Eve Appeal responds to criticism against TWAW

[MoreSchnitzelPlease]

I follow Eve Appeal on Instagram. It is a charity that raises awareness for gynaecological cancers. I did not expect this kind of response from them, and I am so hurt by their comments. How is it possible that trans women would need the services of this charity? How can you be tested for a gynaecological cancer when you do not possess female organs?

www.instagram.com/p/CCt6HK6lehL/?igshid=1t693pbic6ouz

How can a charity for gynecological cancer say that TWAW? It feels like I'm living in The Twilight Zone. I can't support a charity that goes against science. This feels like such a betrayal. Women are not disgusting for going against TWAW.

It’s only female cancer charities that are tying themselves up in knots ti be so inclusive they don’t use the words woman or Girls

Just for comparison, prostate cancer advert

“What a piece of work is a man” can you imagine the furore, the wailing of beeee kiiiiind, the announcements that they were literally KILLING TW if a female cancer charity dared to put out a similar advert?

This obsfucation is such bollocks! It doesn’t help anyone. Biology is real, sex matters in health more than anything because so many diseases behave differently in men & women

All it does highlight is yet again that women are expected to be everyone’s ‘mummy’ and put the well-being of TW above their own while the reverse isn’t even vaguely expected of men

@IloveJKRowling
Thanks, I’ve become far too au fait with oncology over the last six months or so.

It seems to me that the current level of magical thinking which informs a lot of pro trans rhetoric atm is going to lead to poor health outcomes for many trans people, especially those who wholeheartedly embrace it. The insistence on denying biological reality because ‘the feelz’ are a dangerous path to take in the long term. I can only assume that it is as it is because the majority of trans people and TRAs are of a younger demographic, so ugly medical issues have yet to really effect their lives. You only have to look at how irresponsibly some younger people have behaved over Covid-19 to realise how much the young can perceive themselves to be invincible.
I don’t think the current changes in language by so many institutions are going to help anybody, it will only make things more difficult for many, both trans and natal, and if trans people are that upset by reminders of their biological sex, then that is something that needs to be addressed in and of itself, medicalised and non-affirming treatment of their dysphoria should not be discouraged just because it’s uncomfortable if it prevents early deaths from serious sex-specific illnesses.
Trans people have to accept their status as a tiny minority, the transwoman who finds herself sat in the urology clinic with all the other males with dicky prostates deserves to be treated well but really needs to learn how to cope with a service that caters to men when they form 99.9% of the patients. The same applies to a trans man in gynaecology. The NHS will not deny them sex specific tests or treatment, so let’s bury that canard, but denying them to yourself because you refused to learn how to come to terms with your innate sex because it wasn’t ‘affirming’ is not just on you but also on those who encouraged and accommodated you in that thinking.You are the extreme outlier, you have to deal with that, not expect everyone else to fuck about on your behalf. At a base level it’s just polite, but more than that, it might be lifesaving.

I really like the way the Eve Appeal includes transmen and NB people on their website.

There is a lot of information there, it's easily read and it doesn't shirk from the fact that these are female cancers.

That's inclusion.

@DamsonDragon

They get problems that may resemble the same findings under a microscope, but it’s not cervical cancer, and it’s not a gynaecological cancer.

if it barks like a dog, and looks like a dog...

If it has the same cellular structure as something then it is that something, regardless of personal belief. Thats the beauty of science, its often rather easy to identify if something is the same on a factual, definitive basis, as much of science can be measured in absolutes.

Regardless of whether its cervical cancer or not, it strongly supports that transwomen post surgery require regular smears as in a ideal world women would be getting periodically.

Except it doesn't "bark" like a "dog" nor does it "look" like "dog" (bloody stupid analogy to use for a vagina, but there you go)

It's an artificial channel constructed from a penis, that does nothing except allow the TW to have some semblance of a sexual experience akin to that which a biological female would have.

There is no link to a Gspot (unless it is specifically created at the same time as the original surgery).
There is no self cleansing process.
There is no self lubricating process.
There is no ability to birth a child.
There is no link to a womb and therefore the ability to be a channel for the lining shed on a monthly basis.

Therefore, no... it isn't remotely a vagina. Because vaginas are not just for sexual gratification, they are inherently biologically female.

