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"?

@Bessica1970, but many women may not know what a cervix is and if the words "people with a cervix" are used, will think oh I've heard that when the trans activists campaign so it doesn't relate to me as I'm not trans.

If a women has had a hysterectomy she will know she doesn't have a cervix if this part is removed, as the process will be described to her along with the need to not have smear tests.

@Bessica1970

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.

@Bessica1970 - do you suppose the “non binary people who were born female” think their cervixes have mysteriously disappeared because they now identify as “non binary”?

Presumably female people who want to adopt the (entirely pretend) “identity” of non-binary are still aware they are actually female? Or are you suggesting they are stupid enough to think they aren’t?

None of this language change is coming from women who've had hysterectomies.

The language is from those who think women hoard our cervixes, like dinosaurs, just because we can. How selfish of us to not share with the men non-cervix-havers.

I'm creating new language to include non-could-be-a-chest-feeder and prominent-adams-apple-haver too. These are male equivalents so they aren't left out and feel included.

@BloomingTrees

None of this language change is coming from women who've had hysterectomies.

Quite.

If a female person has had her cervix removed she will be well aware of the fact.

Loads of women have strong emotional reactions to things to do with removal of things related to our reproductive biology.

Menopause is natural and even then it's common for women to feel a sense of loss, a marking if an end to the middle stage of her life and next is the 3rd and last bit and well we all know how older women are considered by society.

I have never heard (although of course likely to happened at some point) a woman who has had her cervix removed, her ovaries or womb removed, or anything like that.

To object to NHS info or indeed other info that uses the term 'woman' about something that does not apply to them.

Phrases in use around the place eg people with a cervix, and I have heard women say this, feel v unhappy with specific reminders of illness, surgery, consequences like early menopause, loss of fertility...

Creating sub groups of what everyone knows are female people (women) spelling out. Can't use women because you don't qualify due to your reproductive organ situation.

That's shit. Obviously.

Can't use women because you don't qualify due to your reproductive organ situation.

Good point.

It is obvious from NHS material regarding male cancers that there is no problem with the usage of the word man, despite some men not having said body parts, so why the erasure of woman?
The answer is simple and has nothing to do with some females not identifying as women and some not having the requisite body part for the cancer being discussed; it is all about removing the word "woman" from anything to do with female anatomy/ reproductive role as it excludes male people who identify as women. If 'woman" means someone with a cervix, then someone with a prostate can't be a " woman".

@334bu
"If 'woman" means someone with a cervix, then someone with a prostate can't be a " woman"."

A tiny number of women may not have a cervix (through operation) and some men don't have a prostate (numbers likely minute). So in NHS smear forms I would say, "most women have a cervix and therefore smear tests are offered to all women", then follow up with a cross-section drawing of a woman's genitalia. With a note to say "transwomen do not have a cervix and do not need to apply for this test".

It's factual and inclusive as TW are referenced without pointing out that they are of course biologically male.

When referring to biology is considered hateful we can't look after peoples health.

Stonewall are entirely responsible for this fuckery - why are they not being held accountable for the confusion that is now taking place around health discussions that will actually harm both women and men?

Stonewall and others who have lobbied for the removal of woman and not man from health campaigns, have shown their hypocrisy by flagging it as an attempt to include non gender conforming people born female. It has of course nothing to do with that , as similar changes have not been required of male health campaigns. This is all about including males who identify as women in the group" woman" and, if woman is used to refer to female anatomy, then they are excluded. It has been evident from the Women's March in the USA ,where women weren't allowed to wear their pink " pussy" hats and Monroe Bergdoff who, when addressing the Women's March in London told the women not to talk about female health issues, as it excludes male people who identify as women. Patriarchy in action.

@334bu

Stonewall and others who have lobbied for the removal of woman and not man from health campaigns, have shown their hypocrisy by flagging it as an attempt to include non gender conforming people born female. It has of course nothing to do with that , as similar changes have not been required of male health campaigns. This is all about including males who identify as women in the group" woman" and, if woman is used to refer to female anatomy, then they are excluded. It has been evident from the Women's March in the USA ,where women weren't allowed to wear their pink " pussy" hats and Monroe Bergdoff who, when addressing the Women's March in London told the women not to talk about female health issues, as it excludes male people who identify as women. Patriarchy in action.

Exactly. The word woman must not have anything to do with female biology, in order that men can claim it.

They don't give a flying fuck if the word man is still connected to male biology, because that would only affect transmen, who, since they are female, don't count.

@WandaWomblesaurus73

When referring to biology is considered hateful we can't look after peoples health.

Stonewall are entirely responsible for this fuckery - why are they not being held accountable for the confusion that is now taking place around health discussions that will actually harm both women and men?

Only female biology is hateful.

And really through history when hasn't (male dominated) society had one issue or another with our biology. All around the world as well.

