Dr Michael Brady NHS CQC GIDS inspector - 'Important message for everyone with a cervix

[FindTheTruth]

Michael Brady - The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is due to inspect The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, Gender Identity Services GIDS

Will GIDS review questions (to get feedback from people using the service, parents, relatives, carers, and staff) use words like 'girl' or 'woman' or 'cervix haver'? or 'boy' or 'prostate owner'?

'Important message for everyone with a cervix.' re smear tests
twitter.com/drmbrady/status/1310178657940525057

Do lesbians and bisexual women not need smear tests or do they not count?

I think it is very clear that yes - they do need smear tests and no - they do not count.

@ancientgran

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. You won't find any woman on here who hasn't discussed this situation at length. About what determines whether you are a woman.

It's an adult, human female. Of or denoting the sex who bears eggs.

The keyword is denoting.

Women who have had ovaries, fallopian tubes, a cervix or their uterus removed are uniquely women, based what denotes their sex. In this case, their reproductive organs.

Men do not have female reproductive organs removed. Men without female reproductive organs do not get diagnosed as anything. If they go to the doctor, saying they have no cervix, they will be escorted from the building.

You are a woman because your sex denotes the specific category who bears eggs. The eggs being present are not a requirement.

Where are the involved and divisive conversations about 'what makes a man'?

Guessing not many places.

Meanwhile men have forever classified females and found us approved or wanting.

I suppose men just cut to the chase and beat up the men they don't see as qualifying.

Which brings us full circle. Doesn't it.

@Antibles

You really can only draw the conclusion that some prostate havers really love the virtuous opportunity to do down women. While smiling smugly saying "we know you hate it but it's good for you"

Yes and if we hate something and they love that, that's not just misogyny, it's sadism.

Double that because we can also be told that we are bigots for protesting the loss of our definition of our biological sex and gender.

I don’t get the “LGBT inclusive” part - why would sexuality matter?

@NiceGerbil

Where are the involved and divisive conversations about 'what makes a man'?

Guessing not many places.

Meanwhile men have forever classified females and found us approved or wanting.

It is interesting how sexist the process of erasing biological sex actually is, given that it is a project by progressives! I have collected examples of this erasure for about a year (and have more than thirty articles saved).

During that time I found exactly one health article about prostate cancer which even mentioned transgender women and nonbinary male-bodied people. But even that one listed 'men' first. Not cisgender men, but men.

There are a few articles about sexuality which erase all terms referring to men and women, the most famous being the Teen Vogue article about anal sex where people are prostate-havers and non-prostate- havers,, and where the helpful diagram of the non-prostate-haver's pelvis has erased the clitoris!!!!

Yes what has LGBT got to do with cervices?!
Any gay men out there with a cervix?
They mean trans. LGBT means trans now.

@ChelseaCat

I don’t get the “LGBT inclusive” part - why would sexuality matter?

Because there's a documented issue with lower uptake of smear tests among lesbian women and to a smaller degree among bisexual women in same-sex relationships. But of course, a public health campaign aiming to increase awareness and eventually uptake among LB women would have to actually talk about sex. Difficult to do when you're in the sex doesn't exist camp. Because in order to increase uptake, you have to explain to LB women that the HPV causing cervical cancer can a) be submitted during lesbian sex, and b) have been transmitted in any heterosexual encounters a woman might have had in the past. Awkward to do if sex doesn't exist.

Of course, what he should be saying would be LBT inclusive, with the T standing for females who identify as trans. But that's not what he means. It's all about the T now. The male T who resent female reproductive systems being equated with women. Hence we're "everyone with a cervix" now.

ancientgran Of course many women have had their wombs surgically removed, or were born without one, and some never had periods, and loads never become pregnant or give birth to a child........ but every woman has xx chromosomes and that binds us as a group, our basic biology. Getting offended because one part of female biology doesn't apply to an individual just plays into the hands of the patriarchy and all who despise womanhood.

Thank you @CharlieParley - wasn’t aware of those stats

Double that because we can also be told that we are bigots for protesting the loss of our definition of our biological sex and gender.

