Had a reply from CRUK re "cervix havers"

[ShotsFired]

(Longstanding donor, I emailed them following this article: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/smear-test-campaign-drops-the-word-woman-to-avoid-transgender-offence-263mj7f6s?shareToken=84b68d81ce844a6f55b8e64b9a36757b)

The meat of their reply as follows.

================
We want to make it clear that this is not about disengaging women from the screening programme, or eradicating the word women. It’s our duty to make sure that everyone who is eligible for this screening programme knows about it. Research shows that cervical screening prevents at least 2,000 cervical cancer deaths each year in the UK so it is vital that we raise awareness that Cervical cancer develops in anyone who has a cervix.

In addition to this, screening might not be relevant for all women such as those who have had a full hysterectomy. We phrased our information on cervical screening to reflect this. Some women identify as men but still have a cervix, so we wanted to make it clear that they would still need to be aware of the screening programme.

We do always welcome feedback and so I do thank you for getting in touch. We definitely want to ensure that our messaging is as accessible as possible for lots of different audiences and do not want to discourage anyone who has cervix from the screening programme. We will make sure that’s considered for future communications.

Based on this I have now decided to withdraw my donation from CRUK and support a charity that focuses specifically on female gynae cancers instead.

The whole point is that anyone with a cervix should be screened and it is irrelevant how a person IDs, or even what their birth certificate says. How is it ethical to make this some ideological campaign about the use of the word "woman"?

How is it ethical to demand that all cervix owners, i.e. female born should be screened? How does society go about this in an ethical manner without resorting to compulsory screening?

mummyoflittledragon wishing you a speedy recovery x

placemats that's another and also interesting topic.

The treatment of women who decline has been appaling in some stories on here.

The link doesn't say that ALL women will have bowel problems but that SOME women will.

It is a risk, as with any surgery that is pelvic. Not ALL men will have urinary problems post prostate removal, but SOME men will.

Adhesions can occur post surgery and it's a well known complication that no surgeon on this planet can predict will happen or not.

Good luck in your recovery. mummyoflittledragon

the pink bows & 5k races with pink tabards that women's major killers get.

If you remember, before anything trans, this was Madigan's focus.

I'd forgotten that ereshkigal

No Random I'm talking about you engaging with me about your tone. I think you know exactly what I am saying. You appear on a thread yesterday, claiming it's one of the first times you posted, you called yourself a trans inclusionary radical feminist, knows all the language, all the issues, knew exactly who everyone was, admit you love porn and that funnily enough, just the other day you were in a toilet who firstly happened to be in the toilet, and you chatted about make up before she left, then she was your 'very close friend'.

Your engagement on this thread is to patronisingly 'tell' the women on here that they have no idea what they are talking about and then passively aggressively say you 'feel for them' like they are stupid. You're a rad fem yourself, yet so far everything you have posted has been totally anti-rad arguments.

We see you.

Should say

'You happened to be in the toilet with a trans woman'

Thanks. I’m doing surprisingly well having a cut the size of a volcano! Ie midline scar a couple of inches above my belly button down.... yeh for cocodamol and morphine!

What about women who haven't had sex? They are people with a cervix, but don't need to be encouraged to have a smear test.

An excellent reply from them, however, they now need to update the rest of their literature for consistency to "people with testicles", prostates" etc etc.

Yeah, Wakame. You'd best campaign hard for that as otherwise it doesn't seem to be a priority?

They do try and get everyone in even if no sex and as GPs are (were?) paid for doing the test they took a pretty awful approach to women who declined in quite a lot of cases on here.

Also it's noe sex is it, it's sexual contact with men? Specifically?

When I did my work in the past the sexual transmission routes were men>men then men >women then women > men and women who only had sex with women were very low risk indeed. IDU were also very high risk.

The very fact of ejaculation means anyone on the receiving end is far more likely to catch something.

Like with HPV vaccine though, it's the girls who get it, even though their risk is through sexual contact with boys. So the girls take the (albeit low) risk of the vaccine, and the pain of the jab etc to protect the whole population. Gay boys are ignored here as well.

Whole setup stinks really and the conversation around all this stuff will be even more confusing when men who have sex with men, men who have sex with women etc don't mean what they used to mean so the categorisations need to change. Prostate havers who have sex with prostate havers? Ejaculators? Penis owners? And so on. The obfuscation and confusion the changes that are being forced to language have non trivial impact on sexual health and all related work, sex education, sex specific illnesses and so on.

And yes it's true that pre trans Madigan spent their time haranguing Race for Life for being sexist and comparing their women only charity race to the way black people were treated in the USA with segregation.

"You'd best campaign hard for that "

Have already written to them.

I do hope they have stats about the take-up amongst various groups (as Sardines says. I wonder what the take-up rates are among:

(1) transmen
(2) non-binary people born as biological females (am I allowed to say that?)
(3) people on low incomes
(4) early school leavers
(5) people who have English as a second language (or who may not speak English at all)
(6) people from marginalised groups - I'm thinking recent immigrants, asylum seekers, travellers, many other groups where the women (or cervis-havers) might be wary of officialdom.

I'm not a statistician, but I'd be prepared to bet that the first two have higher take-up rates when balanced by age, geography etc etc) than those in the latter groups.

Why can’t they just say “females over the age of”? A transman knows they are female biologically, a transwoman knows they are male biologically.

True. Or they could say “women over the age of...” as a trans man also knows they’re a woman.

"a transwoman knows they are male biologically"

Trans women are biologically female. We just have more physical masculinities than most other women. But hey, no one is 100% male or female.

Trans women are biologically female. We just have more physical masculinities than most other women

Have already written to them.

I'm sure they'll take it extremely seriously and change their man focussed campaign to accommodate other prostate havers.

But hey, no one is 100% male or female.

How so?

What's are masculinities?

Genuine question. I'm baffled.

"How so?"

www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

"Humans are socially conditioned to view sex and gender as binary attributes. From the moment we are born—or even before—we are definitively labeled “boy” or “girl.” Yet science points to a much more ambiguous reality. Determination of biological sex is staggeringly complex, involving not only anatomy but an intricate choreography of genetic and chemical factors that unfolds over time. Intersex individuals—those for whom sexual development follows an atypical trajectory—are characterized by a diverse range of conditions, such as 5-alpha reductase deficiency (highlighted in graphic below). A small cross section of these conditions and the pathways they follow is shown here. In an additional layer of complexity, the gender with which a person identifies does not always align with the sex they are assigned at birth, and they may not be wholly male or female. The more we learn about sex and gender, the more these attributes appear to exist on a spectrum."*