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?

I think the most telling thing about all of this is that-

The noise, complaints, pushes to change wording etc are massively focused on anything to do with the female reproductive system/ breasts.
There's no noise about this for male stuff hardly/ at all.

That the approach pushed for is not the one that will assist everyone- including trans people.
It's about decoupling the words woman/ girl/ female from anything to do with female specific biology.

This is why it's all such a problem.

Should I have vandalised this offensively exclusionary sign?

I can't understand why someone would take a photo of a cancer billboard ad (regardless what cancer it is) then post it online and then type the above, regardless what the context is.

If it's to do with something-gender-critical-related then surely there has to be a better way than this to get your point across? This does seem poor taste and isn't sitting well with me.

To answer the OP question- no, it's not transphobic.

@MargaritaPie

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

As a matter of interest, what's your source for that? And is it in age brackets because that would be interesting.

I've only been able to find general figures that are roughly equivalent for mortality p.a. (UK, approx. 11,500 deaths for each condition). Judging by your comment, you seem to have more recent and detailed figures and it would be useful to share them albeit it's a little OT for the thread.

Breast cancer figures:

breastcancernow.org/about-us/media/facts-statistics

Prostate cancer figures:

prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer

It's no more poor taste than referring to women as

Menstruators
Ovulators
People with vaginas
Birthing people

And rewriting important health info so that it becomes incoherent, medically incompetent and will be understood by way less of the target group.

Also less bad taste than large numbers of people lambasting women who have been working for women and pregnancy/ childbirth etc for years for saying that sex matters.

Certainly younger men are affected.

There's a big die with rather than of thing with prostate cancer and having a caveat diagnosis and being treated is obv v upsetting and stressful so there's a question around benefit/ harm.

That's why there's not currently a general screening program.

It's a complex issue.

Similar to what has gone on with smear in the past.

Source: cancerresearchuk

Look at the stat for "Deaths from breast cancer, 2016-2018, UK.", prostate has now overtaken breast cancer.

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer

And a media article about it: www.bbc.com/news/health-42890405

[quote MargaritaPie]And a media article about it: www.bbc.com/news/health-42890405[/quote]
The general 2018 figures to which you link are in line with the 2018 numbers to which I linked. Even the 2016-2018 analysis yields numbers within a tolerable margin of error.

From the confidence of your prior assertions I was expecting something comparable to a granular analysis of mortality by ICD from the ONS or similar.

However, I appreciate your response. And it has to be said that the figures will be heavily caveated when data from 2020 onwards are available.

I'm not sure why we're talking about prevalence etc

Rather than why posters like this don't trigger an outpouring of outrage and an insistence it be alerted to something more inclusive like people with prostates. Followed by swift capitulation from the org responsible for the poster (usually).

Why this clear message- men prostate is not seen as bigoted and dangerous.

While cervical cancer sees info aimed at people with cervixes. Even though clearly that means that the message is no longer clear to a fair proportion of it's target audience.

We need this campaign to stay the same and women's health campaigns and information to go back to using the "W word" imo.
I posted this photo on the other feminist board as I thought it was funny, Right Think has not totally penetrated all the way through M&S

@Davros

We need this campaign to stay the same and women's health campaigns and information to go back to using the "W word" imo. I posted this photo on the other feminist board as I thought it was funny, Right Think has not totally penetrated all the way through M&S

Isnt man size advertiser speak for wanksize?

MargaritaPie May we have a straight answer to a straight question. Should posters now be adjusted to say "Women we are with you" Breast cancer/ cervical cancer/ ovarian cancer etc etc? If not, why not?

@MargaritaPie

Should I have vandalised this offensively exclusionary sign?

I can't understand why someone would take a photo of a cancer billboard ad (regardless what cancer it is) then post it online and then type the above, regardless what the context is.

If it's to do with something-gender-critical-related then surely there has to be a better way than this to get your point across? This does seem poor taste and isn't sitting well with me.

