New Statesman article - justifying "individuals with a cervix" message

[GreenUp]

Not sure if it's been posted but did anyone see this New Statesman article trying to justify using "individuals with a cervix" healthcare messaging by claiming it's more inclusive to trans men?

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/08/why-should-cnn-tweet-about-individuals-cervix

The twitter thread on this is full of woke young women saying that we need to centre trans people (so screw all the learning disabled, English as second language and health illiterate females out there) as they are the most oppressed.

twitter.com/PronouncedAlva/status/1290248040222093318?s=20

Here we go with the 'inclusive' stuff again. It is inclusive to trans men but exclusive to all women who base their gender identities on having female bodies. The two sides are reverse images, because trans men don't want the female body called female and women do want that.

So a clash of rights exists and we need a term for biologically female people.

The word woman is inclusive. It includes all women. I don’t even need to fall back on the needs of women with English as a second language. Woman is the word.

The thing is, this is nothing to do with the interests of trans men and everything about removing 'women' as a term for female people. If it were truly about the best possible cancer care, this attack would encompass the messages around men's care, too. After all, transwomen retain male biology. They are affected by public health messaging around male cancers. Yet there has not been a single effort to force the words to change around prostate cancer. Why? Because focusing on language there would not be an attack on women's rights to define ourselves, that's why.

If this were about cancer care, then the same pressure would be applied to the word 'man'. It's not. Because this is about removing any way for women to talk about our own lives, and experiences, and how our bodies impact the way we are treated in this world. And at a time where rape has been effectively decriminalised, porn culture is everywhere, women are made redundant in pregnancy as a commonplace and the reform promised on that since 2017 is yet to happen, and a girl is raped on school premises every day of the school year... then that's rather a major fucking problem. And how can you name that problem, if you aren't allowed to name the group affected in any but the most dehumanising of ways?

Apart from anything else, in terms of cancer care half of all women don't know that they have a cervix, but every trans man and non-binary female knows that they have a woman's biology. So if the real concern was the noble desire to save 'even a single life' then they would want the word woman used, to protect all individuals with a cervix who don't actually know what a cervix is. Using the language that best communicates accurate meaning to the largest number of people saves lives. They don't want or care about that, because it's just part of the same concerted effort to detach the very language to describe women, as individuals and as a collective, from women, so that men can insist upon denying us any workable, definable, non-dehumanising category of our own.

This has nothing to do with improved engagement with cancer screening, and everything to do with misogyny.

That's an excellent post wellbehavedwoman
The internalised fawning misogyny from so many women on the left is enraging - throwing their less privileged sisters under the bus without a thought.

A few quotes. The first one is idiotic.

What???? I think people who have a cervix pretty well realise that they have one by the time they need their first cervical screen

Does anyone consciously know they have a cervix before their first pregnancy? You know you have a heart, lungs and stomach because they do things you notice. Women clearly will notice they have periods but that in itself doesn't mean one is aware one has a cervix. Everyone has a large intestine and a small intestine and a colon but unless they aren't working properly I bet no one is consciously aware of them. They are all just part of the body that deals with that function. The cervix is part of the body which deals with sex and babies.

And these 2 very sensible comments.

What screams out at me from this article is that there needs to be a cervical cancer campaign aimed at trans men. Because those are terrifying stats and the only way to solve it is to clearly talk to trans men. ‘People’ make it sound vague and weird for everyone

If they choose to change their sex marker surely they need to take some responsibility and ensure they are screened? They haven’t changed sex and in medical matters sex is very important and very relevant

Admittedly if you change your marker in NHS databases you will miss getting the mail shots every five years but that argues for retaining and ensuring databases note sex as well as gender.
The other and obvious check would be via a GP with whom trans people would surely have some regular contact for repeat hormone prescriptions/injections/implants?

Immature argument?

Subscription cancelled. Not paying to be lectured.

And what about prostrate cancer? Are those campaigns inclusive?

"We have a woefully immature standard of public discussion around trans issues, which has yet to catch up with the legislative accommodations for trans people."

We also have institutional capture which has far exceeded legislative accomodations for trans people, so swings and roundabouts, I guess. I'm glad she acknowledges though that "A concern around more complicated language and the erasure of women in what is broadly a women’s health issue with a major uptake problem is undoubtedly the more sensitive and sensible end of the objections to CNN’s wording."
I'm quite surprised LOJ has commended the article given he absolutely denies any clash of rights...

Oh FUCK OFF, Owen!

The author has not really followed the field if she doesn't know that many of the vocal activists demanding inclusive language are nowadays nonbinary persons with cervices who don't experience gender dysphoria (if I got that right).

But the argument in the New Statesman to use the individual with a cervix to benefit trans men is very wrong.

First, even if every single one of them read the piece and then immediately got a pap smear, the total number of people in that group would still be a lot less than the likely total number of women who don't go to get the smear because they don't know what a cervix is.

Second, trans men do get sent an invitation to a cervical cancer screening if they have registered as female with their doctor.

