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.

Thinking about the language more widely.

And thinking further about what I said earlier about dehumanisation,

The separation of women from the functions of their bodies also plays into the hands of those who would deny us reproductive healthcare,

I read a thing recently which made an on the money observation that with things related to pregnancy in general, and especially when it comes to anti abortion stuff, the foetus is often presented / depicted as sort of floating in space, or maybe with the suggestion of some kind of sides to where it is, but the woman, the context, is removed, it seems to exist as an entity by itself, the woman's body that in reality it is a part of, is invisibilied.

It occurs to me that the separation of our body parts from ourselves, supports this type of narrative, and over time, as language shapes the way we see things, could bring about shifts in societal views around this stuff.

And in general, historically we were viewed as vessels, language like "womb haver" certainly heads back in that direction.

Women have always been minismed because of our reproductive biology, seen as lesser, weaker, and of course, to be controlled. To go back to referencing us in these terms doesn't lead anywhere good, to my mind, in a sexist society.

Also just thought - things like prostitution, surrogacy - again, framing us not as people but in reference to our parts, makes it easier to support these things. If you want a baby you need a womb haver. Being seen as a selection of handy parts (and of no use if the parts do not do what society / men says they should do) is and always has been a major problem for women and this takes us way back.

shudder

But equally, referring to body parts can be considered to be excluding those people who don't have those body parts. I remember trans activists saying on International Women's Day that feminists should not talk about the reproductive rights of women because they exclude those people who do not have female biology.

So woman is an unacceptable word because it doesn't include those female transgender people who don't identify as women. And body parts and body functions are also off the table because it can be distressing and triggering to those people who don't have that anatomy.

Question is, what does that leave us? And how can we talk about what we actually are and what our lived experience actually is?

Betty thank you for sharing it helps strengthen all of our resolve to protest the language change.

I hope the testing & results are favourable

I am utterly distraught every time anyone mentions penis or testicles. I am gutted that I don't have them - Freud was quite right about all that envy - and those words just should not be mentioned around those of use who don't have them as it's soooooo triggering. I won't be responsible for what I do next time I'm excluded because I don't have those body parts.

Cancer Research who to contact

The head of campaigns is Sarah Woolnough

Full executive team can be found at www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/how-we-are-run/chief-executive-and-executive-board

Trustees can be found at www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/how-we-are-run/our-trustees

I'm in the process of writing a letter to Sarah copying the CEO and the board of trustees. I'm doing a letter as I think it's more likely to get to the right people.

Because the people running all of them are posh graduates of the pomo-addled liberal departments of universities

I think that is the accurate reason. I think this is terrible wording. I don't think however this should be treated as part of some terrible conspiracy which trans people or even trans activists were pushing.

It's almost as if Freud was projecting. I am heterosexual, I don't find a penis a nice looking organ. I have zero envy. I am delighted that I have been able to get pregnant, carry babies and birth them. What is there to envy, clitoral tissue provides orgasms?

Have they changed men to “anyone with testicles”?

No, Bertrand, they have not.

I’m starting to read these posts to the tune of Dionne Warwick’s ‘Anyone who had a heart’. I think it’s my coping mechanism, trying to make it more palatable before I implode.

Or maybe that will be the tune to their next advert.

I don't think however this should be treated as part of some terrible conspiracy which trans people or even trans activists were pushing.

How is this not to do with transactivism?

“I don't think however this should be treated as part of some terrible conspiracy which trans people or even trans activists were pushing.”

What’s their motivation, then?

It's not a conspiracy, it's just a plan

The reason that people are linking it to trans issues is that the spokesperson of CRUK has stated that it is to do with trans issues.

From the Times article linked upthread: "The charity confirmed to The Times that the words had been chosen deliberately so as not to exclude those who are biologically female but identify as men".

Plus of course it isn't just one Tweet.

On the CRUK website itself, references to women have been removed. Yet references to men have remained.

