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.

Oh look! Here's one that's actually got some advice about increasing attendance that doesn't involve woke posters using classist, exclusionary language!

www.jostrust.org.uk/increasing-screening-attendance

Jo's Trust is a wonderful charity.

I've not had cancer but have had cervix issues and pre cancerous cells.

They even had a consultant contact me once as I had some questions.

They have helped so many women, I'm going to set up a donation.

Top tip, there is no evil conspiracy to kill women with cervical cancer.

There doesn’t need to be.

The banality of people putting woke ideology before straightforward plain English health messages will do it just as well.

One of the problems with this kind of messaging is that it shows the disconnect in knowledge and attitude between the medical/scientific side and the people who run the campaigns.

CRUK used to be one of the better ones in terms of the back office having some knowledge (some of them had PhDs and had gone straight into the third sector so not career scientists but not totally ill informed teens either ) but I’ve seen a definite change in tone the last five years or so. Away from the clear communications and good science and more towards ‘grab’ value. Their last couple of campaigns have been really poorly thought out.

As I said in the original thread on this, a part of my job is writing and editing and checking patient facing documentation for trials. This blurb would not have passed our processes because it’s not clear (and it reeks of POMO woke bullshit, but trying to be charitable and critique it just from a functional point of view...) it doesn’t do what it sets out to. It’s a poor bit of communication.

wakame your link has no scientific basis whatsoever. The writer is credited as "Amanda Montañez is an associate graphics editor at Scientific American". A graphics editor. Not a scientist at all.

Sex is binary.

It is so, so important that the campaigns say women/ female to reach women who lack education or do not have English as their first language.

You cannot underestimate the number of women (and obviously men) that will confuse cervix/ cervical with their neck. And who also may feel uncomfortable with or alienated by medical language. These women are far more vulnerable in terms of difficuties with accessing healthcare than a transperson who will be acutely aware of their biology.

The language used needs to be simple and accessible and accurate.

• there is no evil conspiracy to kill women with cervical cancer.

No, if women who are not fluent in English or ignorant of biological terminology miss out on screening that will be a tragic unintended consequence. Clarity in communication on such matters is vital.

Just catching up:

""surely anyone can ID as trans."

Trans isn't an identity. I am trans because I was assigned male at birth but identify as female."

Wow OK.

So trans is a material measurable fact
Sex is not

Do you really believe all of this? Do you genuinely believe that sex is ambiguous, assigned, and frequently incorrect,

And that all sex specific charities should remove all references to sex?

I want you to TELL ME how poeple will know whether they are "prostate havers" or not, for example, if no-one is ever allowed to say that men have prostates? How can anyone possibly know what bits are inside them if sex is iillusory and therefore not a guide, and you can't see or feel them?

This is a really extreme ideology you are presenting here, you do understand that, don't you?

This also means that transpeople (which ones?) get to judge whether others are trans or not...?

I thought the whole point was that we can all identify in line with how we feel inside?

According to gender codes, I am "agender", and therefore trans. Who are you to tell me that I am not?

"wakame your link has no scientific basis whatsoever."

Are you saying that the big pretty chart contains no facts? That 5 Alpha Reductase deficiency for example doesn't exist?

Here, maybe this will help - it gives more information on how the graphic was created with the help of Dr. Amy Winsiewski - a specialist in DSDs:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

And here's a nice breakdown:

www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2015/feb/19/nature-sex-redefined-we-have-never-been-binary

wakame

I am a scientist. I am a scientist, moreover, who has done 22 years of work on the genetic pathways that underlying normal and abnormal human development

I cannot say any clearer to you, or to anyone lurking, that sex is not a spectrum.

Perhaps i need to put this message across with flash cards done in blunt crayon, or interpretative modern dance?

"Do you genuinely believe that sex is ambiguous, assigned, and frequently incorrect,"

Sex is not a simple binary, sex is assigned at birth, and usually correct (only 0.6% of people are trans for example)

"And that all sex specific charities should remove all references to sex"

No, but it's good idea to make it clear that cervical cancer doesn't only affect people classified as women - it can affect anyone with a cervix and that can include trans men and some intersex people who are male but happen to have a cervix.

"I want you to TELL ME how poeple will know whether they are "prostate havers" or not, for example, if no-one is ever allowed to say that men have prostates?"

What an alarmist position! Alerting people to the fact that there are a small number of people who are not men but do have prostates doesn't mean that the world is going to crumble in confusion with people wandering about with no idea who they are or what they have.

"if sex is iillusory"

It isn't. But it also isn't a simple binary.

www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

"This is a really extreme ideology"

No - it's just science.

Wakame is a person identifying as edible marine algae

I am a person identifying as a dahlia

Sex is not a simple binary, sex is assigned at birth, and usually correct (only 0.6% of people are trans for example)

Nobody in the UK is assigned a sex at birth
Sex is observed
If the genitalia of an infant are truly ambiguous (and this is very rare) there is a mechanism to delay recording of sex until said infant has been examined more closely and genetic testing has been done.
Nobody is assigned a sex at birth. No one is flipping a coin and guessing.

There’s a misperception in the general public about many intersex conditions - a lot of people think someone will literally have a full set of Male and female reproductive organs. This is not correct. What usually occurs is that ambiguous development has happened - all these patients will be either Male or female.

wakame I should have said your article as a source has no credibility as it was written by a lay person and cites no scientific sources and clumsily confuses a number of issues.

5 Aplha Reductase deficiency exists as but it is a disorder of the male, of male genetics, and may unfortunately may mean that some males are incorrectly identified as female at birth. They are still male though whatever the emotional fall out of the disorder and possible wrong sex classifciation.