So probably it is the dysphoria they feel from doing so that is the real problem. It could well be that different campaigns should be aimed at trans me and that health care workers should learn how to take the sample from trans men without distressing them.

"There’s a new iteration of the bitter public debate in the UK over trans rights..."

Trans rights and...? No, just trans rights.

@midgebabe

And what about prostrate cancer? Are those campaigns inclusive?

Never, really. The closest it has come to that is one article where the likely groups affected by prostate cancer were listed, beginning with men (not cis men). Then came trans women, then nonbinary people with male bodies.

No use of 'ejaculators' or anything similar.

Even aside from all the other issues, it’s not accurate.

Some women who’ve had hysterectomies and had their cervix removed still need smear tests. Some just once, others regularly until they are 65.

So it’s not just “individuals with a cervix” who need it.

How can OJ be supporting that article. She's not a doctor, she's not an expert on trans health.

Two faced .

Oh oh oh I know! Is it because he’s a misogynistic arsehole who hates women?

nepeta
So it appears that transwomen are women, transmen are individuals with a cervix.

Inclusive!

🙄

That should’ve been bold not italics.

"trans men are roughly half as likely to have had a pap test in the last year as cis (not trans) women"

Is it any wonder, when everyone from the NHS to the New Statesman goes along with the idea that these young females are men?
The NHS has been recording gender (identity) instead of sex for years now. I don't know who demanded it, but I doubt it was 'cis-not-trans-women.'

Women, however, can fuck right off, clearly.

As well as the word woman, do we now also need a campaign to raise awareness of the meaning and extreme usefulness of the term AND? I mean, ffs: if it’s genuinely all about inclusiveness of trans men, then why the fuck aren’t they talking about “women AND people with cervixes”?? (And how the hell does one pluralise cervix?)

I think I know why: if the problem is genuinely about inclusiveness, and it’s solved with an AND, then we wouldn’t be talking about about women having to share their services with anyone who happens to self ID as a woman. We’d be talking instead about investing in a third set of services - toilets and DV shelters for a start - for trans people (and trans women in particular). But that’s not the focus, for 2 reasons I think.

1. For all the rhetoric about valuing trans people, there doesn’t seem any appetite to actually spend additional public and/or private resources on them, so when it comes down to it, the scant resources spent on women instead have to be shared (side note: domestic violence shelters grew out of the women’s movement. Where is the trans equivalent of this? Do they exist?)

1. There’s a chunk of the TRAs who I don’t think are actually genuinely interested or concerned about services for people in need or who are vulnerable (see above re shelters) - it’s rather all about “passing” as a woman for them, so access to women’s services is the be all and end all; it’s about psychological affirmation, not bespoke parallel additional services that would address both the need of trans women AND keep women safe

I do agree with the writer insofar that it wasn't just a 'silly' tweet'. I think the endgame - whether CNN were aware of it or not - is far more sinister than that. wellbehavedwomen has already explained it better than I could.

There was a time when I would have compromised on 'Women and trans men' but I now think that this is about a medical procedure and that bringing gender into it just confuses matters. I would however support a campaign along the lines of, 'Transmen, you need get your cervix checked!' I'd also support one for transwomen on prostate checking, although I think men need to take the lead on that.

Also - and this is just a personal gripe - 'individuals' is so long winded and pompous in a message that should be clear and simple. Why use 5 syllables when you can use 2?

In the comments following Lush Edinburgh's facebook post last night, I saw several photos of classic books, films and song lyrics all edited to change the word Women for "menstruators" or "people with a cervix". It was funny, but really highlighted how ludicrous changing the language is.

@wellbehavedwomen is absolutely right. If this was really about improving access to healthcare there would be an equal focus on male-related issues. There isn't. Apparently trans people aren't hurt or triggered by references to men having prostates or anything similar.

I suspect when Movember comes round a few trans activists will realise it might be a good idea to "protest" about this. It would actually be a good idea to start having some plans in place for November.

Here's one of my arguments against "individual with a cerix".

Take the following examples of unfairness:

• Young people who menstruate missing school because they can't afford sanitary products
• People who have given birth being more likely to be made redundant
• People with a vagina more likely to be trafficked for sex
• People who experience menopause not getting support from employers they need

(I could go on, of course...)

If we specify these in terms of the relevant body part, it obscures the fact that we're talking about a (massively) overlapping group of people, and what they have in common is a female reproductive system. (What was the word again?...)

What if we looked at all those menstruators, vagina-havers etc. as a single group, and found that statistical analysis revealed other problems e.g. that this group gets paid less than those outside the group, that they do more of the unpaid care work, that they are more likely to die when they experience a car crash, and if they have a heart attack, it is more likely to be misdiagnosed.

None of these problems are directly related to any one reproductive organ or function. They are related to having a female reproductive system, and the power imbalance that goes along with that. You can't reduce this down to individual biological organs and functions.

If only this group could name itself, and organise itself to protect its rights...