BBC - no adult human females here

[DrCathki]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45837563

So after my complaint about "people with periods" last week, looks like I will be doing the same again for "people" who get breast cancer. Breast Cancer Care stats confirm that 99% of those affected are women, not that you'd know from this article.

I've got their complaint form on my home screen now.
Pathetic.

Maybe they'll give us a badge or a sticker 'menstruators'

I just saw that and thought the same.

Can i also draw attention to this article that I read some time ago. I'm not sure if anyone else posted about it on FWR at the time.

Apologies if considered a derail, if so I'll self report and have this post removed.

The piece is about bras :
www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45097050

It's so insidious as well, but the word is just being erased under our noses.

The BBC's drive to use gender-neutral language will end with the same nonsense that the Green Party did when AC and chums altered their language and constitutions.

There will no longer be FGM, there will be People Whose Genitals Are Mutilated - not really quite the same thing.

They won't be able to report FGM - and how will they cover sex-detection as a precursor to selective foeticide or infanticide for girls?

Closdes, that makes me weep.

I think you only get 14 days to complain, but you can also add evidence of bias here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here

Actually I disagree with you on this. Biological males can get breast cancer and the assumption that they can't by many men delays them seeking medical attention and checking themselves regularly.

I think it's important that it is widely publicised that men can also eat breast cancer.

Whether this is the intention with the BBC terminology, I don't know.

Biological males can get breast cancer and the assumption that they can't by many men delays them seeking medical attention and checking themselves regularly.

Yes, they can. Given the number of men who disregard prostate cancer public service announcements, I wonder how many will pay attention to breast cancer promotion messages that are gender neutral?

I'd be fascinated if CRUK or similar has run field-testing or research on that.

I am not bothered about 'people' in this context. Yes, it is true that the vast vast majority of people who get breast cancer are women but men do get it and do die of it. And there is a problem that all the pink campaigns and everything mean that men just don't think they would ever get breast cancer and therefore never check or anything.

I wouldn't complain about this one.

Sorry I cross posted a bit with arranfan there. Yes, it's true about the prostate cancer thing, men are much less likely to go to the doctor and get anything check for anything though. But obviously if they don't even realise they can even get breast cancer, then they definitely won't!

all the pink campaigns and everything

The pinkification of breast cancer sets my teeth fair on edge.

And - conversely, you'd never know from the relentless promotion of breast cancer that it's the 3rd 'biggest killer of women' so to speak. Lung cancer beats breast cancer for mortality. And look at the difficulty women have in being even diagnosed with cardiovascular problems because the symptoms are screened through a filter of male physiology etc.

The pinkification of breast cancer sets my teeth fair on edge.

Yes, men being excluded from breast cancer certainly isn't the only problem with the pink thing!

arranfan: there are good reasons for raising awareness about breast cancer, though. Lung cancer campaigns have to focus on prevention - ie stopping smoking - because once you're diagnosed, the prognosis is very poor. But if you discover a lump early enough and go straight to a GP, the chances of successful treatment for breast cancer are much higher than if you leave it.

I had a male colleague who went through breast cancer and it was really hard for him to get a diagnosis and deal with other people's reactions (particularly other men) because of the pinkification of breast cancer. Let this one go OP.

I agree with girlinthefireplace, arran and dulce - this is one instance where gender neutral language is appropriate, because men do get breast cancer (yes, smaller numbers, but it's still just as devastating for them as individuals when it happens).

Lung cancer campaigns have to focus on prevention - ie stopping smoking - because once you're diagnosed, the prognosis is very poor.

I appreciate that. Nonetheless, the awareness of lung cancer, and ability to spot early symptoms doesn't help. There's a stigma attached to it (and some gynaecological cancers) that breast cancer doesn't have.

Similarly - for me - the relative ignorance around women's cardiovascular issues and symptom presentation.

