Birmingham gynecological health charity rebrands to include trans-men and non-binary

[stumbledin]

"Cysters took 'women' out of it's name to become more inclusive to people suffering from gynecological illness with different gender identities"

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/we-same-pain-birmingham-gynecological-17478251

Dont know whether to laugh or cry. If even those practicing medicine are prepared to perpetuate the lie that a male body can become a female one, and that a male body now miraculously needs gynecological services.

[headbang]

ACat who are they for?
It doesn't actually say.

'Cysters is a grassroots charity, dedicated to supporting individuals & improving the health, education & welfare of those with reproductive & mental health issues'

This could be anyone. When in fact their target group is really specific. Why not be clear about who the org wants to support? The founder obviously started this with a clear aim. A really positive, specific aim. 'Neelam felt that issues around reproductive health can often be trivialised by healthcare professionals and sexualised by the ethnic community due to cultural beliefs.' This is important and overlooked. In the UK do mainstream charities really get to grips with these issues? I'm thinking not.

But, 'Cysters is a grassroots charity, dedicated to supporting individuals & improving the health, education & welfare of those with reproductive & mental health issues'- who is it for? What does it do? Where is the message? It's very very vague.

Sorry for walls of text.

Genuinely I hope the exposure brings them some donations/ funding that they can use to further their original remit.

So what does virginity have to do with cysts?

You can’t legally be a charity but not be clear about your charitable objectives, and once these have been registered with the relevant charity commission in your part of the UK; your charity must act within those objectives. So there would be a problem if actual activity was at odds with the stated legal objectives.

However, if you look up the charitable objectives for this particular charity, Cysters, it does includes the whole of the general public, yet also talks about women and patients or their families, as beneficiaries of the charitable work it carries out, so its work is very widely aimed:

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=1178651&subid=0

If you open the different tabs that the link provides you can see eg under ‘Documents’ the charity’s legal society objectives’, these are given as:

‘THE OBJECTS OF THE CIO ARE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH OF WOMEN IN THE UK WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE BY:- 1. PROVIDING A CONFIDENTIAL SPACE FOR WOMEN TO ACCESS SUPPORT AND ADVICE, PROVIDING FORUMS, EVENTS AND GROUP SESSIONS THAT ENCOURAGES MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY TO RECEIVE SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE; 2. RAISING AWARENESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES, 3. PROVIDING RELIEF OR ASSISTANCE TO SUCH WOMEN THEIR FAMILIES OR DEPENDENTS OF SUCH WOMEN WHO NEED ASSISTANCE AND IN THE INTEREST OF SOCIAL WELFARE PROVIDING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR SUCH PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND DEPENDENTS; AND 4. WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER SIMILAR GROUPS FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS, TO ENABLE THOSE PROVIDERS TO ADAPT SERVICES TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. NOTHING IN THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL AUTHORISE AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CIO FOR THE PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF THE CHARITIES AND TRUSTEE INVESTMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2005 AND SECTION 2 OF THE CHARITIES ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2008.

Governing document
CIO - FOUNDATION Registered 05 Jun 2018 as amended on 28 Aug 2019

My holding with asterisks didn’t go brilliantly there but I hope you get the gist

Why do these attempts at 'inclusivity' nearly always seem to result in it being less clear who a service/product is actually for?
Is it so unacceptable to say - women, transmen and some NB people?

Yes, because MTF trans people don't approve of anything that links the female body to the word "woman".

I know that really, but it's just so... illogical.

Yes, because MTF trans people don't approve of anything that links the female body to the word "woman".

Neither fo FTM trans people.

This all just illustrates that in fact most people know that those born in a female body will or may have health issues related to that female body.

But in an attempt to not be publicly told they are transphobic or whateverphobic they start using language that they hope will neutralise that criticism.

Obvious the service would be relevant to FtM women as they are still biologically women despite any amount of surgery or drugs.

When language no longer even has a meaning how are we meant to communicate.

And of course how is it possible that such a tiny minority who are so vehement about this false narrative of being able to change sex, has been allowed to dictate to the far, far greater majority who know it just isn't true.

We dont allow any other cult to dictate how we talk about ourselves and experience our reality, but somehow this group has been given permission to do so.

