Prostate Cancer UK message: 'Men Man Men'

[WomanBornNotWorn]

If prostate cancer messaging can be completely clear - why can't the same be done for cervix/uterine/ovarian/breast cancer messaging?

Since well over 80 percent of male bodied people who identify as trans, have no genital surgery, I’d say they’re at the same risk as any other male.

You want twice the funding? Fucking fundraise then. Prick.

I have run over 30 marathons for prostate cancer UK thanks. (Actually a few of those were to raise money for a spinal injuries unit after a bloke down my rugby club broke his neck during a game). I do the whole Movember thing as well amongst other things. So yeah I like to think I am doing my bit by 'fucking fundraising' . My elder brother died twelve years ago from the shitty disease, and yes I admit to being somewhat triggered from the flippant second post on this thread claiming 'we’re not allowed anything for ourselves' that was making cheap capital out of a campaign/awareness poster.

It's always "men men men".

And as someone else said men die WITH prostate cancer, not FROM it. And if they think it's underfunded then that's men's problem, not feminism's.

yes I admit to being somewhat triggered from the flippant second post on this thread claiming 'we’re not allowed anything for ourselves'

Except you misunderstood and the meaning for women here went sailing completely over your head, so you thought you would derail a feminist thread with whataboutery. Go you.

traceyracer I fully support & agree with yours & others views on fundraising but men DO DIE FROM PROSTATE CANCER. They’re not all ancient when they do either. My husband is one of them.

My son & step sons are heavily involved with raising money for PCUK, wear their badges & support awareness. I read the campaign as telling Men that they matter enough to go & get symptoms checked.

totallyfuckedupfamily I’m at that figure of 80% & glad I came back to read the rest of the thread to learn that if nothing else!

I read the campaign as telling Men that they matter enough to go & get symptoms checked.

Of course they do. That isn't the point here. This is the feminism board. The campaign was posted here as there is a sharp contrast between how men's health issues can be talked about and women's, and it's very clear who is calling the shots for women's.

Women matter just as much, yet language around women's health which would clarify who is at risk is often avoided or obscured because it's "exclusionary". "People with a cervix", "menstruators" etc.

This is a feminist issue.

And yes I agree that it's starting to creep into men's health issues (though I have doubts that it will succeed in changing how organisations talk about it so much), and for that reason men and people concerned for their health should also be concerned.

Since well over 80 percent of male bodied people who identify as trans, have no genital surgery, I’d say they’re at the same risk as any other male.

It's an area of some controversy because there isn't enough follow-up. Some argue that suppressing T/androgens reduces the risk - however, for the subset who have no surgery but take female hormones then I don't think this is a given.

A lot more research and follow-up data are needed to know about the needs of this particular group.

Most trans people don't take any hormones though.

NB people don't tend to I don't think but some are certainly pushing for more 'inclusionary' language (that will actually be exclusionary as lots of people don't know it's talking about them.

On the 'people with a cervix' cancer thread someone actually said that women know they have a cervix as they learn at school and if they don't know it's their own problem for not paying attention (or similar, a while ago). That's the kind of attitude we're dealing with. A large number of people in UK have low reading age, English as a second language etc. But they don't matter apparently it's up to them to navigate complex language designed to appease a small group, or potentially die if they can't.

Even menstruators- common term is periods.

And that makes no sense anyway, women don't bleed continuously and periods stop and start unexpectedly. Whole thing ignores actual female biology.

A lot more research and follow-up data are needed to know about the needs of this particular group.

Absolutely agree.

And that makes no sense anyway, women don't bleed continuously and periods stop and start unexpectedly. Whole thing ignores actual female biology.

The "Women's" March actually used it as a direct synonym for women whatever their menstruation status in a headpalming tweet about the number of "menstruators in Parliament" proving that they all know what bollocks it is.

In the interests of accuracy 11,714 men died OF prostate cancer 2015- 2017.

11,399 women died OF breast cancer 2015- 2017.

Source: Cancer Research UK

Yes it's true that many men WITH with prostate cancer. It is also not uncommon for women to die WITH breast cancer.

Please let's not make this a male/female competition.

Except for receiving nearly twice the research funding for breast cancer compared to prostrate cancer.

Sorry if this has already been said but it caught my eye (and irritated me a bit to be honest).