And what, precisely, is your thoughts on the many examples of womens health services being traduced, terms like 'cervix havers' and 'menstruators' instead of the word woman?

Or can you only get exercised over it when it is women speaking up or, god forbid, taking the piss?

You've been here long enogh to see the examples, the TRA actions that do indeed target womens cancer services and apply pressure to have them obfuscated, the wording changed to be nigh on bloody meaningless, making it more and more difficlt for women to access health services that only women need access?

You've never decried any of that. Why this? What is, for you, different here?

Is this advert transphobic?

@averylongtimeago

Is this advert transphobic?

No it's not. It's factual. What do you think about the posters that say eg Cervix havers instead of women? Why do you think we don't see posters saying People with a prostate, or Seminal fluid ejaculators? And that poster is a WHO one, not typical of the usual fare we're presented with.

@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.

This is the whole point in a nutshell.

This frequently happens to medical life saving campaigns for females and is justified as being more important to cater to the less the 1% of the population requiring everyone else to work only within their rigid language preferences regardless of impact on the other 99% of the population, with most of that benefit going to male people.

Anything about male need however goes wholly unmessed about with and that's supposed to be fine too. Its the hypocrisy and double standards of it all that makes the female erasure and subordination so much more galling.

Heads male humans win and tails female humans lose.

Also witness the demonstration in posting above that when female life saving medical care and campaigns are messed about with and made less accessible and inclusive to a vast number of vulnerable females for a political point that advantages male people that's fine.

When female people object about this and point out the double standards in male campaigns being allowed to know what biology is (largely because it doesn't affect any male people, oddly TM don't seem to get a look in) then it's an example of GC people stooping to use political point scoring uncaring of impact.

Transphobic! Needs to be reported and taken down.

And I expect a thorough apology from the organization on social media and In every news paper in the UK.

If anything mentioning women is transphobic then I expect anything mentioning men and male biology is offensive to trans men who don’t have prostates.

I am being sarcastic in my previous reasons.. it’s not actually transphobic. But I do notice that anything mentioning women and women anatomy is somehow transphobic, yet men and male biology somehow isn’t offensive.

Make it make sense. Women are just offensive in every way and transphobic in every way.

Why don’t the TRA crew have the same energy to rant about men’s biology as they do when it comes to women? It’s just interesting.

@averylongtimeago

Is this advert transphobic?

I'd say it's poorly designed (who made those colour choices) and I'd question the image but I don't know who their target demographic is.

I'd applaud health communications commonsense of using the word 'woman' as this is a poster that was used worldwide and it's more readily translatable than any of the options that I've seen used.

It's also likely to be used in countries where the options aren't part of the everyday language or might be subject to a political censorship.

All the above aside, it's a bland part of Cervical Cancer Awareness month and could only, at best, be a pointer to services within your own nation/healthcare system etc.

@averylongtimeago

Is this advert transphobic?

Well I thought some of our regular visitors may find this rather bland advert transphobic as it clearly states it is directed at women.

Clearly it is not.

It was actually quite difficult to find (in a quick google search) U.K. adverts about cervical cancer which targeted women. Sad and dangerous.

I liked the answer from someone on a thread about cervical cancer.

It went everyone knows what a cervix is not a problem.
Then a rousing chorus of 'oh no they don't'.
Oh well then it's an education problem and tbh (can't remember phrasing) if anyone doesn't know that's their problem they are obviously a bit thick.

Along those lines.

And these terms are so shit anyway.

How does a person know they have a cervix? I mean actually personally know?

Unless had smear, some previous medical issues, a baby etc.

How does anyone KNOW?

They don't do they. They ASSUME they have one because guess what they know they're female.

So the whole cervix people stuff is a euphemism that has to be translated.

Cervix havers. Who has cervixes? Female people. Right. So they mean me.

It's indirect and silly.

This point was countered by someone saying that the presence of a cervix is recorded at birth