I've sent them a comment that their neutral language actually serves to make this a less informative article, as if they added some stats to it it could also raise awareness of males who are affected by breast cancer.

Let this one go OP. No! OP is right!

With gender neutral language both sexes are done a disservice.

Women get more pissed off at the eradication and men don't get a clear, loud message that they too are at risk.

If the article included clear sex based language then a better message could have been sent about the sex based risk of breast cancer.

'Gender neutral' language simply masks very real health risks.

Argh, didn't mean to post then...

And 'gender neutral' language also reduces the significance of stats

Example, not real figures:

5 in 10 women gets a disease = 50% of the female population
1 in 10 men get a disease = 10% of the male population

(allowing for 50:50 by sex)

That's 6 in 20 people get the disease = 30% of the population.

Think about how that skews advertising, funding, research, marketing, etc for that disease.

Risk perception is skewed, the cohort that needs to be very vigilant is not; no official extra work is done on alerting that cohort, more people die!

THAT is one example of why language matters and why we need to stop the eradication of sex based differentiation.

CRUK have also removed mention of 'women' / 'female' from nearly all descriptions of gynaecological cancers.

Male cancers eg testiscular, penile and prostate cancer retain clear mentions of men /male.

I would like to see CRUK and similar organisations show their field testing and research.

I would like to see that testing and research signed off by the Royal Statistical Society and the likes of Prof. Spiegelhalter. who is acknowledged as a leader is risk and uncertainty communication - maybe with some of the leading Public Health people.

www.regulation.org.uk/library/2017-Spiegelhalter-Risk_and_Uncertainty_Communication.pdf

I reckon ‘people’ is ok here. Men do get breast cancer. And women understand the word breast. So it is quite different from ‘people with a cervix’.

These were the CRUK headline descriptions when I posted September 25th:

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

'Penile cancer is cancer of the penis. It is a rare cancer in the UK. It can develop anywhere on the penis but is most common under the foreskin in men who haven’t been circumcised or on the head of the penis (the glans).

cf
'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.'

'Your guide to ovarian cancer, including what it is, how you are diagnosed, treatment and its side effects, and where to get practical and emotional support.'

'The womb is the pear shaped muscular bag that holds a baby during pregnancy. Most womb cancers start in the lining of the womb. They are also called uterine or endometrial cancer. The endometrium is the lining of the womb.'

'Vaginal cancer is very rare. It starts in the vagina, which is the passage that leads from the neck of the womb (cervix) to the vulva. Vaginal cancer is more common in older women.'

'Vulval cancer is a rare cancer. It can start in any part of the female external sex organs, the vulva. The treatment you need depends on how big the cancer is and whether it has spread.'

from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375155-Billboard-with-dictionary-definition-woman-adult-human-female-removed-after-pressure-from-TRAs?pg=8&messages=25

Men do get breast cancer and tend to have poorer outcomes because they don’t realise.

But. I still think gender neutral language here is a mistake. This needs two separate campaigns; one for bc for women and a separate one for men. There needs to be a separate campaign to target each sex more effectively.

A lot of men will not register a campaign for women’s breast cancer regardless of language. We’ve seen successful separate campaigns for women’s cardiac issues.

The new rules of womanhood:

1. If it's associated with a penis it's allowed to be a woman and may be shouted loudly:

TWAW, Some women have a penis, TW represent women

1. If it's associated with a vagina it is never to be uttered. We are menstruators, cervix havers, people with breast cancer.

Ergo, men can be men, men can be women, and people with vaginas are barely human and must be acknowledged only with reference to their disparate and disconnected body parts.

If they really must be referenced at all.

It isn't that woman is never spoken or written any more. It's that it's only allowable when it's referencing people with dicks, and not with the original, unmentionable owners of the word.

Neutral language in this context doesn’t bother me as it is factually correct, Breast cancer affects females and males.

It isn’t the same as trying to claim that some women have penises, or that some men have cervixes, which is factually incorrect.