Smear tests should not refer to women says study

[flyingbuttress43]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/18/dont-mention-women-smear-test-invitations-might-make-trans/

Apologies if this has been posted but I can't see it.

Study in British Journal of General Practice says smear test invititations should be gender neutral to encourage trans men to get tested.

FFS Just when there is some light at the end of the tunnel you realise it's an oncoming train.

oh ffs- enough

You are not wrong OP
Thanks for posting

Oh ffs

Woman just means adult human female. It covers everyone born female with any or no gender identity. Transmen are covered. Its a medical.procedure Its there to protect you health not validate identities. You have friends and family for that.

What about the women who have English as a secind language or have LDs or are poorly educated and don't know it applies to them.

Are they acceptable collateral damage to avoid a small handful acknowledging biology ?

Women and trans men!

That's inclusive without excluding women.

Fuck off with this shit man

I am running out of energy with it. Its relentless, and fucking stupid, and not needed. WOMEN AND TRANSMEN. Female people. Jesus. I swear if I ever get anything through my door for cervix havers or whatever I will fucking scream

Wow sorry for all the fucks. But all my fucks have been given over the past 5 years now, and I fear I am running out of them. Its just the same stuff, day after day, always on stuff to do with women too. It would be anoying if it was men targetted aswell don't get me wrong, but that its solely women..its enraging instead of annoying.

Why are women who identify as men being prioritised over the much, much larger number of women who speak English as a second language, or women who have learning difficulties?

All this will do is making harder for women to access vital healthcare.

I am so angry about this I lost the abiilty to spell! Invitation, not invititation

"The new study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, polled trans men and non-binary people on their experiences."

Right. So they didn't bother asking women then?

I note the Telegraph doesn't say who carried out the study.

bjgp.org/content/early/2021/05/14/BJGP.2020.0905

This is the research that the Telegraph article is based on.

bjgp.org/content/early/2021/05/14/BJGP.2020.0905

A whole 137 people

Get in the fucking sea

In other news dairy farmers would like people to drink more milk. FFS.

Open access paper (no paywall) if anyone would like to read the original text:

The survey was developed in collaboration with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, 56T (a trans-specific sexual health service), and the largest gender identity clinic (GIC) in the UK, based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. Participants were drawn from patient populations linked to these organisations.
…
Development of the survey was guided by organisational expertise, literature searching, and patient/public input to focus groups run by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust and the LGBT Foundation (a charity working in the UK). The study approach and several drafts of the questionnaire were circulated to the LGBT Foundation, GIC, and 56T for feedback, which was incorporated into the final questionnaire.

bjgp.org/content/early/2021/05/14/BJGP.2020.0905

Obviously it's helpful if invitations are written in a language the recipient understands. English is a useful default, but provision for non-English speakers is good.

If transman/non-binary people claim not to understand basic English words like "woman" then sure, maybe resources can be allocated for special Genderese versions of invitations, but they should probably be at the back of the queue behind other languages like Urdu, where the recipient is more likely to not really understand English, rather than just pretend they don't.

Apologies to PPs for posting the same link - I take too long and I should have checked again.

These language changes are just creating barriers to health and social care for other groups.

For 10% of the population English is their second language. 1.3% of the population can speak English but not well and 0.3% cannot speak English at all. (2011 census). So 6.6m people affected.

19% of the population are under 16. (As 2018 - ONS website)

Elderly people over 75 = 5.4m people (Age UK website)

Autism affects 0.9% of the population, so 5.5m people (Autism society website)

Illiteracy affects 16.4% of the population (ie people in England described as having ‘very poor literacy skills’ ) (Literary trust website) so 7.1m people in England alone. 7.1 MILLION PEOPLE IN ENGLAND ALONE FFS

A recent advert re prostate health referred to "men" not Penis havers, not prostate havers, not testicle havers. And I think it was a woman's voice saying 'men, we are with you
Wonder why that is????
(Ffs again)

I'm having a FB about this very thing at at the moment and am being torn down over my objection to being called a cervix haver!

Apparently a trans man was without his knowledge reclassified as a man on his medical records so didn't get an invitation for a smear test.

No one cares that the problem is there because trans men and trans women object to the word trans being put before their sex and if they were just happy to be called trans men and trans women there wouldn't be this issue.

I brought up trans women being in rape crisis centres and women's refuges and was told that if trans women were in these places it's because they were victims too and had every right to be there, just makes you want to give up!

Women have enough trouble accessing examinations without this garbage.
Multiple studies have shown that using gender neutral language excludes up to half of all women as they don't know the correct names for their own bodies, or dont have English as their first language.
And they have completely ignored the fact that its common for controlling men to prevent their partners going for medical exams. To deal with that, the practice needs to offer the test at a set time and date, not invite women to attend. The abuser needs to know the practice expects to see her and will chase her up if she doesn't appear.

Useful further extracts about the respondents to the survey.

Participants were recruited from the GIC’s waiting list and 56T’s list of TMNB service users at Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust sexual health services. Inclusion criteria were: female sex assigned at birth; trans man, masculine, or non-binary gender identity; aged ≥18 years; and UK resident.
…

Participants were invited by email to participate in the online questionnaire if they had previously given consent to be contacted by email by either the GIC or 56T.

As per PP, there's no involvement from groups representing the communication interests of women with learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, communication needs relating to deafness or minority languages etc.

Some interesting answers and survey analyses that demonstrate, as ever, there is no one size fits all for the overall aspiration of personalised health care.

I find it astonishing that the authors of this research did not consider the negative impact on women if language is changed to be "gender neutral". Especially when it is known that a large percentage of women don't know where their cervix is or what it does. www.jostrust.org.uk/node/666780 This is the same Jo's Trust that was involved in this new research.

Never mind issues with literacy and EAL. Just jumping straight to a recommendation to change all screening literature to remove references to women/she/her etc.

If you are cross about this, then I highly recommend that you take yourself to this survey

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/womens-health-strategy-call-for-evidence/womens-health-strategy-call-for-evidence#how-to-respond

And explain to them, in installments of not more than 350 words at a time exactly how exclusionary this policy actually is.

I hope you find it as therapeutic as I did

The following genderwang word salad from that report:-

"Results In total there were 137 participants; 80% identified as transmasculine,18% as non-binary, and the remaining participants reported other noncisgender identities."

As genderwang word salad goes, it's not that bad

So it was mostly transmasculine women, some non-binary women, and a few women with other noncisgender identities.

All women though

("Some women are transmasculine. Some women are non-binary. Get over it!")