Prostate cancer charity getting pelters on twitter...

[Galvantula]

[[https://twitter.com/steveellwood/status/1206155383577939968[[

twitter.com/steveellwood/status/1206155383577939968

If it encourages one more person to get checked out who otherwise wouldn’t have, I think it’s done it’s job.

This tweet made me smile.

As we’ve always said, when this nonsense affects men, we’ll see pushback.

But also, they still got men alongside the other stuff on the leaflet, whereas on women’s stuff the word women is nowhere to be found.

The thing about this stuff is: it's obviously not true. We know doctors don't "assign" a gender identity at birth. For a start, most births in the UK don't have a doctor present. A small number don't even have a midwife. A large proportion of parents already know the sex of their child before it's born, from the ultrasound scan.

There are, we're told, 100 gender identities, yet doctors, midwives, sonographers and indeed parents mysteriously only ever identify their child as a girl or a boy.

Perhaps the charity could just have said, "We're trying to be inclusive to trans women" instead of coming out with a load of nonsense about gender identity assigned at birth.

Surely, for clarity, the terms should be 'non-binary people who are male' and 'a transwoman is someone who is male but identifies as a woman'.

It's important to use clear, easily understood language in medical leaflets. Many people struggle to read them at the best of times. I'd guess that most people reading them won't have given two thoughts to their gender identity (non)assigned at birth and will just find that confusing.

No doctors were present at the births of my children. No midwife present at the birth of my DP. Still no doubt about the sex (or prostate presence/absence) of any of them.

Sanity must prevail and the words men and boys must take centre stage.

Next, I do think it's wise to include anyone who may think their trans status is some kind of 'protection'.

I've seen TW insist they are 'medically / biologically women' - this does in no uncertain terms say they are at risk, too.

And the only place 'assigned at birth' belongs is in reference to intersex people, who are one sex but look like the other.

But

Seems a strange lack of TRAs screaming 'transphobe' on that twitter thread.

Cant think why... 🤔

I liked the reply

This is fascinating, thank you so much. How do I find out what my assigned gender identity is? I can't remember my doctor, sorry about that.

"If it encourages one more person to get checked out who otherwise wouldn’t have, I think it’s done it’s job."

I'm just imagining an elderly man, or a man whose first language is not English, or someone who struggles with unfamiliar language - what will they make of all this trans, non-binary, assigned, intersex in this pamphlet? I'm actually worried that they will be confused by it, too embarrassed to ask questions of a health professional, and then just bury their head in the sand and NOT be checked out.

Whereas transwomen and NBs will KNOW if they're male! Intersex males will presumably have had enough contact with medics to know too. Making a list is counterproductive. All that pamphlet needs to say is :
Who has a prostate?
If you are male, you have a prostate.

So this pamphlet worries me, because I feel FEWER men will have their prostate checked, not more.

if they're telling non-binary people, transwomen and cis men to get checked then this will just confuse 95% of who they're trying to reach out to and result in less men getting checked up

But also, they still got men alongside the other stuff on the leaflet, whereas on women’s stuff the word women is nowhere to be found.

This is because no one is actually in any doubt as to which sex avoids health screening and which sex's health is most important. They know women will mostly go to health screening and men will avoid more. And that men are far more important. So they choose the language according. Everyone actually knows the effects of sex.

Do they not call men "cis men" because they know that men won't like it and they want to be respectful to men?

Just asking for an enemy.

if they're telling non-binary people, transwomen and cis men

It’s just men. Cis isn’t a thing.

Hi Steve - we're all assigned a gender identity at birth based on our sex by a doctor.

You what?

Ok, trying to bend my head around that.... assigned? How? Is there a kind of hat they pull one out of and hand it to the parents? 'I assign you short haircuts, flat heels and an affinity with ferns' kind of thing? Or do you mean that gender stereotypes are assumed from the sex which has been observed? Since you say gender is assigned based on sex, so obviously sex has been observed.

Are only doctors qualified to assign these gender categories to be carried out? What happens to the babies no doctor is involved with at birth? Is this where non binary came from because the poor little beggars weren't given a gender instruction by a qualified medic?

They may be unsure which sex to assign if the baby has both male and female characteristics.....

Oh good grief. You just said they assigned gender based on sex. Now you're saying they're assigning sex? What? They're just making shit up randomly?

No, a doctor will see a baby with unusual genitalia observed at birth because that's a medical need right there. They'll do the necessary tests and diagnose a DSD. Which is not like assigning. The diagnosis is almost always related to a specific sex, with only that sex having that particular DSD.

Have you any idea what you're on about?

This is nearly as bad as PC Gul burbling about sometimes female brains grow male body parts. Who the hell does the training on this? Does no one ever engage a brain long enough to think this makes no frigging sense?

