Is this sign transphobic?

[Mrsfrumble]

I saw this today in south London. What about all the people who have prostates who aren’t men? Should I have vandalised this offensively exclusionary sign?

Absolutely. It’s begging for a reminder that transwomen have prostates too.

Well it should be all things being equal, which we know they are not!

No prostate-havers here, either:

q7h8x4g8.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Sky-sport-presents-PCUK-40s-Master_CV.mp4

How very dare they?! Not all prostate havers are men, and not all men have prostates. Scandalous in this day and age that they think it’s ok to put up this sign. I’d be complaining ASAP or adding “and women, non binary folx etc” underneath

This sign could only be worse if it was written in purple... The horror.

Yes, let us continue the charade that "women" can have prostates, thatmen can have periods, that up is down or that dogs are are cats. Whilst we are at it let's attack a national campaign designed to save lives.

Well, it's pretty much the same wording as JKR got so much grief for - she objected to something about periods not using the word "women" I think?

So if she was being transphobic, then this sign is transphobic too, by the same logic.

Or, both aren't.

[quote Jaysmith71]No prostate-havers here, either:

q7h8x4g8.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Sky-sport-presents-PCUK-40s-Master_CV.mp4[/quote]
I've seen/heard that advert during the sport husband watches and, yes, my hackles went up when I recall the abomination of the cervix havers cancer campaign.

If the language has to be changed when talking about women because whatever, then the same rules apply to men. It won't be changed though because men and people have the gall to say gender ideology isn't an anti-women, misogynistic, sexist agenda.

Had anyone thrown that question out to the Twitter gate keepers of transphobia?

@MatildaIThink

Yes, let us continue the charade that "women" can have prostates, thatmen can have periods, that up is down or that dogs are are cats. Whilst we are at it let's attack a national campaign designed to save lives.

I think that people are being ironic!

@MatildaIThink

Yes, let us continue the charade that "women" can have prostates, thatmen can have periods, that up is down or that dogs are are cats. Whilst we are at it let's attack a national campaign designed to save lives.

A good number of women's national health campaigns have been attacked. The charade is having a negative effect.

I have seen erosion of male language start to creep in In places. (Well was jublantly shown one example on twitter. When I pointed out the one-sided nature of the language obliteration)

I can't work out if we want the imbalance to remain until it is ALL binned for being batshit crazy, or keep pointing it out and forcing the rainbow guard to ensure "equality" by destroying male sex based language too.

The imbalance is starting to make everyone look at the elephant in the room though, so even male language will go the way of dismembered floating body parts eventually. Even though female elephants rarely feel compelled to enter rooms.

Maybe that will shock the condom wearing, viagra using, penis toting, prostate having ejaculators into awareness (or maybe by that time it will be too late)?

A tightrope.

When a TRA claimed on a previous thread that the same change of language was happening to men's products and service in order to be more 'inclusive', the sole, single and only example any poster on the thread could find was Prostate Cancer UK who list a number of people who have a prostate on their website. It's then somewhat negated by the fact that they then use 'men' throughout the rest of their website though.

Until they start referring to men as ejaculators on condom packets, the changing of language which refers to women as vulva havers and the like is one-sided, misogynistic bullshit.

Yes, it should say "Men & Transwomen as they are biologically identical & all have prostrates".

Otherwise it's just not inclusive.

It's been all over the telly today in the adverts during the cricket.

You know how the recent limitation of abortions in Texas brought out all the usual 'more concerned than thou' Twitter language police? E.g.,

Your periodic reminder that not all women need access to abortion care, and that some trans men and non-binary people do.

Saying “people who need abortion access” or “patients seeking care” or etc. is more accurate and inclusive.

twitter.com/BattyMatilda/status/1433069588661559296 [1 Sept.]

I'm not seeing comparable PSAs (no pun intended).

Your periodic reminder that not all men need access to prostate care, and that some transwomen and non-binary people do.

Saying “people who need access to prostate care” or “patients seeking care” or etc. is more accurate and inclusive.

I can't think of any marketing agency in the world that would claim this would be effective, targeted healthcare comms:

Men People, however you were assigned at birth, and whatever your current preferred identity, we are with you

We want a future where lives are not limited by prostate cancer. We unite the brightest minds in science and healthcare and the most passionate and caring people to help men people live long and live well.

How do they know that people who identify as men have prostates? There’s no way of telling if anyone identifies as male or female and who has a prostate or not. What do the makers of this poster propose healthcare workers do? Intimately examine every patient to find out who has a prostate and who doesn’t? What is a ‘man’ anyway? It’s impossible to define. Anyone could be a man, whether they are a prostate-haver / ejaculator or not.

Oh no, hold on: this is men’s health so they can use medically accurate language. It’s only ‘women’ (whoever they are) that need to modify language about their bodies.

No of course not.

It's important to redefine woman/ girl/ female.
Open spaces etc up that used to be single sex for women/ girls.
Refer to us by our reproductive organs/ processes. Rather than as whole people.

But only here. Not when talking about women and girls in other countries being fucked over.

So no it's not. Because none of this is logical fair or reasonable.

HTH.

I've got a lot of faith in trans people. I reckon a trans woman could see this and think "Hmm, that might also apply to me!" and similarly a trans man could think "Ah, don't have a prostate so I am A-OK on that score but I must remember my smear test..."
I just feel sure they can work it out on their own. I dunno.

If people who are fighting for the rights of trans people. (Certain individuals media etc not all trans people obv who are more and more on Twitter saying wtf stop it).

Are ok with
Male sex offenders in women's prisons
React to women saying woah dick in the spa by saying it's all lies/ children should be taught to be ok with random cock

Then this won't even register.

The arguments pointing to safety/ dignity/ common fucking sense won't work. Pointing out the huge number of total logical fails won't work.

Because this is about a belief system.

No it's not transphobic.

Prostate cancer is now a bigger killer in the UK than breast cancer FYI.

@MargaritaPie

Prostate cancer is now a bigger killer in the UK than breast cancer FYI.

That's dreadful but not sure what your point has to do with the OP though?

Surely for the campaign to be successful in reaching all those who have a prostate, the word men is exclusionary? Women's health campaigns have changed their language in order to be 'inclusive', why not men's?

Women's health campaigns have changed their language in order to be 'inclusive', why not men's?

I’d be much happier with this…part of my issue is the pretence that its inclusive when its not

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer exactly. If it's so important to be 'inclusive' that language around women's health/products/services are being changed, why does this not apply to men's health/products/services?

I've never seen a coherent or satisfactory answer to that!