Cancer Research: anyone with a cervix

[Aloneinacrowd70]

Not sure how to link to Twitter, but Cancer Research UK have a pinned tweet which says:

'Cervical screening (or the smear test) is relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix. Watch our animation to find out what to expect when you go for screening #CervicalScreeningAwarenessWeek'

Everyone with a cervix? I think in their attempt to be inclusive, they are potentially excluding women who may not know about their own biology. Plus, they still refer to men with regard to prostate cancer:

www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/prostate-cancer

It's only women who are unable to be named, apparently.

Widow Wadman,
It may be true that not all women have a cervix, due to various medical problems.

But anyone who does have one is a woman, regardless of any subjective feelings about identity.

The Times has an article about this. The more the mainstream press cover the eradication of the word women, the more the general population really understand what is happening (and hopefully stop funding charities that harm women in this way)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/smear-test-campaign-drops-the-word-woman-to-avoid-transgender-offence-263mj7f6s?shareToken=2477410f823c9829f291edf07adf13c5

I came across the phrase "eligible women and people with cervixes" which I think covers all possibilities pretty well. Maybe it was this charity..
But just "people with cervixes" is dreadful.

Thanks for the link to The Times article above.

Your cervix is not always removed in a hysterectomy, and many women who have had a hysterectomy have no idea whether their cervix was removed or not but you do get dropped off reminders for screening and have to ask.

It is correct to say that only those with a cervix need screening.

Exactly.

I have no problem with this.

It is precise and accurate.

According to the NHS www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/when-its-offered/

Women who have had a total hysterectomy (an operation to remove the womb and cervix) will no longer be invited to attend cervical screening, as it's not necessary.

Women who have had a hysterectomy that has left all or part of the cervix in place will be invited for screening once their postoperative care has finished.

But I am aware that follow-up care in the NHS isn't always what it should be.

OldCrone my cervix was left, I've had to request every subsequent screening

I have no problem with this.

It is precise and accurate.

Then you are unaware of the fact that female biology has not always been taught well.

I was taught about ovaries, fallopian tubes and vagina. Womb was used instead of uterus and I don't recall being taught that you wee out of your urethra. Other genital parts were not named.

Even when this has been taught you are assuming a certain educational level to be able to recall these body parts.

Yes "women and other people with cervixes" would make me cringe a bit but I don't object. Not just "people with cervixes".

But of course that would have hurt other feelings than women's.

The Times article was mentioned on the Today programme review of the papers this morning.

But how does anyone know if they're a person with a cervix ?

They'll have to produce some guidelines surely. If only there was a word which would sum it up nicely which everyone would understand.

I only know I don't have a prostate because I'm not a man (no medical person has checked or confirmed I haven't got one).

SittingAround1 yes its very odd that there's no collective word for people with a cervix maybe we need to come up with our own...

Does anyone think the word 'women' might catch on if we started using it?

I really don't get how someone can find it dreadful that women are referred to as people.

Choice 1: say 'women'.
Risk: some women who call themselves men may not present. Scale: miniscule. Likelihood: vanishing. These women will have been informed of their need for screening as part of their transition medical care. They also are women and know it and understand exactly that the message is intended for them and their bodies regardless of their rejection of the word woman.
Risk: men who call themselves women will be offended. Irrelevant since they are not the biological group referenced or targeted.
Benefit:will save maximum lives.

Choice 2: people with cervixes.
Risk: large proportion of women don't present due to inaccessible and confusing language.
Scale: large
Likelihood: high
Benefit: men aren't upset.

Given a choice to protect men's feelings or women's lives they chose men's feelings.

I don't get why males have a problem being referred to as males Widowwadman.

Widowwadman

Could you please read my post at 8.30 (you may have missed it as a cross post)

I feel you still feel that it's not a problem could you explain why?

Widow -

As a woman, I find it dreadful to have my ability to refer to myself as my own sex erased. I want a collective noun that describes my female biology as a whole, as a person of my sex, especially in medical contexts that refer to reproductive organs where this actually matters! Woman has always worked adequately. I have no way of seeing my uterus or cervix, as they are internal organs, so how can I know if I am a "uterus-bearer" or "cervix-haver"? Equally, I think it's dehumanising. I wouldn't want men to be referred to as "vas deferens-havers" or "people with seminal vescicles."