Interesting, perhaps it is the organisation of women to raise money for this - I've lost count of the number of women I've seen running, walking, making cakes for, general fundraising for breast cancer. I have honestly yet to see a man raising money for prostate cancer let alone a group of them. Maybe this is a issue for men to organise themselves, perhaps they could do that and raise awareness the way women did rather than moan that the money or awareness isn't raised or are they waiting for women to do it for them?

My husband is also 56 and now has now been given 6-8 weeks. He was diagnosed at 52 and it had already spread.
Not all are old men

About the whole prostate cancer vs breast cancer debate, which seems to be coming increasingly bad-tempered, it's more complicated than it might seem. It's not just about the fundraising. The truth is that breast cancer is an easier cancer to treat than a lot of other cancers. You can remove the breast without doing damage to other organs. Since the improvement in radiotherapy and chemotherapy techniques, it's been possible to massively increase a woman's chances of survival with breast cancer.

I'd point out, too, that improvements in breast cancer treatment are not solely down to research funded by women's fundraising efforts in this country, but by research carried out in other countries.

Remember, too, that there are 35,000 deaths from lung cancer every year in the UK, 16,000 of which are women - ie more than die from breast cancer. It's because lung cancer is a much harder cancer to treat than breast cancer.

Points taken RoyalCorgi I wish we could do the same for all cancers but it is clearly complex. I know my post was bad tempered, I think I just took out my general frustration with constantly being told things are just as bad for men out on that post.

I accept the complexities.

If I understand the CRUK statistics correctly, the peak rate of death for the age of men who die "from prostate cancer" is 90+.

I would like there to be research on reducing the morbidity and mortality burden of this disease. The statistics for younger age groups are available on the attached graph.

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/mortality#heading-One

It's because lung cancer is a much harder cancer to treat than breast cancer.

Yes. And tho' not straightforward, NSCLC is the more common cancer and has more treatments available than SCLC. Frustratingly, for SCLC, there have been 40 failed phase 3 clinical trials in the last 10 years so there's no immediate prospect of any relief for people with that form of the disease.

'Please let's not make this a male/female competition.'

It was made into a competition by a man who decided the right thing to do was come onto the thread, complain that breast cancer gets more funding (never clarified if he meant public or charity) and then when people said hold on, had a massive strop.

I can only assume he wants some of the money raised for breast cancer charities to be shared out to his satisfaction.

Oh I thought it was just me being nippy (I'm in a shocking mood due to insomnia) but it seems a lot of us took it that way. Fair enough - I do think men should get off their prostates and fund raise that hasn't changed but I also see that different cancers are more difficult to treat than breast cancer but AFAI understand that WAS the point of all the breast cancer fundraising ; the fact it didn't have to result in deaths. I'm still sick to death of hearing 'what about men... every single time I talk about women's issues and rights.

Anyway as to the original point of the thread, yes, it just shows how much of this distortion of language is aimed at women.

What might be cool would be

Breast Cancer messaging becomes totally incomprehensible
Fewer women take up screening etc
Less money needed for it which can be given to men
Win win win!

Or,

Language is malleable. What does breast mean anyway?
Get the money women raise for breast cancer and give it to charities for male cancers (although men do get breast cancer obv) because under the right circs breast can mean prostate. Words can mean whatever you want.
Don't tell the women donating, obviously.

I know my post was bad tempered, I think I just took out my general frustration with constantly being told things are just as bad for men out on that post.

Not at all! And I agree. We know that, for the most part, women are disadvantaged in health terms because very little research is done on things like endometriosis or a number of other female complaints, and that in illnesses that affect both sexes (such as heart disease) men are treated as the norm, so that women will sometimes be wrongly diagnosed because their symptoms are different from men's. Most clinical trials still use young, white men, and a drug that is effective for that group may not be as effective for other populations. The success in researching and treating breast cancer is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Breast cancer leaves bereaved husbands, boyfriends, fathers, sons and brothers.

Prostate cancer leaves bereaved wives, girlfriends, mothers, daughters and sisters.

Grief and impact isn’t discriminatory. Both can affect all of us. Let’s not be divided on this.

Quality of research and ability to complete research between different cancers is however variable. This affects funding.

Breast cancer is highly treatable if identified early - much easier to identify early than, for example pancreatic cancer where symptoms only arise at a developed stage. Breast cancer patients can be more well at diagnosis and therefore are more able to participate in research. Also funding given too because of the more treatment options, such as hormone therapy - not so available in other cancers.