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

They are, but over the whole site man is mentioned 1031 times and woman only 48.

The pages for male cancers are very clear that it’s men who get them.

There are a few woke posters there, but they overlook the fact that the men’s information is aimed at men, which to me makes it look like woke misogyny more than ever.

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

Yes I was going to say the same. It does seem to be that one instance of a gender-neutral term on the cervical cancer pages. Everywhere else they have referred to women in the same way that they have referred to men.

I do think it's important to make it clear that women have cervixes (is that the plural?) so it would be better for them to use the word women.

But the screenshots comparing the cervical cancer pages with the pages on men's cancers completely ignore all the pages on other women's cancers, and I think give a distorted impression of the website.

But actual men can have breast cancer, let alone FTM trans and female non binary? That's illogical then to use "inclusive" language for cervical cancer but not breast cancer?

I agree LongBlobson. There are inconsistencies in approach on different topics. I'm inclined (from personal experience) to think this may be due to different approaches by different authors but the House Style should be consistent across all content.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

But actual men can have breast cancer, let alone FTM trans and female non binary? That's illogical then to use "inclusive" language for cervical cancer but not breast cancer?

There's separate advice for breast cancer in men.

Yes they say men can get breast cancer too, and there's a separate page on it.

Having had a peruse of the website, I'd say it's all fairly consistent except for that one e.g. on cervical cancer.

It's worth pointing out to them - for points already made about women not being aware they have a cervix - but I'm don't think it's worth boycotting them over.

There's separate advice for breast cancer in men.

Ah ok, quite right. Is that signposted from the main page?

How do I know if I have a cervix? Is it labelled somewhere? How does my husband know if he has a cervix? Is there a easy test to find out? What about my sons? At what age should they be finding out if they have a cervix or not? Are they given out randomly? All help appreciated.

Ah ok, quite right. Is that signposted from the main page?

Yes, it is. Would have been a good idea to include super-sections on men's and women's cancers too, I think.

Over the whole website the word man is mentioned 1031 times. Woman is mentioned 48 times.
I know that cancer affects more men than women, but not to an extent that explains this discrepancy.

@CobwebQueen

Over the whole website the word man is mentioned 1031 times. Woman is mentioned 48 times. I know that cancer affects more men than women, but not to an extent that explains this discrepancy.

I'm taken aback by this.

And I'm impressed by the analytics. What did you do? (Ignore if this is a trade secret - I'm scarcely above the level of running site:[X domain] searches.)

Screenshots were linked on Twitter.

Here

Yes, it is. Would have been a good idea to include super-sections on men's and women's cancers too, I think.

That would be good.

Thanks @Leafstamp I’ve used the form to complain. I’m hoping they keep some sort of stats!

The moderation guidelines seem to allow the prefix "cis" to be used by those who believe that women are a subset of their own sex class.

I'd like to know if it those of us who do not share that belief are allowed to use the prefix "real" in the same manner without getting deleted, or banned?

A majority of the women using this board consider "cis" deeply offensive, especially when it is used in a manner intended to provoke.

So, can we please have fair turn about, and be allowed to use the prefix "real" in the exact same manner to describe ourselves? I feel this would sooth hurt feelings and be conducive to a balanced discussion.

If the moderation policy does not allow this then I would very much like to see posts using the prefix "cis" being deleted, and repeat offenders given warnings and bans.

I find it offensive and buttock clenching. I don’t know anyone on real life who uses it or finds it acceptable. But I guess my feelings don’t count?

It's always "person with a cervix" for women in need of healthcare, then the news reports have to say "woman" when referring to men who identify as a woman who committed a crime.
They're never a "person with a penis" then are they.

I wrote them asking if they were still SW members this is the very disappointing response i got;

"Thank you for your email of 16th June expressing concerns about Macmillan’s affiliations with regards to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. First of all, I apologise for the lateness of this response, we’re currently receiving unprecedented volumes of enquiries and this has caused delays getting back to our supporters.

We know that people face health inequalities (especially around cancer care) due to their sex, gender identity and sexual attraction, and we strive to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support everyone living with cancer. Macmillan is a member of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme; which is an important support tool within our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy as it enables us to understand the barriers that LGBTQ+ people face in the workplace and the community. However, we will use the support and advice that is right for our organisation as the programme allows us to do. At present we don’t have any formal relationship with Gendered Intelligence or Mermaids, but we have used Gendered Intelligence previously and don’t rule out the possibility of using these organisations in the future.

Our sole aim at Macmillan is to ensure everyone living with cancer receives the support which is right for them. Stonewall’s advice on legislative practice is in line with The Equality Act 2010, which has always said that individuals do not need to have any medical treatment to be protected under the legislation; Stonewall’s statement can be found here. We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

Stonewall advice gives LGBTQ+ individuals an alternative way to identify which is right for them. We recognise that not everyone identifies with gendered language and by providing gender neutral policies and cancer information, we are allowing everyone to access the information which is appropriate for them. For example, we use gender neutral language in our cervical cancer information so that anyone who is concerned about cervical cancer or has had a diagnosis feels like we are able to provide support to them – moving towards our goal of supporting everyone who is living with cancer.

This is in line with our wider organisational commitment to make our Macmillan more representative of society and accessible to all. We value and record all feedback and use this to help us continuously drive through developments and improvements within our organisation. I hope my email has helped explain why we our continued membership of Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme helps us in supporting the trans community and will ultimately help us guarantee we’re there to help everyone find their best way through from the moment of diagnosis, so they can live life as fully as they can."

We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

That's big of them

We also recognise that words like mother and women etc are important to people and we don’t stop people from using them if that’s how they identify.

Can’t help but think about the current thread about women who face life changing injuries after child birth. Does Macmillan think this kind of thing can be avoided if you simply don’t identify as a woman or a mother? Or are they only interested in the gendered ‘feminine’ sense of the word ‘mother’? Mustn’t think about the bloody reality of sex.

In fairness, I assume this kind of thing is generated by somebody who works in marketing and communications who has swallowed ‘be kind’ without appreciating why it’s so important to use clear language to refer to sex.

It reads like smug, captured SW rhetoric to me. Not particularly kind.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It reads like smug, captured SW rhetoric to me. Not particularly kind.

And it doesn't begin to address why they use 'men' accurately or as a default but it's only 'women as a sex class' that is perceived as contentious.

we are allowing everyone to access the information which is appropriate for them
Nope, you are making information less accessible. That's the point.
I suppose one could argue that anyone looking at their site to get info/support for cervical cancer is likely already to be aware that they have (or had) a cervix. It is the literature around cervical screening that most needs to make it very clear which sex has a cervix.