Just imagine if the tables were turned and hate speech against (biological) women was a law that all this trans activists found themselves being taken to court.

On one level I am just so fed up with the enourmous amount of time, energy and money this is taking away from the real issues that women need to be working on that I just want to not bother.

But of course, that cant be, because the purpose of the trans narrative is to erase women as a class, so that they cant organise as a class against the oppressing sex class of men.

So what does virginity have to do with cysts?

As someone whose PCOS was first diagnosed when TTC (which is quite common) : 'bugger all'.

Neither fo FTM trans people.

I think they would accept "women, trans men etc. They have to in relation to men's health issues. It's the male people who are most concerned about the word "women" being used to refer to female people without the awful prefix they try to give us.

I think they would accept "women, trans men etc.

Really? Not this one.

An anonymous non-binary person welcomes the change after they have struggled with a diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndromee^ and endometriosiss^ since they were 23.

The 25-year-old said: "Ever since I got diagnosed with PCOS and Endo, I have searched for a space that is not branded with the colour pink, solely about fertility, and labelled both diseases as a 'womans issue'.

"Trans men and non-binary people already struggle in silence with so many issues, our reproductive health should not be another door shut to us.

"Cysters was the first place that I saw a post that used the words 'anyone who gets a period''^ . It meant the world to me to have the same information presented in a more gender neutral way.

So instead of using “women” they instead use a term that references a disease state, one that often encapsulates pus?

Interesting word association.

Why not Yeasters? Probably more females get yeast infections than cysts or cystitis.

'Cysters' is a actually good name for a group of women with PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome supporting each other.

Not women. That's the point.

The comment about pink is interesting.

Yes, it is ridiculous.

When I need treatment, guidance or support with gynaecological issues, women's issues, I find the pinkification irritating - but it doesn't affect my engagement with the services. Fertility issues are irrelevant to me, have even been distressing at times, but, equally, reference to them does not affect my engagement with the services. I simply do not engage with the fertility aspects. Other women do need those aspects.

I have no desire to push women who think differently to me away from services, but, just as I accommodate the needs and wishes of other women, they need to do the same for me.

Gender neutral language for female services actually does make me feel less welcome and comfortable, and would reduce my engagement with said service.

If I am looking for support for reproductive health issues, I am looking for single sex environments, and language around 'people' does not signal the particular kind of emotional safety that encourages my participation.

At least I am able to parse the language. There will be potential female users of the support service who the service risks alientating through lack of clarity.

*whom

If I am looking for support for reproductive health issues, I am looking for single sex environments, and language around 'people' does not signal the particular kind of emotional safety that encourages my participation.

At least I am able to parse the language. There will be potential female users of the support service who the service risks alientating through lack of clarity.

This. The "I'm a trans man, ask me anything" thread a few days ago was interesting, as these concerns were raised by posters and glibly dismissed. People have such a blind spot around "inclusion".

At least I am able to parse the language. There will be potential female users of the support service who the service risks alientating through lack of clarity.

Both literacy and health literacy are substantial issues. The latter needs simple language particularly because somebody looking for information may be experiencing distress.

There is rarely a successful one-size-fits-all solution. At present, it feels as if organisations are more interested in promoting their stance on inclusivity than communicating clearly to their potential audience.

That is disgusting. Reducing women to a disease and to the non-use of their sexuality. Not a good look. Anyone who think this has nothing to do with them is off their rocker.

At present, it feels as if organisations are more interested in promoting their stance on inclusivity than communicating clearly to their potential audience

Health promotion failure.

Imagine a men's charity that had v for virginity being thrown about in any context.

Nope, I can't either.

It's a pure sexist trope which links the concept of virgins and women as something that we should think about and consider. Because it's somehow important to the female sex in particular.

Is women's sexual health something that should be fixed by virginity?

Sorry but it's not hard to see in which direction this is headed. I don't know how it's justifable.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, but women's sexual health and virginity coming up in the same breathe are troubling to me and seem particularly regressive to my ears.

Nothing screams more 'preachy religious types' "than going on about virginity.

That's not exactly going to engage a certain section of women and girls...