Macmillan Cancer knows what females and males are

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Perfectly clear in diagram and word

www.facebook.com/macmillancancer/photos/a.10150138540297199/10158481264707199/

Well done Macmillan - I will remember that if donating to charity.

Macmillan has spent years knowing and I'm glad it hasn't let a bunch of gender ideologists send them off track.

Don’t get your hopes up:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/cervical-cancer

Apparently ‘people’ get cervical cancer.

But luckily they are clear that only men get prostate cancer:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/prostate-cancer/early-prostate-cancer

This link is more encouraging:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/diagnostic-tests/cervical-screening

They need to get their house in order. This has been on there for ages. They know this is an issue. I have complained. I suggest others do too.

I was hoping that as this is their latest campaign it might show the start of a leaning away from the unecessary inclusivity.

Gargh! Pressed Post too soon.

I have sent them a link to their own campaign and to the first link in your list ThinEnd and asked if they could start to repair the damage done and change that solitary people with women.

@ThinEndOfTheWedge

Don’t get your hopes up:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/cervical-cancer

Apparently ‘people’ get cervical cancer.

But luckily they are clear that only men get prostate cancer:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/prostate-cancer/early-prostate-cancer

This link is more encouraging:

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/diagnostic-tests/cervical-screening

They need to get their house in order. This has been on there for ages. They know this is an issue. I have complained. I suggest others do too.

Looks like the people in your first link is just a different word choice rather than a pandering to trans ideology.

Ad the last one seems good to me:

If you are a trans man and still have a cervix, you should have screening too. However, you may not be sent an invitation if you are registered as male with your GP. Let your GP know if you want to have cervical screening, so they can arrange regular tests for you.

[quote CuriousaboutSamphire]Perfectly clear in diagram and word

www.facebook.com/macmillancancer/photos/a.10150138540297199/10158481264707199/[/quote]
Now you've gone and torn it.
Now you've pointed this out the activist dementors will descend on Mcmillans and it will be changed by this time next week.😕

That's good to see. I used to work for them and would be disappointed otherwise. I daren't look too hard at another organisation I used to work for as I strongly suspect I would be disappointed.

Looks like the people in your first link is just a different word choice rather than a pandering to trans ideology.

Different word choice - as in warning ‘people’ like my husband about cervical cancer, but not ‘women’ like my aunt? More like deliberate word choice. Earlier iterations of this literature have been around for ages and would have ‘woman’ stated. They deliberately chose to remove the word woman.

3200 ‘people’ over ‘women’ halves the incidence in important healthcare information and doesn’t tell women they are the target patient population.

There is no mention of the word woman anywhere.

Not clear. Not good enough.

Curious - Re the breast information - I think that the wording was always more appropriate so may not be an example of improving their literature. I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they have separate male breast cancer information.

Macmillan if you are reading...I will boycott the coffee mornings and will not be baking for them.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I was hoping that as this is their latest campaign it might show the start of a leaning away from the unecessary inclusivity.

It is never about inclusivity - it is always about exclusion of women’s voices.

Please don't. Campaign to have truly inclusive literature - which should, as the example gives, specifically warn trans people that they are at risk of the diseases of their biology, and if their sex marker has changed will need to ensure they are called for screening, but should retain 'man' and 'woman' for sexed cancers, for clarity.

Macmillan do amazing work for people with cancer, in every way - cancer is expensive and they give cancer patients financial help; they provide helpline advice on every possible aspect; they provide actual care - the 24 hour helpline at the Royal Marsden hospital, which saves lives for chemo patients especially, is Macmillan funded.

Campaign, write, voice concerns, absolutely. But please don't stop supporting people with cancer over this.

@ThinEndOfTheWedge

Looks like the people in your first link is just a different word choice rather than a pandering to trans ideology.

Different word choice - as in warning ‘people’ like my husband about cervical cancer, but not ‘women’ like my aunt? More like deliberate word choice. Earlier iterations of this literature have been around for ages and would have ‘woman’ stated. They deliberately chose to remove the word woman.

