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"?

Where can we complain? Any ideas? Is it to the NHS as I don't think the page can be reported

www.nhs.uk/contact-us/nhs-website-contact-us

Only way I can see.

Obv put name of page at top!

...

Did a complaint interested to see response.

Great news! I totally understand now why female specific conditions and info updated to female offensive word woman/girls..

But man pages still refer to men.

I hope this reason is as reassuring for you as it was for me!

'Thank you for contacting the NHS Website Service Desk.

Our proposed solution:

Our aim is to provide information for everyone, and to use language that is inclusive and respectful.

We take all feedback into account. There are thousands of pages on the site and we review them on a regular basis. This means that some pages have been changed recently while others haven't yet.

You can find out more about the NHS website's policy on inclusive language via this link: service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-language.

Our teams are currently having to prioritise Coronavirus (COVID-19) work. Unfortunately, this means we have very limited resource for non-coronavirus work.

We are grateful for your feedback and appreciate your understanding in these difficult times.'

Thinking on though.

This is indicating that they do NOT see male people with trans identities as important do they.

They have prioritised female trans people to ensure they know the info is for them, and do not feel discouraged from seeking NHS services for screening/checks/treatment.

Do male trans people not matter to them?

That's surely discrimination on sex and on trans status.

Not happy at all with that.

Have pressed the reject solution button and pointed out this inequality.

Yes there's a certain reason for doing this

BUT it's still important.

For the NHS to agree that inclusive language is a must for delivering a service that ensures the trans population do not receive substandard access etc.

And then doing it for the female half population but not male.

Then they ARE discriminating, they ARE ignoring male and focusing on female. They ARE being sexist by ignoring male trans people and they ARE being transphobic by that huge omission.

I am doing what trans activists SHOULD BE DOING. They believe inclusive language for sex specific medical advice is IMPERATIVE. And not doing so can result in harm, illness and death.

So where are you on this then? Do TW and non binary people who have male biology not matter?

Trans supports never answer this question.

Let's see if the NHS will.

If you want to complain you can also tweet about this and tag NHS, the more the better

I think it's important to point out the way female trans people have been prioritised and male trans people ignored is genuinely shit of them.

Given they believe inclusive language vital then this difference is inexplicably bad.