Good ways of using inclusive language without excluding women etc

[Slythermum]

Anyone got examples?
So for things like periods, menopause, prostate cancer etc - what would be examples of easily understandable (for non English speakers) and that can make sure that trans people are also getting the healthcare access they need whilst keeping the words women, men, mother, father etc in the descriptions? Would be good to include some examples.

This has all been really interesting reading. I think if I'm having to write inclusive aspects into any of the work I'm doing I will just continue to use the words woman/female and man/male and then add a separate component regarding trans care that I can discuss if it ever gets raised in a session.

I suppose I now see it as the third space in language and I think it's the only way to not confuse issues whilst ensuring trans people understand they need to speak to their GP as their particular hormonal setup i.e - if they are on medication, had surgery etc is unique to them. And this way it's not obscuring or erasing the actual biological reality of everyone else.

Of you are a grown adult who does not understand/accept that sex is pretty important when it comes to a lot of things (healthcare especially) then you need to bring along someone with you surely?

Otherwise you are just stirring for the sake of it and wasting people’s time arguing.

@NCBlossom

I used to work in the NHS and it is critical that the health message / advice / campaigning is in the most plain English possible and understood by the people it is being targeted too.

So women and men or children or girls/boys and if there are ethnic minorities or hard to reach groups then specifically targeted to them in their own language / cultural way. Accessibility is KEY.

The World Health Organization and NHS and worldwide organizations have identified that Health Literacy is extremely important. It can mean the difference between life and death, of not understanding how and when to take your medication, or how to prevent getting an STI, or how to check lumps for cancer, what a prostate is and who has one, who needs to be aware of cervical cancer checks…

It’s a huge issue with estimates varying but 40% not understanding what their GP tells them for example say about their diabetes care.

So in the nicest of ways, sensitivities about using the word woman or man can go take a hike. I’m amazed not more healthcare trusts or public health realize the total contradiction here. Fudging the message will literally cost lives. Who cares honestly is someone is hurt that a poster says women aged 18 to 50 need to turn up to their cervical cancer check ups - the important message is that women need to go to their cervical cancer check ups. Seeing ‘person with a cervix’ throws that added confusion when we already know that even clear messages aren’t always picked up is totally against medical health literacy targets.

Thank you for posting this - I don't work for the NHS but agree with everything you say.

I've just contacted my GP surgery about an issue related to this and am awaiting a reply - not holding my breath...

Clarity is key when imparting medical advice; in addition, there should be no place for an unscientific ideology in a medical setting that's run entirely by public funds. Facts, facts, facts only.

I can’t imagine anyone - sitting in a doctors surgery, being giving a devastating diagnosis, and replying in response to ‘X% of men with prostate cancer...’ ‘You are insulting me! Persons with prostate, PERSONS!’.

You’d be too busy contemplating months of treatment and your possible demise surely. Wouldn’t the that just knock the rainbow sprinkles off your ice cream?

I personally feel huge relief and thankfulness when the word “women” is used. Which is pathetic, but here we are. When “and trans etc” is added, I always think it means “and please don’t hurt me”

I always think it means I'll actually really be sidelined and others' needs put before mine even if the service was designed to meet my needs as a woman.

I think that’s a good point spartacus. I think it is sometimes used by people who don’t really buy into the ideology and are just frightened of being attacked. But health care providers should think carefully about the message it sends to women about the possibility that their clinical needs are going to subjugated to ideology.

@NCBlossom

I used to work in the NHS and it is critical that the health message / advice / campaigning is in the most plain English possible and understood by the people it is being targeted too.

So women and men or children or girls/boys and if there are ethnic minorities or hard to reach groups then specifically targeted to them in their own language / cultural way. Accessibility is KEY.

The World Health Organization and NHS and worldwide organizations have identified that Health Literacy is extremely important. It can mean the difference between life and death, of not understanding how and when to take your medication, or how to prevent getting an STI, or how to check lumps for cancer, what a prostate is and who has one, who needs to be aware of cervical cancer checks…

It’s a huge issue with estimates varying but 40% not understanding what their GP tells them for example say about their diabetes care.

So in the nicest of ways, sensitivities about using the word woman or man can go take a hike. I’m amazed not more healthcare trusts or public health realize the total contradiction here. Fudging the message will literally cost lives. Who cares honestly is someone is hurt that a poster says women aged 18 to 50 need to turn up to their cervical cancer check ups - the important message is that women need to go to their cervical cancer check ups. Seeing ‘person with a cervix’ throws that added confusion when we already know that even clear messages aren’t always picked up is totally against medical health literacy targets.