Eg
Hysterical
Complicated and prone to malfunction and disease
Periods are dirty (and so women and girls should eg not prepare food/ be in the family dwelling, and a list of other prohibitions)
Our biology driven sexual appetites make us at some historical times sexually voracious and dangerous to men, something that leads to unfaithfulness and so sexual arousal etc should be prevented (various means) before it causes trouble. Physical barriers to prevent anyone other than the husband penetrating her vagina have been used.
The fact we BLEED when we are not injured has caused consternation amongst men in various places at various times.
Etc etc.

Now there's a new reason for males to once again focus on our reproductive biology due to their beliefs about the other eternal male conundrum... What is a woman?????

The biggest most obvious problem for the idea males can be women if they want to. For ages, twice a week, whatever.

Is our pesky reproductive biology and organs.

That is a real spanner in the works. It's just too important big and obvious. And is THE thing that spell out- female, woman, girl, mother if have had kids. And has done in all the other terms for us in all the languages ever. (for millennia, all over the world, until in historical terms the last 0.000001 nanoseconds of human existence).

Just a pita, stumbling block.

The strategy to overcome this problem is v bold and clever. (As are many of the arguments around transgenderism. I mean they're sociopathic strategies, but clever nonetheless).

Problem:

As long as widely used group terms exist that relate the male concept of woman eg-

Bundle of stereotypes, male gaze 2d automatons what's in outside is pretty much the whole story, not whole people with as much variation as men but a limited number of 'types' ..
(sex kitten, jail bait, angry feminist, d*ke, uptight librarian type, ball breaker, cocktease, mum, milf, old dear, ladette etc etc)...

To their material bodies which highlight in neon lights that they are in fact very different to men in a permanent and fundamental way.

Then it's a hard sell to society as a whole that woman is like a game skin, which can be adopted or removed at will.

Solution:

Redefine the troublesome words.
Insist that woman/girl (and female although redefining that word is partially on hold due to too far too soon) ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS MEANT nothing more than the 2D superficial male gaze. Pick how your want your game character to look. Change hair. Make boobs bigger. Skimpier outfit. Press play. Run about with your woman skin on. (Usually self description is 'girl' which is a worrying observation in itself).

What can those people be called.. hmm.

Well with reproduction it's their function, and always been seen that way by men. Incubators, gestators, walking wombs, vessels etc.
Ok so refer to people with them, by them. It's all a bit dehumanising so that's a win, will help with strategy.
Women means just whatever. Vague is good.
Icky biology bit. Just use that. People with vaginas, ovaries. Menstruators.

And obviously. It's an excellent strategy. Look how far it's got.

Envy/jealousy are such ugly emotions and link with anger, driving TRAs. The TW group who are loudest seem to show this when they tell real women that they are 'better' women...prettier, slimmer, wear makeup, have groomed hair.

They cannot be better at getting pregnant and giving birth, so language around these areas cause them anxiety. Women's language that relates to women and cannot be used to women-face, is being erased.

Don't forget the pert new chest appearance due to tittie skittles!

And that belief that the way to insult a woman/girl in the most deep, cutting, upsetting way ever...

Is to tell her that she's not succeeded in what's obviously the massive priority in a a woman's (girls) life... IE being sexually appealing to males.

Now why does that sound familiar....

@foxgoosefinch

The other thing that repeatedly comes up is that many women with poor literacy skills, who are older or less well educated, or who have English as a second language, may not realise that "cervix" is part of female anatomy.

Whereas hardly any trans or "non-binary" people must really not know they are actually female. In fact I'd be sceptical about whether there are any, given that the rejection of femininity and the female body is the entire point.

So what Eryn and other activists are really arguing, is that vulnerable, older or poorer women who really are not aware that they have something called a cervix, are being deprioritised so that a few, largely young people, can pretend to not know they have cervixes.

And those few young people's feelings pretending or being at least seen to pretend that they are not female should be prioritised over the needs of many many actual women who may genuinely be at serious risk from cervical cancer.

And you wonder why women aren't signing up to this? To the idea that the luxurious beliefs of people who want us to pretend they aren't female, should come before the needs of actual females?

It's just the latest in everything and everyone "non-women" coming before "women". Meet the new patriarchalism: same as the old patriarchalism, except now we get to be told it's progressive.

This This This This This

@334bu

It is obvious from NHS material regarding male cancers that there is no problem with the usage of the word man, despite some men not having said body parts, so why the erasure of woman? The answer is simple and has nothing to do with some females not identifying as women and some not having the requisite body part for the cancer being discussed; it is all about removing the word "woman" from anything to do with female anatomy/ reproductive role as it excludes male people who identify as women. If 'woman" means someone with a cervix, then someone with a prostate can't be a " woman".

Exactly

Has anyone reported this to the NHS yet? Many of you expressed concerns in a much more eloquent manner than me, I think it's important to share them and ensure we're not fobbed off. Thank you to everyone contributing to the discussion too, it's really made me see a wider picture.

Been there done that.

Sorry to say no point.
Well maybe if you keep on at them for weeks but I CBA.

In short they will not say women, women and etc. Under any circs.

Thinking though.

Anyone up for complaining about prostate page?

How do we complain anonymously?

It's to attorney general I think?

I really doubt it would be leaked logged shared etc.

As ever with this stuff obv do what you feel best.