The existence of disorders like this, does not make sex a spectrum.

forgot this link ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency

no ambuity there

"I am a scientist. I am a scientist, moreover, who has done 22 years of work on the genetic pathways that underlying normal and abnormal human development. I cannot say any clearer to you, or to anyone lurking, that sex is not a spectrum."

And yet, scientists who specialise in human sex characteristics disagree with you. And whilst I don't doubt that you have a background in genetics, you previous attempt to dismantle one of the genetic studies I offered was rather dismantled by another geneticist here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3282573-World-Health-Organisation-ICD-11-on-trans-people?messages=100&pg=1

So whilst I am sure you are both a scientist, and sincere, I don't find your opinion on these matters persuasive.

Wakame but earlier you said you have already written to Cancer Research UK to ask them to remove all references to men in their prostate and testicular cancer pages and literature.

Didn't you?

Yes here:

"Wakame Sun 24-Jun-18 14:52:20
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."

And then a couple of posts later, you said you had already written to them on this matter.

"Sex is observed"

Perhaps you can clarify for me. I have been told on this forum today that CAIS women are actually men because they have XY chromosomes. However, you tell me that sex is observed at birth and CAIS girls are classed as girls at birth because they observably have typical female genitalia.

Now you can't both be right.

"to ask them to remove all references to men in their prostate and testicular cancer pages and literature."

No, I wrote an email to applaud them on their policy and also to encourage them to be consistent with their literature, so as to include prostate cancer literature for "anyone who has a prostate". Doesn't mean the words "man" and "woman" should be banned for all cancer-based literature ever!

It's interesting how black and white the thinking is on this forum - you don't do nuance here much.

So here in your post:

""And that all sex specific charities should remove all references to sex"

No, but it's good idea to make it clear that cervical cancer doesn't only affect people classified as women - it can affect anyone with a cervix and that can include trans men and some intersex people who are male but happen to have a cervix.

"I want you to TELL ME how poeple will know whether they are "prostate havers" or not, for example, if no-one is ever allowed to say that men have prostates?"

What an alarmist position! Alerting people to the fact that there are a small number of people who are not men but do have prostates doesn't mean that the world is going to crumble in confusion with people wandering about with no idea who they are or what they have. "

You expect men to know they have prostates HOW exactly? If CRUK follow your suggestion and remove male from all their prostate literature and publications, then given that on another thread someone said a fair % of men don't know they have a prostate (can't remember the % but clearly there will be plenty of men unaware) then how will you seek to address this?

If demands from people and groups that agree with you succeed and sex / body parts are completely decoupled (the words woman / girl / female are never connected with things like uterus, cervix, fallopian tube and man / boy / male are never connected with words like prostate) then how exactly are people supposed to know what parts they have inside?

Especially considering that lots of people don't know this stuff even with the clearer categories that we use at the moment ie women can expect to have a womb, cervix, men can expect to have a prostate.

This is the logical conclusion of your stance and I really want to know what the plan is around this topic.

A child with CAIS will be examined at birth. There are several severities of androgen insensitivity- it’s not a monolithic condition and about fifty potential differential diagnoses to rule out as well. All that takes time, and the mechanism to delay reporting accounts for that.

If there is any ambiguity, the child will undergo further testing in order to rule out many of those differential diagnoses (several require immediate treatment post birth for metabolic issues so this is not trivial.)

The days of ‘well say what you want, we will do some surgery and you raise them as a boy/girl depending on what your preference is’ are thankfully long gone.

Nobody is assigned a sex at birth in some kind of guessing game.

What does all this have to do with adults wanting to change sex?
Do you believe humans can change sex?

Turns out they do want to reduce the number of women who get smears. No surprise there.

"Nobody is assigned a sex at birth. No one is flipping a coin and guessing."

Honestly - I have no idea how you manage to derive this from my comments. How would me saying that assigning sex according to genitals at birth is a good system that is almost always right, lead you to think I said that sex assignment is a coin toss?

"They are still male though"

CAIS women have XY chromosomes but also a vagina and sometimes a womb. And yet you say everyone is either male or female according to their sex characteristics. This is not logical - you are trying to squeeze the science into your box of political ideology, but it won't go. It's better to observe the science and adapt your politics accordingly.

There is no nuance required.

Either certain body parts are connected to certain sexed bodies or they are not.

IF you believe that sex is pretty shady and a poor way to tell about any of this stuff
AND you have written to CRUK to ask them to change their literature to remove references to men and replace with "prostate haver" etc
THEN clearly believe that these things are not do do with sex and therefore why should they be mentioned
AS YOU HAVE SAID body parts like penises or clitorises or prostates are nothing to do with male / female / man / woman, a man or a woman could have any selection of parts
SO it makes sense to refer to the parts only
This is the position you have taken all through this thread and across multiple others

The logical conclusion of what you ask for is that these things are decoupled. That is a stated aim that I have seen time and time again, and orgs (like CRUK) changing their literature and messaging to do so.

When asked a pretty basic question about how this plays out in the mid-long term - once these things are decoupled, how does anyone know which internal bits they have - which is an entirely logical question - you say it will be fine as somehow poeple will just know... Even though, they aren't allowed to be told. It's nonsense. Answer the question.

If parts such as cervixes, prostates, are not male or female specific organs, how is any person supposed to know whether they have one, and then proceed accordingly if they read messages like the one from CRUK.

We ONLY know we have these things because we know what SEX we are. I know I need to go for smears because I am female. My DFIL knows he has prostate cancer which is something his wife would not have got.