What they mean is:
'Hi Steve - we're all assigned certain behavioural expectations because of our sex. Some people struggle with these, others don't mind.
However, that doesn't affect whether you have a prostate.
If you're male, you do.
If you're female, you don't.
If you're honestly not sure, ask a doctor.'

Good grief! This nonsense is really getting out of hand.
Why can't they say 'men or individuals who were born Male'
Is that transphobic too?

I think the accepted form to encompass everyone now is:

trans/
non-binary/
non-trans/
non-non-binary

In that order.

To follow the model for female cancers they should have said

Who needs prostrate checks? People who have a prostate.

Nice and clear...

The idea that no one in the world knows what (sex/gender...) their new born is, without some kind of professional there to 'assign a gender' is so obviously bizarre, I don't understand how it has gained traction.

So this pamphlet worries me, because I feel FEWER men will have their prostate checked, not more.

But the first line on ‘who needs to be checked’ is ‘Men’; pretty self explanatory.

It wouldn’t surprise me if trans people thought they were ‘exempt’ so it may encourage them to be checked. A lot of trans people are vulnerable so it’s likely just to encourage them to come in but not excluding everyone else, hence saying it’s for ‘men’ first and foremost.

Bit with women, it was people who have a cervix...

The language around male cancers is a fair bit behind.

Yes this language is definitely better than ‘people with a prostate’ which really will confuse people who are unsure.

Somewhat surprisingly in these insane times, the Government Equalities Office (after publishing a bizarre "simplification" in the "Easy Read" version of the GRA Consultation Document) can explain how these things actually work:

FOI Request "Clarifying easy read guide to GRA consultation"
16 Oct 2018

Dear Government Equalities Office,

In your "quick guide" consult.education.gov.uk/government-equalities-office/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/user_uploads/final-gra-consultation-easy-read-lo-res_v3.pdf
It states "When we are born, our parents say that we are either male or female. This is recorded on our birth certificate."

Does this mean it is the choice of the parent what they put on the birth certificate of their child?

-----
(Note: The worrying thing is that this might well have been a genuine inquiry, as it is a freedom to choose that some parents might welcome - and from the evidence globally, we can easily guess which sex most of those parents would choose.)
-----

Reply from Government Equalities Office
5 Nov 2018

(my bolding)

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the content of the Government’s consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA).

You asked about a particular line in the Government’s ‘easy-read’ version of the consultation document. Because of the nature of this document, the account it gives is necessarily simplified in order to aid understanding.

Parents register the details of the birth of their child with the General Register Office (GRO). A health service birth notification will also be sent to the GRO, which will contain details of the child’s sex, based on the observations made by doctors.

I hope that this information answers your question.

---
So that extraordinary simplification "to aid understanding" worked well!

Sex is observed as any fule kno!

I am still reeling from the bizarre judgement in the Maya Forstater case!
"Maya lost - can it be true?"
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3772219-maya-lost-can-it-be-true

Also remembering someone recounting a conversation they had had with a council official (in Dundee?) who said that you couldn't tell what sex any child was until they were about 14 - because it took them that long to work out which sex they wanted to be.

If grown adults can get so throughly bamboozled and detached from reality after a couple of days training, what hope for kids with Stonewall guidance that "trans identities" should be promoted in every aspect of the curriculum?

Sorry, a bit off-topic rant.

What really annoys me about the Prostate leaflet and all the similar over-stating of the trans issue is that it causes unnecessary and unhelpful confusion and misunderstandings. You have only got to look at the comments sections of newspapers whenever there is a "trans story".

Biological sex is what most people, obviously, relate to - not "gender identity". So "trans identities" are commonly read as meaning the opposite of how they are intended to be understood, ie. that "transwomen" are biological women who think they are men and "transmen" are biologically male but think they are female.

Those prostate leaflets are inevitably going to lead many men to understand that women who think they are men have, or grow, prostate glands.

Hammering the "Transwomen are women" message does not change anything if someone thinks, as most do, that TW are biological women. They are just going to interpret it as the exact opposite.

The real "remedy" lies in thoroughly brainwashing the children. There was a disgraceful picture book for kids that included sections on how to "educate" their "ignorant" parents - it was all about a boy who tried to explain what he had been taught to a father who he should "expect to be bigoted". Absolutely evil, schools using materials that seek to alienate children from their parents.

And the utter batshittery a prostate cancer awareness campaign tailoring materials to a vanishingly small minority of people who are so hyper-aware of their bodies that they are the least likely to need reminding that they have prostate glands.

There was a disgraceful picture book for kids that included sections on how to "educate" their "ignorant" parents - it was all about a boy who tried to explain what he had been taught to a father who he should "expect to be bigoted". Absolutely evil, schools using materials that seek to alienate children from their parents.

Is this crap going to prompt a new Section 28 from the government?