Macmillan Cancer Support

[SeggsMatters]

I have to say as someone who has fundraised for Macmillan lots, including running Marathons. I am utterly disappointed they are using 'Gender Neutral' language when talking about Cervical Cancer.

But still only Men that need to worry about Prostate Cancer.

twitter.com/macmillancancer/status/1417771087232897026?s=21

The difference. Women erased

ManMillan

Have complained. Thanks for link Leafstamp.

@334bu

Have complained. Thanks for link Leafstamp.

Excellent. Me too.

We use gender neutral language in our cervical cancer information so anyone concerned about cervical cancer

So people who already understand what cervical cancer is?

I also wish organisations would stop claiming to use ‘gender neutral’ language when they obviously mean ‘We would rather use euphemisms than use clear language to refer to sex. We actually endorse gendered stereotypes’

@merrymouse

I also wish organisations would stop claiming to use ‘gender neutral’ language when they obviously mean ‘We would rather use euphemisms than use clear language to refer to sex. We actually endorse gendered stereotypes’

I agree, ‘gender neutral’ gives a false impression of something fluffy and inclusive. Nothing wrong with fluffy and inclusive, but like you say, in reality ‘gender neutral’ often disguises something that harms women’s rights and in the case of spaces often just means mixed sex or unisex.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions Can you provide a single shred of evidence that any doctor in Canada, or indeed anywhere, has ever given a cervical smear to a trans woman or that they would be obliged to?

[quote yourhairiswinterfire]Saw this thread on Twitter yesterday, and it's bang on:

Chestfeeders, vulva people, labia owners, menstruators, vagina havers.

Have any images flashing through your mind?

I bet you do.

Is it of a strong woman curing diseases or helping the poor or riding into battle or working hard for her family?

I bet not.

Inclusive language is language designed for the prurient interest of men’s sexual desires. We are no long complete persons, we are sexual parts. Titillating young boys with every utterance. Thrilling pedophiles when a 14 year old describes herself as a vulva person

I don’t care if the misogyny comes from inside the house. I don’t care if it is unintentional misogyny. I don’t care if it is an embracing of misogyny in order to escape its effects. (Hint: You won’t escape it, you only make it worse for yourself)

I don’t care who or why people want to demean women, but I will not accept it. I will not participate. I will not be inclusive of this language that belittles the life givers of all of humanity.

twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1418609372792377345[/quote]
Oh wow, I have never thought of it this way before, but this is so spot on.

You really do have a specific image in your head when you hear those terms don't you? And it's definitely not of strong women actually achieving stuff and being their own people.

Of course men and transwomen would never be referred to as 'prostate owners' because in everyone's mind they are so much more than that. This stuff is still so deeply ingrained isn't it?

It's like when people point out that transwomen make the news for their achievements in politics, business, the arts, journalism, sports etc.

Transmen make the news for.... Having babies.

As a cis woman/mother who used to have a cervix and a uterus and ovaries I have absolutely no objection to that use of "people".

There is only one class of 'people' who are at risk of cervical cancer. Given this sort of information could literally be life saving, don't you think it is best for a cancer charity to use the clearest and most defining terms possible?

And also, how come 'people' isn't used in relation to prostate cancer? How come that information is so crystal clear?

I still identify as an all-female woman

That is because you are. And don't tell me you didn't struggle with what happened to you. It is something only women can experience, which is the whole point.

Anything to comment that men are men but women are 'people with cancer' and 'people with cervixes'?

@Noterook

Such a bloody shame, they do some great work but I can't donate anymore. Does anyone know any other cancer charities that acknowledge biological reality and support women?

I'm just going to switch to a women's refuge.

Not trusting any cancer charities now.

Why use the term c**? It’s absolutely unnecessary.

It’s women who get cervical cancer. Women.

For gods sake, you Wokes

That term is better applied to Macmillan, and women who self describe as "cis" and use other nonsense terminology to virtue signal.

Even in the U.K. many women with English as a first language have been shown not to understand terms like "cervix". Let alone ESL speakers.

“People” do not get diagnosed with cervical cancer, “women” do

The cervical cancer page is structured as a conversation e.g.
“What happens after diagnosis? ”

The word woman is not used once

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

@2bazookas

So, I took a look at the Macmillan Cancer's excellent cervical cancer pages to see for myself, their " use of gender neutral terms."

There is ONLY ONE.

It's this;

"Each year, more than 3,200 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer in the UK.".

That's it The word "People".

As a cis woman/mother who used to have a cervix and a uterus and ovaries I have absolutely no objection to that use of "people".

( I had mine out decades ago.. No regrets, and I still identify as an all-female woman. )

As a teacher of ESL, I don't consider that sentence would confuse or mislead any woman (or man) with limited English.

For gods sake, you Wokes; check your facts before  you jump on a lemmings bandwagon  heading for the cliff.    Mindless fake-news discreditation  is  a popular  tactic by  lowlife..  Don't fall for it. 

I have EVERY admiration for and confidence in Macmillan cancer support services which we have and still do use extensively; and I WILL continue to fundraise for them.

And you've only reinforced the point.

There is only ONE.

Just the ONE that applies to Women.

NONE for the ones that applies to men. They all still say 'Men' not people.

So in the ONE space on their website where they could have used Women in it's accurate sex based form. They have erased it.

As a cis woman/mother who used to have a cervix and a uterus and ovaries I have absolutely no objection to that use of "people".

As somebody who identifies as ‘cis’ you presumably agree with the idea that people should be categorised according to whether they identify as more masculine or more feminine.

That is fine, it takes all sorts etc. etc.

However, your identity is utterly and completely irrelevant to the medical treatment that you require as a woman, and it is vital that ‘woman’ can be used as a gender neutral word that refers only to sex.

Contrasts with this

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

“Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men”

This language where people are classified as having particular attributes, irrespective of their sex harms women, because it avoids the reality that the the absence of a cervix/menstruation/uterus etc. signifies something completely different depending on sex.

But 40% of women in this country don’t know what a cervix is

If the message says people then this message will and doesn’t target who the message is at

It’s just people 🤦‍♀️🤕

But the men’s message is very clear

No fannying about with the word people

Making it clear.

Macmillan aren’t using ‘gender neutral language’ they are simply giving up on the idea that language that refers only to sex can be used without inferring a gender identity.

It is regressive and wrong.

There’s a looming health care scandal in the UK where women who have had hysterectomies that didnt remove their cervix dont realise that they need to still have cervical cancer. A big part of the problem is many women weren’t too sure where their cervix was exactly and weren’t told it hadn’t been removed. At a personal level my mum has no idea whether hers was removed.

I didn’t know what a cervix was and where it was until I had my first baby, I’m not stupid but my education was bog standard comp. The last cervical cancer leaflet I received was incomprehensible as it tried to avoid using the word woman and women.

The absolute absence of any reference even to people is obvious in the cervical cancer page, the word man is used throughout the prostrate cancer page.

They use the term "woman" in their advice on Ovarian, Womb and Breast Cancer.