3200 ‘people’ over ‘women’ halves the incidence in important healthcare information and doesn’t tell women they are the target patient population.

There is no mention of the word woman anywhere.

Not clear. Not good enough.

Curious - Re the breast information - I think that the wording was always more appropriate so may not be an example of improving their literature. I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they have separate male breast cancer information.

But they use the word women in reference to cervical cancer/screening on another page, so this one example clearly wasn't about a deliberate removal of the word women (I'd be spitting feathers if I thought it was deliberate), otherwise they would have removed all references to women from their site.

Would it have been better to have woman rather than people? Probably, yes.
Does failing to achieve 100% linguistic purity mean it's a trans conspiracy? No.

And I think women can work out for themselves that they are the target audience for cervical tests!

What started out as a positive thread about MacMillan has descended into an attack because of one use of the word people, despite their clear, sensible, and frequent use of women and men throughout their site.

Let's keep our anger for companies who are genuinely trying to erase women rather than companies that have made one little slip up. You don't have to be perfect to be good.

Men do get breast cancer, but the risk is obviously much higher for women so it's right that women are targeted for campaigns.

I'm GC but I don't have an issue with transmen being included in cervical cancer awareness. As long as the word woman is used too. I don't think it matters if a charity aims to be inclusive (even for a tiny minority) as long as the word woman isn't erased.

But they use the word women in reference to cervical cancer/screening on another page, so this one example clearly wasn't about a deliberate removal of the word women (I'd be spitting feathers if I thought it was deliberate), otherwise they would have removed all references to women from their site.

Their cervical cancer pdf leaflet doesn’t use the word woman.

Other examples in leaflet:

Overview- "This booklet is about cancer of the cervix (cervical cancer). It is for anyone who has been diagnosed with cervical cancer."

How do we know from this who will get cervical cancer?

Risk - No mention that the main risk is to be female. The risk for males is zero.

In contrast the other Breast and Testicular
Cancer leaflets below are clear and use the word women or men and that testicular cancer is a risk for men only.

And I think women can work out for themselves that they are the target audience for cervical tests!-

No - 40% of women don’t know they have a cervix. Health literacy is very low. Most women still refer to their vagina when they mean vulva . And what about women for who English is not their first language/ reading difficulties/learning difficulties etc.

I haven’t said they have entirely erased the word woman - hence the other link I provided. But in places, where the word woman needs to be, they have actively chosen to remove it.

Health information should be explicit, clear and targeted. This is not and puts women at risk.

I haven’t said it’s a trans conspiracy - but since you mention it - I’d still bet money on it.

I'm GC but I don't have an issue with transmen being included in cervical cancer awareness. As long as the word woman is used too. I don't think it matters if a charity aims to be inclusive (even for a tiny minority) as long as the word woman isn't erased.

Agreed.

You're more concerned about semantics than supporting a vital charity.

You're ridiculous.

@ChaChaCha2012

You're more concerned about semantics than supporting a vital charity.

You're ridiculous.

way to change hearts and minds eh?

Oh, and for us, the word woman is not semantics. If you have any doubt about the difference between semantics and important issues, please familiarise yourself with the Irish example of a trans woman in a woman's prison, hot on the heels of our health service erasing the word woman from cervical cancer information.

*You're more concerned about semantics than supporting a vital charity.

You're ridiculous.*

Is this aimed at me?

Semantics is vitally important for effective health literature - particularly in cervical cancer in which if all women had smears - the vast vast majority of deaths would be avoided. Health literature that is not understood by the target patient population is dangerous as well as ridiculous.

Macmillan know this.

I have made it clear that Macmillan have used the correct language in many cases. But not all - and that is not good enough.

Macmillan is a very good cause. But I agree that talking about ‘people’ with cervical cancer is unnecessarily vague.

Trans people are well aware of their bodies as they use drugs and surgery to change them. My concern is for the many women who have little knowledge of their own biology, or who don’t understand that level of English, or face other personal or cultural barriers to healthcare and information.

The other information is good. I just want these warnings to leap out and be unmistakeably aimed at the group they’re for.