to the trans population. Then those pages could be written with barriers, concerns, discomfort, options for trans people accessing healthcare they can choose if want etc.

If I were a trans man who and needed a smear, I would feel reassured by that. Maybe an option would be to have a male hcp or even a trans hcp (if any available, mostly female who perform smears). Or attend a clinic that wasn't labelled Women. Loads of stuff.

The fact none of these approaches are advised is just totally baffling.

And so is the fact that trans orgs etc are adamant that gender should be recorded NHS, not gender AND sex.

Meaning as has been pointed out for years, and responded with fuck off essentially.
The NHS doesn't know on records the obviously fundamental medically vital sex of patients.
They cannot extract, analyse data to see how many and distribution of trans people across the country, common issues, efficacy of treatments, any common problems within that group...
In order to understand if and where additional services are needed, what sex age groups etc are the majority of trans patients and differences by location...
SO much value for NHS and trans orgs to understand so much about the trans population and how healthcare working for them.

But NOPE. No way.

TWAW TMAM.
Record as per gender ID. Do not have even a flag or note so NHS has sex.

THAT really really bothers me.
Plenty of trans people are vulnerable for a number of reasons. Why the FUCK is the line taken that there must be no way of gaining data, insights from any service etc?

It's just such an incomprehensible stance tbh it makes me wonder what these tags orgs are actually interested in.

Absolutely agree - and what’s more why are they treating people like they’re stupid? Surely trans men and NB women realise that transitioning doesn’t stop them getting cervical cancer

I would imagine that trans men would be much more likely to know have a cervix than general female population.

And certainly the fact they are female, given that's the source of massive discomfort. Would be something they're acutely aware of.

The fact is this has nothing to do with anyone who is female.

It's 100% to do with not ever associating the words girl, woman (and given the approach advised) female, with anything that 'excludes' males.

The fact that language which is confusing, many won't understand, needs to be parsed and thought about even if know the words.
In this case the fact that cervical is for many associated with back so that introduces yet another issue.

That language that is grossly dehumanising is pushed as best practice. That females... Nope can't use. People with vaginas should be referenced by the body parts that are to do with sexual intercourse (esp by men) and having babies, when those things are both reasons for our millennia of oppression globally, and are things that are still used to oppress us, hurt us, control us (yep by males and to greater or lesser extent all over the world).

And are the reason for girls in certain countries/ areas/ situations not getting an education, forced to marry way too young, for horrific amounts of injury, death for a host of reasons. Subjected to specific violations in so many wars/ civil unrest...

I'm sure I don't need to go on...

And the fact the optimal approach is not used universally when it's female people only being referenced.

That's cowardly, hypocritical, and very telling.

How many articles/ tweets/ orgs etc who are vv TWAW and bodies with vaginas is accurate inclusive and kind has anyone seen write eg

• People with vaginas subjected to organised rape in X country.

• Students with vulvas at high risk of sexual assault in school by fellow student penis people.

• UK horrific spate of extreme sex attacks ending with murder targeted at those who have a clitoris

• what next for those who are expected to, do, or have menstruted, in Afghanistan under the Taliban

That's LOGICAL, CONSISTENT.

IF this is the new much better way of referring to females only, and not include males.

Then fucking own it. Stop fucking about. When referencing females only. Women girls must NOT be used. So why are you doing it.
Because you know that public reaction if you refer to groups of female people experiencing appalling things by our sexual/reproductive parts would be OUTRAGE.

And that would be BAD.

Therefore. Switch how referenced depending on topic and assumptions about who will read. Job done!

COWARDLY HYPOCRITICAL AND OBVIOUS.

So not only do we get our words redefined, taken from us. Because they need to include males.

We also have those who forced this change, using them for groups of females when THEY feel like it.

This as well as data is just incredibly revealing.

Perhaps there's evidence that trans and non binary people are getting late diagnosis for cervical cancer and this page is a way of highlighting this.

There can't be any reliable large dataset analysis because trans orgs insist that only gender be recorded. And definitely not sex or trans status.

The trans orgs prefer to gather their own data often via surveys posted Twitter, with hopeless reliability. And are very relaxed about removing answers they don't like And then publish what they decide.

So doubt it but if you know of any let me know I'd be v interested.

PurplePansy05
Unless of course they change sex biologically and different considerations apply to them then.

You can't change biological sex. It's impossible.

