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.

And did penis havers mental health get used or were you just ignored?

For a start 53% of the participants in this research had never had a smear test as they were too young (18-24). So, they are anticipating problems where there may be none (some of those who had smears said staff were great, very understanding etc).
Also, the main issues seem to lay very much with the individuals themselves, rather than the service. If you look at the 3 main reasons for non attenders, they were (by quite a margin) ‘I will experience dysphoria’, ‘I am embarrassed about that part of my body’ and ‘I have never been invited’ (presumably because they chose to register with their GP as male).
If this research contributes in any way to changing cervical screening information materials to erasing women in cervical smear information and services, it will be a disgrace. I can see no problem with transmen having their smears at a trans-specific health clinic (as the majority in this research would prefer) or with the NHS producing a leaflet specifically for transmen . But leave existing women centred information and services as they are!

@Sophoclesthefox

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

Thanks for the link. It was very therapeutic filling that in but I feel the battle has been lost. It will be women and girls with language barriers and/or disabilities that will lose out.

Or that needs to be added is to women is ‘and trans man and non-binary’, to all leaflets.

I think language has been based on men throughout history. It’s our turn now. So instead of men I will refer to them as cervix nonhavers.

So thick. Women who identify as men, know they are women, that’s what makes them trans. 🙄

What is happening to our society? Common sense is disappearing fast. When I was young there was a real need for the rights of women to be established. If a salesman wanted to sell you something he had to speak to your husband. Women earned less for doing exactly the same job in an office for example. You couldn’t sign up for anything without your dh’s name attached to the account. Opportunities for jobs were far less for women. I can remember the fuss made by bus drivers when women were allowed to drive buses. Get home and stay in the kitchen they called out. Unbelievable but I am an o,d woman. The trouble is, as I see it, is that all the good intentions to establish equality for everyone has been highjacked by a ridiculous element in society which makes a mockery of all the work that has gone into improving things. If it gets any worse we will all be in straight jackets and afraid to live life in a stress free fashion.

@heathspeedwell

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.

THIS.

@NecessaryScene1

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!")

How can anyone be sure they were women, though?

How many of the 73 ineligible for cervical screening were women?

Were the opinions of those ineligible for cervical screening included in the analysis? If so, why?

Or that needs to be added is to women is ‘and trans man and non-binary’, to all leaflets.

Would that be OMaleAB NBs or OFemaleAB NBs?

Still gobbledegook.

Thanks @sophoclesthefox. I have completed the survey 🙂

Approximately half of women in the UK don't know what the word "cervix" means.

But sure, go and prioritise less than 1% of the population, who I suspect are more likely than average to have good knowledge about their sex organs (given that they expend so much energy thinking about them, and want to start calling us all cervix-havers, uterus-havers etc.).

@JellySlice

Or that needs to be added is to women is ‘and trans man and non-binary’, to all leaflets.

Would that be OMaleAB NBs or OFemaleAB NBs?

Still gobbledegook.

True but seems we have little choice of words as all are equally baffling. Getting to the point when the ‘alien words’ used to teach little ones phonics have more meaning.

@Paralithic

If you have not attended cervical screening because of your gender identity, what are the reasons? (n= 52)

Don’t associate with/like thinking about that part of the body: 41 (79%)

Disclosure of gender identity: 28 (54%)

Where would you prefer to attend cervical screening? (n= 134)

Trans-specific health clinic (any): 86 (64%)

So if the reason that most of the participants that were eligible but hadn’t been screened was that they didn’t associate with that part of their body and/or didn’t want to disclose their status, and a majority of all respondents would prefer to deal with a trans-specific health clinic ...

... isn’t the answer obvious?

Having a male gender marker was identified in the thematic analysis as a barrier to screening for TMNB.

No shit Sherlock.

Thank you for the stats! I cannot see how those responses can possibly lead to that conclusion/recommendation from the survey authors:

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

The stated, actual reason why those who were in this specific target patient group didn't attend wasn't a language problem, but the fact that the actual test is done on a part of their anatomy that painfully reminds them of being female.

How does inviting "all cervix-havers" to the test help when having a cervix is what this patient group doesn't want to be reminded of?

I wish this wasn't so illogical [sigh]

Jane Clare Jones has a thread (my italics to replace her ** which wouldn't work here):

We have repeatedly said we would accept 'women and other fill in whichever function which would include trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

But that is not the point. The point is to sever all connection between the concept 'woman' and female people.

When Nancy Kelly gave evidence to WESC, she point blank admitted that as far as she is concerned, we only ever need to refer to female people when there is a specific context, and that then we can be referred to by our relevant functions.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1394933884333273089