Is my job transphobic?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I am a health care professional. I work in sexual health. Most of my patients are female, an increasing number of whom also have a gender difference, which is why they land up in my clinic.

Is it transphobic to say to a person who has a condition which only affects female people that this is because of their sex? I have re-written patient information leaflets so that trans men and NB identified females have the correct language in the info, but the fact remains that it is a condition linked to their sex.

I'm a little worried because the Lib Dems and Greens have said that it is transphobic to refer too someone's biological sex if they have transitioned. I think their definitions leave me vulnerable to being accused of bigotry because sex is immutable.

I want to talk to HR about this, but, can't quite think about how to frame it without sounding like I'm, well, a bigot.

@NecessaryScene1

Can you not simply use a fairly neutral phrase such as 'this condition affects those recorded female at birth'?

Head bang. How does the recording affect anything? It's not going to affect someone male who was incorrectly recorded as female, and it's not going to avoid someone female who was incorrectly recorded as male, was it?

We're not talking quantum effects here where the outcome depends on whether you looked at it or not.

And if being "female" is so bad, why haven't we stopped that recording from happening?

Female is a neutral term describing sex. Do not give a millimetre on this, or you will never be able to hold onto a term.

Yeah, fair enough. I was working on the basis that the sex on your original birth certificate is your true sex. Didn't really think about intersex people who might have been mis-sexed.

I agree with what you say here:

I agree - it certainly makes sense to have information available in "genderese", to cater for that community, if there seems to be an approach they understand better

But it makes no sense to present stuff in "genderese" to the general public, just as you wouldn't put it out in Urdu or Braille rather than English

If it's a single publication, then you might need some asides or "this includes" or whatever, but you can't avoid the simple most-understood terms

I don't understand why leaflets can't say women, and trans and non binary people with a cervix?
Unless the aim is to erase the word women, of course
And why is it only trans and non binary people who get to specify how they would like to be referred to while women just get a big 'FUCK YOU, BITCHES'
And aibu to think that deliberately using language that is likely to lead to women who don't speak English as a first language not getting the screening they need is quite racist/discriminatory??

This dancing around a minority of statements has led to ridiculous social media posts and quotes in the mainstream media such as:

"10% of people suffer from endometriosis"

Which "people" would they be? And which number does that refer to, the proportion of both sexes who suffer endometriosis or the proportion of the one sex that can get it?

@NecessaryScene1

Anyone with a cervix is at risk of cervical cancer

You cannot be serious. That is one of the lowest information sentences I have ever read.

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without.

I don't understand why leaflets can't say women, and trans and non binary people with a cervix?
Unless the aim is to erase the word women, of course

And why is it only trans and non binary people who get to specify how they would like to be referred to while women just get a big 'FUCK YOU, BITCHES'

And aibu to think that deliberately using language that is likely to lead to women who don't speak English as a first language not getting the screening they need is quite racist/discriminatory??

Three excellent points which if considered will lead to some valuable and telling conclusions about trans rights activism.

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without.

Except that some women who have had hysterectomies apparently still need to have smear tests. Women as a sex class are at risk of cervical cancer. Men as a sex class are not.

@wusbanker

Just speak about the relevant body parts. "Anyone with a cervix is at risk of cervical cancer".

This. Or 'as a male with a vagina/cervix etc' or 'as a NB individual with breast tissue'. Tailor it to each gender identity.

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without

Unless those women had those surgeries/conditions without understanding how or why ( in.which case wtf were the drs playing at ) they will know it doesn't apply to them. All those at risk.of cervical.cancer are female even if not all females have one.

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without.

Yes, it may be more "accurate" but it doesn't convey any information.

If I say "people with a hyperandrenoloid gland are at risk of hyperandrenoloidal cancer", that's probably very accurate.

But I don't know what it means, and I just said it, and I doubt it will prompt any action from anyone, as I think I just made up the word.

Presumably the information you would want to convey is "women, please come in to have some cancer screening - 99% of you are at risk".

And any woman who DOESN'T have a cervix will very likely know this. It doesn't just fall out.