Do I object to "chair-person?" No, because taking on the role of chair has nothing to do with biology, so there is little need to point out reproductive differences in this terminology.

Do I object to "ovary-bearer"? Yes. Because then you're referring specifically to the female sex, likely for reasons that have to do with female biology as a whole, but using language that reduces me to an organ and making things needlessly convoluted. How do I know I have ovaries? It's not like I can just look down and check...

I'm sorry, still so frustrated by this.

The Times is doing good work - sensible comments as well.

Ereshkigal - If you're hinting that you think the main pressure to erase the word woman has come from somewhere else than wanting to include trans men... I agree. I think it's likely that it's the much more vocal "trans women are women - never center female biology in what it means to be a woman" crowd who are driving this. Exhibit A - nobody is protesting the fact that calling prostate cancer a men's issue excludes both trans women and trans men!

The half of the population who need to come for screening tests was born female. I have never seen a collected group of women who have had hysterectomies protest against the use of the word woman! Because they know this is more important than being included or excluded by terminology!

If I have to compromise then "women and other people with cervixes" will be acceptable.

We have a perfectly good word, "woman," to denote adult human females.

This is just over-complicating everything!

I don't mind being referred to collectively as 'people' if I'm part of a group where it doesn't matter what my internal organs are up to. For instance 'British people' or 'economically active people'.

But if the group is made up solely of people with female reproductive organs and NEVER with male then it gets confusing. It is especially important for medical matters where clear language needs to be used to reach those who may not be as aware. This is cancer we are talking about.

I also think it's a bit of an excuse saying they've changed the language for women who have had hysterectomies as they'll know already if they need screening and haven't been offended by the word 'women' being used in the past (correct me if I'm wrong). They're probably just happy that it's one less thing to bother about.

Because men are referred to as men and not people, Widow.

From the Cancer Research UK website:

Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer is cancer that starts in the prostate gland, which is a walnut sized gland at the base of the bladder in men.

Testicular cancer
Testicular cancer is cancer that develops in the testicles, which are part of a man's reproductive system.

In order to be consistent, they should refer to men as people also.

So they should reword those sentences to say:

Prostate cancer is cancer that starts in the prostate gland, which is a walnut sized gland at the base of the bladder in people who have a prostate.

Testicular cancer is cancer that develops in the testicles, which are part of a reproductive system of those people who have testicles.

Otherwise it is just women being erased, and not men.

When I first read this I thought "OK, I don't have a visceral reaction to it", but then I saw that they have not done the same when it comes to male cancers.

For me, that says what is the real problem. This is not about inclusion or being kind or making sure everyone feels nice about themselves - it is about how women are seen as being somehow not as important. That men must not be missed out and that even the very word "man" is seen as being more important than the word woman.

This is a type of unconscious bias on behalf of Cancer Research. It actually didn't occur to them that women would feel aggrieved and it NEVER even entered their head to make the same changes to their male cancers sections.

men are simply viewed as being the primary sex and we are an afterthought - always.

Widow Wadman if you don't understand because it doesn't bother you that's great for you. Just don't expect the other posters to magically stop minding because you don't mind

I wouldn't be opposed to updating the language in information on testicular or prostate cancer, either. Men are people too. So that's a bit of a red herring

I wouldn't put it past those not so few bewildered men, not conversant in their own anatomy, never mind women's, to think they may have a cervix. That's why they have things like 'mens united' - draw them in with a football metaphore, then let them know they have a prostate.

Likewise, many women are just not interested and confuse one body part with another - and there is no common name for cervix - it is just medical terminology.

They will likely be confusing more than they save. I doubt they will have done any proper evidence based research on this change.

Why do you think the language needs to be updated, Widow?

What are we updating it from and to?

And why?

Do you think the Maternity ward in your local hospital should be updated to say "People who are pregnant and people who give birth" ward?