Indeed - I read on twitter that any man with a dress and lipstick is now a ‘woman’, but a woman who is 9 months pregnant is not a woman but a ‘birthing person’.

And we are the supposed bigots...

but every woman has xx chromosomes and that binds us as a group, our basic biology.

Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with this.

There are a number of chromosomal abnormalities where a woman might not have XX and still be female.

I don't think it's our basic biology that binds is together, I think it's a mixture of the biology and the way that society treats us because of the perceived potential of that biology.

Being in the sex class that gestates the young means that we inevitably get treat differently to not being in that sex class.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing on its own, gestating young is a massive thing and accommodations need to be made socially and legally. When it becomes shit is when a value judgement is put on it and when women are expected to act and be a certain way personally and are punished when we don't conform.

Sex differences and and gender aren't the same thing, and I think it's totally reasonable to say 'women are the sex category that gestate the young so we need to make sure they have protections in law to make sure they are safe during that vulnerable time' or 'due to the fact that women as a class are smaller we need sex segregated spaces when they are vulnerable'
What's not reasonable to say is 'women gestate the young so all of them must be kind and caring and put everyone else before themselves'.

I don't think sexism comes from chromosomes alone, it's that layered with societal expectations of that biology.
A female fetus isn't aborted in India due to the chromosomes alone but because of what that society has decided about the value of those chromosomes.

Trans women don't experience this because everyone knows that trans women are in fact male and don't have the biological potential to gestate young.
Ok there might be the very very rare case where a trans woman is able to completely pass and no one knows she's trans but that's is not the case for the vast majority of them and would be the anomaly that proved the rule.

For instance a married trans woman in her 30's won't be passed over for a promotion in case she gets pregnant. (This is an example from my life, I can't have kids and it didn't stop it happening because they didn't know that, it was my perceived potential that was the issue).

I think when we untangle it and say it's just chromosomes that make us a woman then we do run the risk of ignoring people with intersex conditions and losing sight of the what those chromosomes signify.

I have no idea what chromosomes I have (I'm pretty sure I have XX but I've never been pregnant and I haven't had any tests so there's a slim chance I don't) but I have been socialised as female and the world perceives me as part of the sex class that gestates young with everything that goes with it.

I don't think you can untie the material biology of femaleness with being brought up female.
The TRA's say it's only the gender that matters and ignores the biology but I don't believe it's just the biology in itself either. It's all part of the female experience and quite frankly it's bloody ridiculous that the TRAs have put us in a position where we have to defend this.

We ALL know what a woman is. It's an adult human female.

A trans woman is not a woman because 1) they are not female
2) they have not been socialised as a female.

If a trans woman was able to be socialised as female they still wouldn't be a woman because they are male.
If we were able to change every cell in their bodies to female they still wouldn't be a woman because they weren't socialised as female.

This things are linked. I don't think we should concede female socialisation to the TRA's, we need it for lots of other fights.

(Sorry that was really long and I'm aware it wasn't all relevant to your original post, I just went off on a tangent).

@ChelseaCat

Thank you *@CharlieParley* - wasn’t aware of those stats

I wouldn't have known either, but I read up on barriers to accessing smear tests yesterday as well as best practice, which mentioned this in particular (lesbian women used to be told they didn't need smear tests by doctors, because it was thought if you didn't have sex with men you wouldn't get the virus and sometimes they would also hear that from older lesbians who had been told they didn't need smear tests by their own doctors).

The best practice guide I read (NHS, 2014) had a very sensible, considerate section on women who identify as trans in it, and how to handle it if they transitioned medically, registered as male and therefore no longer received invitations.

The biggest section by far was about women with disabilities and women with learning disabilities and how to ensure they can access the service (and for the latter how to make sure they can give consent and understand the whole screening process).

That guide talked of women throughout and on the question of female-to-male patients used appropriate language and pronouns. Why we can't do that now, is obviously not a mystery, we all know why, but I would like to see an evidence-based, public health focused answer to the question.

That Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (that Hillary Cass was President of) seems a bit captured.

A big rainbowy icon to draw my eye to their equality diversity and incluson push on the first page I visited. Mention of Ben Summerskill ex ceo of Stonewall as co-chair of a panel to address diversity issues.

Many of the usual suspects on the resources page: Juno Dawson, gires, mermaids

www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/rainbow-health-youth-supporters-pack-lgbt-health-experiences

And a link to Brook Advisory who appear full in with trans ideology:

www.brook.org.uk/topics/gender/

Not casting any aspersions about Hillary Cass and Ben Summerskill btw, I have no idea about their views on trans. I do think there appears to be a gravy train/job creation route for diversity consultants though, rather like charities.

Anybody who would say that if you don't have a womb then you can't be a woman isn't very bright and that is NOT gender critical feminist position at all. Well let's hope people stop saying it

I haven't seen anyone saying that, and I doubt if they do they're an informed feminist woman. I think they're just ignorant. But "only women have a womb", or "wombs are an issue for women" are different statements referring to being biologically female. I'm not going to qualify a sex class issue with "some".

One of his other retweets is this

'In 2018, our Women’s Programme launched the Sexual Wellbeing Survey for women who have sex with women (WSW). '

He needs to make his fucking mind up.

Lord Lucas tweet to Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Tweet
Ralph Lucas @LordLucasCD
I have dropped in a question for written answer to see if the government agrees:Whether the statement of the Care Quality Commission on Twitter on 1st November 2020, in justifying their use of the word ‘gender’ in place of the word ‘sex’ used in the Equality Act 2010 in their Equality and Human Rights statement (at cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-strategy-plans/equality-human-rights), that “Because everyone covered under the term ‘Sex’ is included in the term ‘Gender’, whereas some people may feel excluded by the use of the term Sex. Therefore, the use of Gender is a more inclusive term and we’re comfortable that we comply with the Equality Act 2010.” accurately reflects government policy, which is not the way that the act is written, if I judge it right.

Good for Lord Lucas,

Baroness Emma Nicholson tweeted letter to CQC Chairman today... might it be wise to ask your legal advisors to check your institutions use of the word 'gender' and it's apparent substitution for the protected characteristic 'sex'.

“Because everyone covered under the term ‘Sex’ is included in the term ‘Gender’, whereas some people may feel excluded by the use of the term Sex

some people may fell excluded by the use of the term 'sex'

That's nice and clear, then. Who? Who might feel excluded by the use of the term sex? And what about people who are sick to the back teeth of gender ideology and declare themselves gender free? THEY might feel excluded by the term gender!! We ALL have a sex, whether we are happy with that or not!!

Because everyone covered under the term ‘Sex’ is included in the term ‘Gender’, whereas some people may feel excluded by the use of the term Sex

I don't have a gender. I have a sex. I feel excluded by the use of the term gender.

Who might feel excluded by the use of the term sex?

The type of individual in a mammalian species who doesn’t have a sex.

Oh wait...

Of course we ALL in our non-sexed species are so included in gender NOT

I missed this the first time round. Fuming.

Really quite seriously, anyone with English as an additional language and still getting to grips with it could struggle to read or rather understand this ad.

As too could anyone with mild reading and comprehension difficulties.

A health message flagged "women" speaks directly to women. And the vast majority of females know and accept they're women.

Woman and women is a word that would be learnt early in language for a variety of reasons including safeguarding.

'Women and people with a cervix' could be acceptable; still rather garbled and not a clear message as public health messages need to be.

Diversity has become an exclusive narcissistic political tool that's potentially really harming women.

Everyone I know calls it smear test

When this man calls it cervical screening he doesn’t seem to understand what women actually call it

What woman says I am off to get my cervical screening

But from his inculsuvie message he doesn’t even care who he is talking to as long as he gets his woke cookies from his equally woke
Friends and is seen to be correct

What a dangerous man he is wielding power like that

Women don’t seem to matter to him at all