Trans rights supporters -can we please unite on the cervical cancer issue

[speakingwoman]

I’m very worried about the cervical cancer issue.
If you are an advocate of trans rights but believe that cancer research should address its screening calls to “women” please do say so here.

To everyone else, if this is going to fail can we just let it fail quietly please?

There are some things just as important as conflicts of rights, people not dying of undetected cervical cancer is one of these.

If I get any support I will write to Cancer Research.

5.1 million people in the UK are considered ‘functionally illiterate’.

I will do some digging tomorrow to try and ascertain how many of them have cervixes.

Cancer Research UK shouldn’t be doing anything that makes it harder to access vital information, hence my personal lobbying for ‘women AND (designation to be decided by those affected by it directly) to be the wording.

literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

Once a trans woman has had bottom surgery, they should definitely regularly see a gynecologist. (sic) Think about it: A post-op trans woman isn't any different than a cisgender woman that has had her reproductive organs removed.

I've thought about it, for a nano second, and a trans woman with bottom surgery is totally different to a woman who has had to have their reproductive organs removed - something a woman doesn't take lightly or has to do so in order to save their life.

The equivalence would be that if a woman had to have a double mastectomy then she would be a trans man who had top surgery.

Total fail on logical thinking.

Hilarious exchange up thread about invalidating and validating identities. On a thread about over complicating language

arf.

It’s not just about the smear though is it - can they mark a male’s record smear required?

And what about the case a little while ago where a trans patient died unnecessarily because the score was calculated and used for the incorrect sex - I believe it was related to the liver, the level for one sex means organ failure and for the other didn’t. I can’t find the details now but I’m sure someone will.

The fact is, your sex does impact your healthcare - it’s one of many reasons that people are fighting against the current desire by some to ignore natal sex.

This move is to please trans groups and is due to transactivist cultural pressure. To suggest otherwise is potty.

Absolutely agree that this is a problem Feminists are having to deal with that has been created by the way that TRAs are operating.

Believe it or not, we have a shit load of other issues to deal with, even without this problem. Not everything is about being trans believe it or not.

As for the post-op trans turning up for smears and going to see gynaecologists - I don't think is a particularly common experience, if anything because I know that many of those that want self ID have in tact penis'. But it does add more weight to the argument that for some this is all just a big game. Trivialising the female anatomy to satisfy their need to have the novelty of 'the female experience'.

I'm right behind you on this Betty

It hurts no one to include "women" and it hurts no one to include the additional wording.

Truly inclusive language for cervical cancer would be "women, trans men and anyone with a cervix" . For prostate cancer "men, trans women and anyone who has a prostate gland"

Absolutely agree with this. But for all that CRUK are trying to be inclusive of trans people, I suspect that this suggestion would not go down well with those they are trying to include. Trans women will not want to be lumped into the same category as men, nor will they thank CRUK for highlighting the fact that they still have male reproductive organs - a fact that most seem to want kept quiet.

Could this be why only the women's health campaign has been altered?

You all know Spartacus was a man, right?

What thewrongtrousers said

However to blame yet again, the trans community for the wording chosen by a charity is silly. Yes I know it will be posited it was pressure from trans groups, as always there is zero evidence of this

I agree also. Which is why the OP has asked for unity. And why all trans women and men should advocate for health care which is inclusive for all without using the term cis - which very few people seem to understand.

Wait

Thats not what she said!!!!

Stupid copy and paste

Publicity for screening should cover all bases. Women and anyone with a cervix.

Thats what she said!!!!

Garam

To be honest the manufactured outrage by transphobes is bordering on insane.
Saying everyone with a cervix, is literally.... wait for it..... EVERYONE with a cervix.

Ok Garam you have managed somehow to miss all the posts quite eloquently explaining why, no, not everyone knows what a cervix is.

You must be quite young not to know how poorly taught female biology has been in this country. I'd probably had three smear tests before I learned the word. I thought they were scraping the inside of the vagina.

Also English is not the first language of many people. So, no, they won't know about the cervix either.

It's ridiculous that we're still having this argument.

If there were men who died of cancer of the vas deferens, and a technique for screening for it, then you bet your ass the language would be aimed at MEN. We wouldn't use "people with a vas deferens," in a drive to be inclusive to trans women who haven't had genital surgery.

This is the same thing. It's trying to be specific, but ends up confusing more people.

This circular language is profoundly unhelpful - if you don't know what a vas deferens is or whether you have one, that advert means nothing to you. Use men and women, and add "and people with " if it means THAT much to you. FFS.

Also, if you look at CRUK website, they write the following:
"One tweet sparked debate around the inclusive language we selected, which led journalists to cover the discussions on Twitter. Some people were against our choice, others were supportive."

I can only think of ONE lobby group that would have pushed for this kind of language... And it isn't a women's group. To suggest this has NOT come from trans activists is to deny wholesale what's going on.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/06/16/news-digest-trial-to-test-lung-cancer-vaccine-cervical-screening-language-prostate-cancer-spit-test-and-ai-for-the-nhs/

I'm sorry but this is cleaning up a mess that transactivism created, and not just an isolated mess either. It obtain across all health issues and can only be resolved by transactivists letting it be known that health is more important than pronouns.

They could do this so quickly and easily.but they refuse, they derail, they blame feminists, they find excuses. This should be a wake up call.

Until they that, we are merely firefighting until the next similar issue comes up, and we have to start all over again.

Adult literacy is still a huge problem (and nothing whatsoever to do with immigration, in case anyone jumps on that bandwagon).

www.indy100.com/article/the-uk-has-one-of-the-lowest-literacy-and-numeracy-rates-in-the-developed-world--bkgu_g4NTg

Leaving primary school with a low literacy level should not be happening in the UK in the 21st century. However, the stats show that it does happen, which is depressing. CRUK should be acutely aware of this.

Badgers
No, they are NOT getting it mixed up at all. It's all about the TW, not the TM. Look at the language again: "A post-op trans woman isn't any different than a cisgender woman". It is what they believe. That surgical constructed genitalia is more or less, exactly what it is replicating.

Ok Garam you have managed somehow to miss all the posts quite eloquently explaining why, no, not everyone knows what a cervix is

To be fair to Garam they replied to my post and did take the point it hurts no one to expand the language to make it clear what a cervix is.

I suspect that this suggestion would not go down well with those they are trying to include. Trans women will not want to be lumped into the same category as men, nor will they thank CRUK for highlighting the fact that they still have male reproductive organs - a fact that most seem to want kept quiet.

You know what, at some point there has to be a line.

At some point whether or not someone doesn't like a word someone has to say, so the fuck what?

It needs to be part of the EA - stating that in particular contexts, language needs to be understood by the majority of it is about their rights, needs or safety.

If cancer isn't that line I don't know what is.

Totally agree with kettle. Unless someone says Stop, this will go on and on. And the only people who have all the power right now are transactivists. They have the power to say Stop. Will they? No. They are happy to watch us dance.

It seems to me that CRUK is pandering to a particular demographic: white middle class, quite possibly because the belief is they are more likely to make larger donations - wills as well as monthly.

It's cynical and dangerous.

Has anyone asked Cancer Research UK for a copy of their impact assessment yet? Surely a) one must exist and if it doesn’t, that’s a problem and b) accessing it should be possible via a Freedom of Information request?

Betty an excellent point

I just did a bit of searching and Macmillan say on p24 of this document that some penile inversion techniques use the glans to make a pseudo-cervix and that these transwomen need smears.

So "women, and trans folk with a cervix" should do just fine.