Therefore (posted too soon) should you get a cancerous mass inside of it, you do not have cervical/gynecological cancer.

Yes, that needs treating, yes of course they should be monitored for any issues. But we need to stop pretending that TW are anatomically & biologically the same as women.

really like the way the Eve Appeal includes transmen and NB people on their website.

There is a lot of information there, it's easily read and it doesn't shirk from the fact that these are female cancers.

That's inclusion.

Yes, I had a look last night. The front page is all about women. Women, women's stories, donate in her memory. They obviously do realise its sensitive to women to use the word women instead of "people". It's really quite stark when you read the info for trans FTM that they avoid any mention that cervical cancer is a thing which happens (even mostly) to female people but all the body parts they are talking about are female.

It's jarring, but it's good that they provide resources for this small group. I guess they've probably had some Stonewall or GI training.

What they don't seem to realise is to have any of that woman stuff on their front page at all for a female health charity is transphobic to the pitiless TRA zealots, and so I don't know why they're attacking women who point this out.

Sorry about the grammar of that post! Need coffee

I think the insta post has been deleted. The link didn't work this morning. Did anyone archive it?

[quote DamsonDragon]transwomen who have had gender confirmation surgery can get cervical cancer of the neo-vagina/cervix.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28217933/[/quote]
They don't have a cervix, so can't possibly get cervical cancer. And a 'neo vagina' isn't a vagina, it's an orifice constructed from penile skin. Nothing like a vagina at all, the word vagina is a descriptor on this case, not a biological term. Therefore it is not a gynaecological cancer.

Yes it looks like they've taken it down. Good. A really unhelpful contribution to the debate.

SciFiScream
It was there this morning as I read it - along with the tone deaf responses from the member of staff to women cancer sufferers who posted about being marginalised by the language used to insist that people with neovaginas must have cancer of the cervix. It's funny how invisible women become when we demand access to biologically accurate facts and language compared with the demands from men to own and dominate every single aspect of female experiences.
If a cancer charity for women's gynae cancers are so determined to centre men in their work to the extent that they distort science, biology and facts, then that charity no longer gets a £ from me.

It’s only female cancer charities that are tying themselves up in knots ti be so inclusive they don’t use the words woman or Girls

Yes, men's health charities are all "men, men, manly men" with their masculine-coded hobbies like football and golf. It's weird.

S'amazing isn't it?

Five minutes ago we weren't allowed to be women any more, we had to be cervix havers.

And sure as fate we now have people popping up to remind us that people born male have cervixes too if you stretch a lot of points, squint a bit and cross your fingers, so you can't associate that with 'female' any more. I wonder what we're supposed to call the class of half the human race born with female biology? Since it's all apparently dependent on the wishes, feels and needs of the other half, and the goal posts move every 30 seconds?

Its all to the same agenda isn't it? 'There is no such thing as a biological female'. Erasure and denial of females to benefit males.
So no, not swallowing that disrespectful rubbish or any of the rest of the female erasing rubbish. Male people do not have cervixes. TW have specific needs following some surgeries. TWATW. Male people and their enablers are just going to have to get a grip on the fact that respect and lived experience and choice of personal definitions either works equally both ways or it doesn't work at all.

It's not there now. Perhaps a grown up noticed what the social media person has been up to.

[quote DamsonDragon]transwomen who have had gender confirmation surgery can get cervical cancer of the neo-vagina/cervix.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28217933/[/quote]
That article makes no claims to suggest transwomen can get cervical cancer or that they have a cervix or even a ‘neocervix’. Did you actually read it?

If I got into such a controversial argument on my own company's social media, without very clear sign off of the parameters of what I could say from the senior team, I would definitely be disciplined, perhaps I'd be looking for a new job.

They may have taken it down, but they're probably off my list of potential new recipients of the dosh that formerly went to ActionAid.

It's all so confusing knowing who has what but I found a genius solution on a Twitter thread discussing trans inclusive healthcare.

"instead of having someone check a M/F box, give them an organ index instead. this way there aren’t assumptions made about who has what genitals/organs, and leaves room for people who have had surgeries to describe their bodies in specific terms"

"Honestly this would also be helpful for situations like a cis woman who’d had her womb removed. It’s a universally great idea"

Unless anyone can think of a simpler solution?