And if she doesn't have one and doesn't know that yet, then it would be a good idea for her to go along to this screening and find out, because that would indicate a medical condition. It's not normal for a woman to not have a cervix.

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without.
But we’re going for Plain English so the average person can understand

What do you mean? It's more accurate than saying "women are at risk of cervical cancer", as some have had hysterectomies or were born without.

How many women who've had a hysterectomy are likely to be offended by the word "cervix"? And it's fear of offence that's driving this torturing of plain English, not the desire to save lives

I would go with anyone recorded as female/male at birth.

Those very very very few cases where the birth was incorrectly recorded will presumably, as part of the medical testing they have had that ascertained the incorrect recording, have been told what parts their body has and how their condition affects them.

People who really care about trans people would do well to try and stop the words "male" and "female" being stripped of rational meaning by current mainstream trans rights activism. They are deeply important words for health. Understand that transmen are already disadvantaged in modern medicine simply by being female (which they quite simply are, regardless of feelings) before you further their vulnerability by telling them that the people using accurate medical language mean them harm.

A parallel example is how important for health and safeguarding it is to teach your children to be able to say "vulva" and "vagina", not twee family specific euphemisms. Even if it makes grandma blush.

No it's not, it's stating a damn fact and I am fed of of this pussy footing around people as facts suposedly offend. You can't get cervical cancer if you were born a man, it's a disease exclusive to women and testicular cancer is exclusive to men. What plastic surgery you have had or even what styles of clothes you wear doesn't change biology

This times a million.

Or 'as a male with a vagina/cervix etc'

This is quite simply a corruption of language removing any meaning from words. If 'male' no longer has any meaning, what about 'cervix' and if not they how can you say anything is it not all meaningless? You might as well say 'as a table outside a teapot'.

I also have this problem at work OP (not sexual health, kind of a part of obs and gynae) and honestly, whatever terminology we use, it’s never enough.

I have no advice unfortunately. How we haven’t had any complaints yet I don’t know but it’ll come eventually.

@SignOnTheWindow

Can you not simply use a fairly neutral phrase such as 'this condition affects those recorded female at birth'?

Is this condition's link to sex key information for the management of this condition - i.e. is it needed on the leaflet at all?

I don't see this as neutral. It's factually incorrect. Paperwork doesn't determine your biology. It's a very coy obfuscation that gives in completely to ideology. That's how I'd see it. Another patient may simply be confused.

We’ve had complaints at work (maternity) from a biological woman who objected to our leaflets talking about women/females. We refused to change them. There’s a difference between sex (biology) and gender.

Of course if we have an individual who identifies as a man we will use the pronouns he wishes us to use when talking to him but we’re not changing the factually correct leaflets.

”Or 'as a male with a vagina/cervix etc' “

There is no such thing!

OP don’t involve HR- what’s it got to do with them? This is patient literature, not an employee policy.

And the HoL discussion around the Maternity Bill suggests that the law not only should but will support you.

They were quite specific, women's health is sex specific and has meaning over and above a social nicety.

@DodoPatrol

But Prostate cancer is a risk for people over the age of whatever isn't true. It's a risk to male people only. Female people don't have a prostate.

Why does it matter? If they have something that only one sex has surely the relevant thing is they have it. When I had a hysterectomy no one told me I needed it because I was a woman, they told me I needed it because it was the best treatment for my problem.

Your primary responsibility is to give clear, factual information.

'Sex' and 'female' and 'woman' are not bad words, OP. They are simple, everyday, commonly used, clear and accurate.

I'm fairly sure a transman is well aware that they are 'female', whatever their gender identity. If they choose to deny or ignore this then I don't know how you can really usefully help them, I'm afraid.

Sorry, to answer your question:

Is it transphobic to say to a person who has a condition which only affects female people that this is because of their sex?

No, it is not.

ancient

If you detach specifically female issues from the sex class they happen too, surely that then obscures statistics etc

If you start referring to things as happening to "people" then it could lead to a reduction of funding . Because 25 percent of 66 million people sounds less worrying than.50 percent of 33 millions people. No ones gonna worry so much abkut something when 75 percent of people arent affected. However 2 in 2 adult women, well it would he far more common ajd a huge worry.

1 in 2.