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

*nepeta

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).*

Yup, and the replies to her really back that up. The suggestions re "women and trans men" or a separate campaign for trans men are being met with "What about non binary and gender fluid people?"

If this is a public health matter why haven't they market tested it. Ask the question 'women between the ages of 25 and 60 need a smear test' and 'Cervix havers need a smear test'. See how many people think it applies to them and translate into lives saved. They haven't done this because I think they know the answer. Even a couple of percentage points is massively significant and if it showed a 20-30% difference to not use the better message would be criminal. Let's ask why this hasn't been market tested.

@Apollo440

If this is a public health matter why haven't they market tested it. Ask the question 'women between the ages of 25 and 60 need a smear test' and 'Cervix havers need a smear test'. See how many people think it applies to them and translate into lives saved. They haven't done this because I think they know the answer. Even a couple of percentage points is massively significant and if it showed a 20-30% difference to not use the better message would be criminal. Let's ask why this hasn't been market tested.

Yep!

• @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.* The part I don’t understand if that if all of these organisations have been approached by the activists and are sufficiently convinced by the ‘inclusive’ argument why don’t they make their own leap of logic and update the men’s anatomy equivalent? Are they being explicitly told not to by the activists and if so why are they not questioning the whole issue? Are they of the mind that the uptake rates for men in screening are so low that they don’t want to put men at risk and if so have they deliberately ignored the fact that they are putting women at risk?

@Portnlemon

Immature argument?

Subscription cancelled. Not paying to be lectured.

Yep, that's the last straw for me too. I'm given a subscription every year as a present. Time to contact the donor to ask them to change it to summat else. Maybe even the bloody Spectator.

I don't have a subscription but personally I wouldn't cancel over one article - it's the overall balance that matters to me. I think it's always useful to see what the opposing arguments are - and they're pretty feeble in this case.

Of course it’s nothing to do with healthcare.

If it was, not only would there be similar calls for inclusion around term men, but more seriously, they would they not exclude women who have had their cervix removed often because of a risk of cancer who are no longer being targeted when often they are most at risk.

Many of the arguments illustrate good reasons why it shouldn't be possible to change your sex marker on the NHS. People wring their hands about TM not being caught in campaigns or be in receipt of smear test letters, but surely that would all be solved if they weren't allowed to muck around with such essential information!

@HPFA
Oh, the New Statesman has already jumped on Movember, only it was to accuse it of being racist because, like, tashes are really popular in India.

www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/11/why-movember-isnt-all-its-cracked-be

I shit you not...

I find this whole ‘cervix haver’ argument really disingenuous. It’s not about trans men at all, like people with intersex conditions they’re just useful and conveniently silent props to be wheeled out when required. The real reason is transwomen’s feels not being validated by their obvious lack of womanly biological bits, exactly the same as their gaslighting of lesbians.

Is men’s healthcare similarly required to be inclusive?

Er, no. I harvested this from a quick web search.

LITERAL VIOLENCE. What about women with prostates, eh? What about non binary people with testicles?

It is as clear as day that the battle will only be fought over who are permitted to call themselves women, and if people like the writer of that article can’t see the howling sexism in that, I really can’t help them.

And one more for luck. Sorry it’s all so triggering, lads.

Just to make it clear: I entirely support the clear, direct messaging on these websites and understand that this is the way to address a serious male health problem. I’m in no way belittling it.

Sense of humour failure? The TRAs are watching and they have no sense of humour, sadly.

I tried to say, in a witty way, that it isn't healthy to be overly obsessed with women's reproductive organs.

Will this get reported as well?

Trans men are already lifetime patients with their need to be prescribed continuous testosterone to maintain their appearance. They are engaged with the health service far more than most people already. Surely their care includes information about the screening and check ups they need already without all this virtue signalling.

I can't believe that this is about letting transmen know they need a smear as if they are disengaged from the system when they have made themselves completely dependent on regular engagement already. Or am I missing something?

It makes a change to see the woke championing transmen though. Usually they barely get a look in. I don't really understand how biology is important on this issue but it's exclusionary the rest of the time. If we start a club for people born with a cervix will that be inclusive or exclusive?

My take on this is that this sort of thing gets published when people haven't been trained properly as reporters, don't go out and search for actual stories, yet somehow get jobs as journalists.

The writer is supposed to be a political correspondent. There's an eleventy-billion political stories out there waiting to be told but no, instead we get a brain fart about how to talk about the medical assessment of deep viscera only found in females.

Fuck me.

I'm not sure why the word females couldn't have been used. If it's true that "no one is denying sex is a thing!" surely 'females over 25' would be an acceptable way of putting it. (And yes, I'm aware females has now been co-opted as well.)

Completely agree Packing.

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

Most are either to young to remember, or have conveniently forgotten what being a woman means and implies.

Indeed for Mhari Black to be elected as an MP at the age of 19, a woman, and a lesbian, is a privilege indeed. Or those young 'women of colour, such as Ash Sarkar, now have an influential public voice is in total thanks to what previous generations of women have achieved.

If transmen cannot cope with acknowledging the individual needs of their particular body which falls into the generic sex category of female (which encompasses a very wide range of differences but still, female) then their treatment has failed them by not enough focus on mental health support. If they cannot even acknowledge that their medical records need to reflect their body’s needs (including the treatments they have received) so they receive notification of tests that are available, that is a major issue to be addressed.

Not to make the rest of the sex category change their language to suit them.

Besides, If a transman is on cross sex hormones, surely they are doing regular doctors visits to check for atrophy and other issues that might arise. There is plenty of discussion needed to address the specific need of their bodies. Let’s address these things specifically and stop dehumanizing women to body parts. Let’s do targeted communication aimed at these needs as they have been clear that they don’t want to be lumped into women’s communications. if it has to be generic, then it is women AND transmen or Use female.

In this era where communication is inexpensive and can easily be tailored, why is this even an issue?

Oh yes... deliberate erosion of the word women so it lacks meaning and males can claim it too....

It makes a change to see the woke championing transmen though. Usually they barely get a look in.

Trans men only get wheeled out when men can use them as a stick to beat women down with. Else there'd be a massive push to get the 'men' changed in health messages. But it's almost like TW don't want to be included in that. It's becoming clearer by the day that this is just a women bullying exercise, and they use trans men to achieve it.

I haven't heard a single person answer why TW aren't going after the word man, has anyone else?

"And what about prostrate cancer? Are those campaigns inclusive?"

Personally, I think every time an article simply refers to men's semen, or men's prostates, we should point out it is also transphobic because it's ignores transwomen who may also have semen / prostates too.

Yet somehow, there never seems to need to be an uproar about these articles failing to include transwomen in men's health issues. (Only that trans men aren't included in women's health issues). Funny that, but I think we should consistently point it out, as this is exactly where the hypocrisy lies....

Come to think of it, anything referring to 'women' is hastily taken down and reworded at the request of one person, such as Action Aid, I heart JKR, etc.

I may start a campaign on behalf of TW and non binary people that are being excluded by use of the word 'man'. They should rightfully be referred to as prostrate havers. How quickly do we think they'd erase the word man at one persons say so, I wonder? 🤔

Why on earth are non binary people relevant to any of this? It's completely irrelevant. We don't bother saying women, dames, ladies, queens, baronesses, etc so why do we have to single out non binary as a special category of people. Unless that's the answer, they would like to be a special category of people?