I liked to way Dr Emma Hilton (FondofBeetles) put it:

HPV is primarily a problem for mucous membranes. Penile skin is not a mucous membrane. Of course, transwomen should have regular health checked, including if necessary, internal exams. But they aren't at risk for cervical cancer.

If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it could be a simulated dog so it may not have any of the same needs as a dog so should not assume those needs. (Or it could be my 3 year old just as easily by that analogy) In this case, it may be a simulated organ but it is not a mucous membrane that requires the same checks for health.

It is presenting increased health risks for all involved for the sake of 'living in a 'nice' bubble'.

Someone who has never had a cervix is never going to get cervical cancer.

And rather than making their language inclusive for women who have transitioned and presumably have a fault good understanding of their anatomy, charities which are ostensibly focused on women's health really need to ensure that their messaging is accessible to those women who really need it - those women who have difficulty accessing healthcare for whatever reason. Language needs to be clear and easy to understand

I did wonder if this was a way for them to demonstrate that they really are not transphobic (FAOD, they aren't). The pressure brought to bear on any organisation focused on anything female-related to yield first the words women and girls and now female is huge.

I've seen organisations cave on women and girls and moving to female only to be immediately attacked for that, too. And like during the Cultural Revolution, I've seen these organisations then castigate themselves and promise to do better.

Just once I'd like to see them calmly explain that talking about women and girls in regard to issues only women and girls face is not exclusionary, transphobic, regressive, outdated or bigoted.

Amongst other things, I've advised companies on their marketing strategy and communication. I've drawn up customer profiles and buyer personas for clients to help them better target their marketing.

It simply doesn't make sense for organisations and companies whose target audience are women to communicate in this way.

You don't build personas based on the smallest fraction of your clientele. You build them based on large groups. What do the majority have in common, what need do we meet etc.

If you want to be thorough (or have identified an issue with your conversion rates) you can also include barriers to conversion in these profiles. What might stop a customer from buying my product or service? And again, you're looking at large groups when you do that - one in three customers, one in five potential donors etc.

In my view, none of these customers are taking the risk of alienating their main customers for the sake of signalling to 1%. No, they're doing this because they've been told that the majority of their customers expect a progressive stance from them. And they've been told that means changing their language. And amongst those responsible for marketing, especially social media marketing, many staff members (and interns) disproportionately fall into that group.

To the detriment of their long-term success.

(The group who expect a progressive stance from the organisation or company).

I need coffee

I've seen organisations cave on women and girls and moving to female only to be immediately attacked for that, too. And like during the Cultural Revolution, I've seen these organisations then castigate themselves and promise to do better.

Yes, as I said earlier, they seem to think they can put up some trans friendly stuff and that will placate TRAs. That they can continue to write "woman" everywhere else. That's touchingly naive and optimistic.

Why do TRAs thrown out these links to studies that say the opposite if what they claim? Do they think we don’t read them?

There is DamsonDragon with their study of bowel and penile tissue (which doesn’t distinguish between two very distinct tissue types or sex of the 20 participants). Mermaids linking a study to refute JKR claims that transwomen have the same level of criminality as other men which showed that transwomen had the same level of criminality as other men. Cambridge Rape centre referencing a study of 32 transgender individuals (22 female) who had experience of sexual violence and inexplicably claimed it showed prevalence of sexual violence against transwomen. And those are just three recent ones.

@Aesopfable

Why do TRAs thrown out these links to studies that say the opposite if what they claim? Do they think we don’t read them?

There is DamsonDragon with their study of bowel and penile tissue (which doesn’t distinguish between two very distinct tissue types or sex of the 20 participants). Mermaids linking a study to refute JKR claims that transwomen have the same level of criminality as other men which showed that transwomen had the same level of criminality as other men. Cambridge Rape centre referencing a study of 32 transgender individuals (22 female) who had experience of sexual violence and inexplicably claimed it showed prevalence of sexual violence against transwomen. And those are just three recent ones.

They rely on people taking things at face value because that’s the norm for Twitter. Another example is the Swedish study that “shows” fewer than 1% regret transition, when in fact it’s fewer than 1% who regret gonadectomy, and as a result proves there is no evidence regarding all of the women and girls taking puberty blockers, hormones and having mastectomies.