So on the list of cancer types it states:

Cervical cancer
Cervical cancer is when abnormal cells in the lining of the cervix grow in an uncontrolled way. The cervix is the lower part of the womb. It is the opening to the vagina from the womb. The main symptom is unusual bleeding from the vagina. Finding changes in the cells through screening can help to prevent cancer developing.

Breast Cancer
Breast cancer is cancer that starts in the breast tissue.

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.

You'd have to wonder why CRUK rewrote the wording of women's cancers (and breast cancer patients are composed of more than 99% women and less than 1% men) and yet somehow chose not to do the same for men's cancers.

Maybe they are changing the wording alphabetically by type of cancer and soon the Prostate and Testicular cancer wording will be reflected to erase the words man and men.

I wonder how prostate and testicular havers will react to that.

I went up to a Cancer Research fundraiser in town yesterday and said that these adverts should use the word 'women'. He high-fived me. Then he tried to get money out of me, but still.

Ridiculous and ignorant of me I know but....
I did not know what a cervix was or that I had one until I was in my mid 20s and needed surgery after an abnormal smear.
No one had ever said cervix to me until then. I already had a 4 year old child. I mentioned to a midwife during that pregnancy something about doing an internal exam on myself for some reason and said about the donut shaped thing up there. She did not correct me or educate me in any way.

I would have been completely in the cold with this campaign. I did not know what a cervix was much less that I had one.

Btw this was back in the days when women were offered smear tests before they were 25.

Rhynswynd - quite. In their attempt to be more inclusive they excluded an enormous number of women, many of whom are vulnerable in other ways, such as having English as a second language or education gaps.

I hope your health is good now x

My little post about my mum on this thread yesterday is now part of this post:

fairplayforwomen.com/cancer_research_drops_woman/

Betty I read your story and it is what prompted me to share mine. I am under 40 and have been completely ignorant of that facts of my own body for a very long time because of the shame my mother felt and how no one ever talked about it. My health is fine now and still have smears every 2 years. Thank you

I don't think however this should be treated as part of some terrible conspiracy which trans people or even trans activists were pushing.

I don't think it's a mass conspiracy by posh people, either. I think it's stupid posh people behaving stupidly - because they are too entitled, too privileged and too divorced from their service users to see the wood from the trees - for the most part.

I do think a core of transactivists have taken advantage of this overall zeitgeist originating in the liberal academy, however. (For example, the Yoghurt Principles as DH insists on calling them.)

You'd have to wonder why CRUK rewrote the wording of women's cancers (and breast cancer patients are composed of more than 99% women and less than 1% men) and yet somehow chose not to do the same for men's cancers.

It is odd it is that way round, because some transmen go for hysterectomy, but transwomen always keep their prostate, even after srs - I think it would cause too much damage getting it out. It does shrink down eventually although you can end up reading about the wonderful squirting and wetness on orgasm if you are not careful about where you go on the internet

It's not a "consiracy" it's a long term goal which has been pushed for for quite some years now.

A desire to "decouple" sex specific body parts and functions from the words that used to desribe the people who had those bodies (man / woman / boy / girl / male / female) has been pushed for ages, I'm surprised if anyone has missed this. From charities raising money for menstrual products being criticised for refering to girls, to the USA midwive assoc (forget the name) removing all references to women in their literature, to articles about sex referring to teenage girls as "non prostate havers" (and giving incorrect advice about condoms and lube which later was corrected, and not mentioning the clitoris ONCE which was not corrected).

And on and on.

This is the logical place we get to.

And it is wholly illogical, because if the part referred to is one you can't see, and there are no "sexed" body parts (i.e. cervix should never be "linked" to women / girls) then how the fuck are you supposed to know if you have one or not?

A lot of the logical conclusions of all this are entirely illogical, I'm surprised that not more people see this TBH.

Am I contravening new rules by asking how one becomes a self-described 'right wing' pro-life NHS inclusion officer?

That person is pro life???????

OMFG.

I started watching the video but it's quite long and I skipped ahead a bit to the chat about men wearing women's underwear and then the kids asked for food so I gavve up.

You mean the NHS person?

Why are so many prominent influential trans women holders of such misogynistic views?

(Rhetorical)