My NHS clinic asked what sex I was assigned at birth.

This is worrying, no pregnant person (I hate that term) has ever in the history of everything been anything but female at birth.

Sorry, clumsy wording - I meant reassignment involving medical procedures where some changes to your body take place and therefore different considerations to a born female/male might apply. Hope this makes sense, sorry if I said something wrong!

Interesting that the question how can you tell if you have a cervix or prostate is being batted away by ErynIsTrans.

ErynIsTrans assumes the definitions of men and women to mean sex class, when they want to communicate, whilst simultaneously denying that they have any kind of definition at all.

If people have a number of children and they don't know which one has a cervix, Eryn, how can they find out?

If letters are sent out to 'person with a cervix', how do they know to whom to send them? If they are sent to everyone, how do the recipients know if it applies to them?

Oh, I know, it's because they know they are female. Women and girls.

Which you also know. Which is why you can't answer the question how does one know, because it would require you saying because you're a woman/girl.

I mean the whole pretending you're not male or female is daft enough, but when it puts peoples lives in danger, it's unforgivable.

And it's also linguistically impossible for you to maintain.

It's vastly irritating when the definitions that we all know to be true are assumed to be true by someone who simultaneously denies them.

@ErynIsTrans How do I know which of my children has a cervix and which a prostrate? How do I know which one would be expected to bleed from their genitals and which one i should consult the doctor if they start to bleed from their genitals? What would you do in my situation?

I'd also love to know how the doctors at the fertility clinic correctly sent my partner for a sperms analysis and me for blood tests and internal examination when we were struggling to conceive. Was that not transphobic of them to have assumed? Shouldn't they have sent us both of for a thorough examination to determine who had what reproductive organs and in what configuration. And then have decided who to have taken what gametes from and who to best return the embryo into for gestation. I AM OUTRAGED. WHY IS STONEWALL NOT CAMPAIGNING ON THIS ISSUE. Is it because we all know the difference between a man and a woman?

Whether you see yourself as a woman or not, if you have XX chromosomes and a fanny, you are one. Tough shit.

Body parts can be cut up or added on, but the XX chromosomes, DNA, is the key part. It is not possible to remove an X and insert a Y, nor to undo puberty.

I'm really sorry you had this experience. Even 8 years ago when I had my DD there was none of this. Yes, it's exactly the opposite of a feminist celebration of power and agency in the female body, childbirth and motherhood. And yet we're being conned into the idea that it's progressive!

It s just so bloody insulting! When I have been pregnant and giving I felt like I should have been revered as a goddess. Growing actual life inside my own body! Only women can do that! And when giving birth, I have never felt more of an animal, as in a red in tooth and claw powerful female mammal.
Preganancy and birth should help women feel proud, strong and in control of the process as much as possible.
I think I would have punched the first person to call me a birthing parent or a person with a uterus. The disrespect to mothers is shocking.

*giving birth

BBC News - Cervical cancer: Concern at changes to screening in Wales
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59892313
Only one "people with cervix" in the BBC Wales article about the recent changes.

I've read a couple of places thar people have their cervixes checked every three years currently........ Not sure how you check a man's cervix?!

In reality, if most women are attracted to men and most men to women, and their resulting DC, friends and family all use regular sex based language, then regular language is not going to 'evolve' away as some activists believe it will.

Add in lesbians who are likely to want to both be 'mums' and gay men who have adoption options and are likely to want to be 'dads'. They don't benefit by pregnant people type language either.

The language problem isn't going away and now on another thread I have heard that some trans people call themselves real trans, because they ID as real above people pretending to be trans (no, I don't understand how this is worked out either).

We could end up going around in circles in the NHS and institutions in trying to be inclusive of real trans, trans and everyone else, while people IRL mainly stick with the widely accepted language that we do not want to lose.

Surely the point of wording it this way is because not all women have a cervix?

It would get clumsy to say “all women and trans women and not binary people who were born female and women who have not had a full hysterectomy”.
Saying anyone with a cervix is clearer and includes all of these groups.

I honestly think it’s the hysterectomy thing that means they can’t say ‘all women’, because it wouldn’t be true.

@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.

What a surprise.

I would be willing to bet that far more vulnerable women are excluded by this change in language than trans/NB people are included, specifically because trans/NB people would tend to have plenty of first-hand knowledge of their own biology and the medical sphere almost by definition.