THis has been so useful, I'be been looking at health literacy documentation www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/knowledge-library-services/improving-health-literacy and it's really helping. It also makes you wonder how so many departments are then obfuscating the issues and who are driving them and who ultimately it helps in the end as it just becomes confusing for everyone if nothing means anything anymore.

Yes I agree with just using women and men in literature, policy and general\public communications. They’re sex based terms, so are accurate and understandable as they are.
I think once you start adding or qualifying those words they start to loose their original meaning and once that happens it will become a lot more difficult to send clear health messages.

on a personal care level if a patient wants to be referred to as parent instead of mother, I would think that’s fine.

@Slythermum

This has all been really interesting reading. I think if I'm having to write inclusive aspects into any of the work I'm doing I will just continue to use the words woman/female and man/male and then add a separate component regarding trans care that I can discuss if it ever gets raised in a session.

I suppose I now see it as the third space in language and I think it's the only way to not confuse issues whilst ensuring trans people understand they need to speak to their GP as their particular hormonal setup i.e - if they are on medication, had surgery etc is unique to them. And this way it's not obscuring or erasing the actual biological reality of everyone else.

In most cases I think they understand perfectly well, but taking women as an example, transmen don’t want to be included under that term women and transwomen are offended the term women is used and explicitly doesn’t mean them for eg cervical checks. It’s mostly not about helping them understand.

A good health service is one that checks regularly that it’s message is being understood by the right people, whether that is from national data of who is not coming forward for screening, who we are missing, or good research into who isn’t picking up messages about their care eg diabetes.

Sometimes that means outreach work. I did work which was specifically about going to those not accessing or understanding such as homeless people or people where English isn’t their first language.

I’m not sure how it got to a stage where lobbying took precedence over accessibility.

These are some of the key reports on Health Literacy
www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/190655/e96854.pdf

Quote from intro to pdf above
Weak health literacy skills are associated with riskier behaviour, poorer health, less self-management and more hospitalization and costs. Strengthening health literacy has been shown to build individual and community resilience, help address health inequities and improve health and well-being.

fmch.bmj.com/content/8/2/e000351
www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/index.html

@Whatinthelord

Yes I agree with just using women and men in literature, policy and general\public communications. They’re sex based terms, so are accurate and understandable as they are. I think once you start adding or qualifying those words they start to loose their original meaning and once that happens it will become a lot more difficult to send clear health messages.

on a personal care level if a patient wants to be referred to as parent instead of mother, I would think that’s fine.

This.

If it is not tolerable or comfortable for TW, TM and those of other chosen identities to see biological terms present at all then the obvious answer is that as with additional language options, options of all written materials should be available specifically for each group using the language of their choice. That's accessibility.

Do NHS publications that have been translated into different languages use the same "women and ...." construction, or do they just say "women" ?

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/pregnant-women-people-feminism-language/620468/

That’s a really good article, thank you for sharing it

@Artichokeleaves accessibility is centred around the people who the information needs to get to though. It would be ridiculous to offer an alternative leaflet for men for cervical cancer screening for example and a waste of NHS resources, or trans women. They do not need cervical cancer screening and shouldn’t be asked for come forward for it. And targeting should be more than an offer of a leaflet online - it’s reaching out to those people who need it, so if say trans men were not coming forward for cervical cancer screening then accessibility would be something like going to where those trans men communicate most, and asking them how they want to be communicated with which may have lots of different factors not just language it might be style, anything. I can’t see any justification for adapting messaging for those who don’t need it.

Kitten Kong--good point. If it is so complicated for trans people to figure out whether they need a pap smear or not by themselves, they should bring along a trusted smart person who can help them figure complicated shit like this out to their next doctor's appointment. And if they really find this too complicated, maybe they should not undergo complicated wrong-sex surgeries that will confuse them further.

[quote Helen8220]@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/pregnant-women-people-feminism-language/620468/

That’s a really good article, thank you for sharing it[/quote]
I always appreciate good writing and it was especially heartening to see this in the Atlantic .

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

It reminded me a lot of this article from 2015, which I think is similarly insightful and articulate, but it’s just so refreshing (and rare) to see this talked about in an intelligent and balanced way.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/09/what-s-matter-talking-about-pregnant-people