People who are screened for cervical cancer

[Doyoumind]

I know this subject has been covered a lot but FFS this just nonsense. The HSE in Ireland have been tweeting for Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Their animation only refers to people. No mention of women.

But they've illustrated every 'person' who might get cervical cancer as a person in a skirt How is that inclusive of female NBs and TM and exclusive of TW? How is the message made clear to its intended audience? Why do organisations for whom absolute clarity should be essential think this is the way to communicate?

twitter.com/HSELive/status/1483016249827229697

Ahhhh but are they skirts or could they in fact be plus fours? Or even nonbimaries with huge bottoms?

They look heavily pregnant to me - and we know that the only people who can get cervical cancer are also the only people who can get pregnant. But not all people who can get cervical cancer can get pregnant. It would be so much clearer if there was a word the HSE could use to describe these people.

Isn't the average reading age in the UK something like 12?

Ads like this exclude everyone who doesn't have a high education level. Or was raised by someone with a low educational level because you are probably relying on yr 7 biology lesson or something here.

And it excludes women with LDS, disabilities , EAL etc who need plain English.

Now that we have been idiots who allow people who don't believe in reality and biology to renive their sex markers from their medical records, ads like that don't even include trans men. Because they won't know it affects then unless they are told who it affects and why.

So who's this for ?

Well we know the answer to that don't we.

We live in a society we qouod rather women die in that men and males be told no.

What a bunch of hypocritical.arseholes . They can only do ads like this because " evil witches" like us do the rest for them

They can't say woman because it excudes men who think they are women. The fact clear language saves lives is not as important as not hurting the feelings of these men. The fact women will die because of this is not important. There is no hell deep enough for these people.

I wear trousers or jeans all the time (or pyjamas at night). It couldn't possibly be me.

@SweetGrapes

I wear trousers or jeans all the time (or pyjamas at night). It couldn't possibly be me.

No, I don't ever wear a skirt so it's definitely not applicable to me. Good good!

But man can be named

If they're going to be inclusive they should use figures not wearing skirts. No point pretending to support trans, non-binary people, etc if they're not going to include them.

Someone should do some research into whether wearing skirts actually increases the likelihood of cervical cancer.

The advert doesn't even use the word "cervix", just "cervical".

If you Google "cervical" the first results are a definition of what a cervix is (" the opening between the vagina and the womb (uterus)") next to two pictures of neck vertebrae in the cervical spine.

The rest of the results are a mixture of cervical spine and cervical (cervix-related). So not only is the advert ambiguous about which 'people' are at risk of cervical cancer, it doesn't even clarify which cervical part of the body it's referring to. It's entirely aimed at an audience that already knows what cervical cancer/screening refers to, and which category of people it applies to.

I wonder about this. How much is outsourced to outside companies? What is the remit, and how much input do medical professionals who actually work in the field have?

I feel like a lot of these awareness campaigns are not really that helpful at all. Maybe the NHS need to think about who their target group actually is and the most effective way of reaching them rather than fretting about people who don't even need a particular service.

@MrMrsJones

But man can be named

Because that doesn't make men kick off.

Heads men win, tails women lose. (But sex isn't a Thing. Mornington Crescent!)

Bloody hell, that is appalling. Firstly you would need to know what the word cervical means. Then You would need to know that cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix not of the neck.

If this is the standard of health information then it is unsurprising that there are transwomen who believe they need cervical screening.

It is funny that they have used the international sign for women.

Personally I think the biggest problem is that all of those people will merely be tested for HPV, and if they’re not infected they won’t be screened for cervical cancer at all.

@Alayalaya

Personally I think the biggest problem is that all of those people will merely be tested for HPV, and if they’re not infected they won’t be screened for cervical cancer at all.

Thanks for pointing it out, especially as there is potentially a differential for the two types of screening.

Women in their 20s are advised to get Pap smears, not HPV tests, because the virus is so common that most would test positive for infections that would most likely clear up on their own.
For women age 30 and older, Pap and HPV co-testing is less likely to miss an abnormality (i.e., has a lower false-negative rate) than Pap testing alone.
Therefore, a woman with a negative HPV test and normal Pap test has very little risk of a serious abnormality developing over the next several years.

Taking it literally as someone who sees people as being a group of males and females, 20 out of 1000 people will have cell changes, which means 20 in 500 women. Is that what they mean? Or do they actually mean 20 out of 1000 women? Are you meant to assume they’re just talking about women? I honestly don’t know.

It’s either 1 in 25 or 1 in 50 women have cell changes. Which is correct? It’s a pretty large margin of error for the sake of “inclusive” language.

a woman with a negative HPV test and normal Pap test has very little risk of a serious abnormality developing over the next several years

This is impossible though. A woman with a negative HPV test is completely unable to access a Pap test.

Thank fuck for that. I don't wear skirts - so I'm not going to get cervical cancer - cool !

This 2014 MA Dissertation illustrates absolutely fantastically why refugee (& [some] other ESOL women) so desperately need the clarity of woman/women in health messaging that’s for them. “Cervical” is simply no use.

It’s from 2006, but here’s a look at the outcomes of the Integrate Ireland Language & Training Programme.

Oh & GPs are relying on - & indeed prefer to use - family members to translate, which the majority of the time will mean children.

So yes - exceptionally vulnerable women are effectively being denied care by the HSE because of a deliberate choice to use this inaccessible language

(Obviously other issues too, but I can only deal with so much rage at once…)

Jo's Trust - the leading cervical cancer charity doesn't use the term women / female etc.

Women will die because of this.

Twitter pinned post
Join us today on the first day of #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek to remind, encourage or support somebody to attend their #CervicalScreening

@Artichokeleaves

Tran identified males will kick off if inclusive language isn't used, even if its not relevant.

But they continue to treat men as normal humans, who can use normal words to describe them.

The most important thing about cervical screening and saving female lives is not to upset any male people .

It's a fantastically privileged view, real ivory tower and off with the fairies stuff, to believe that every female will just know that really they mean females but we're coding that fact in every way to make it as ambiguous as possible so as not to upset a tiny, tiny minority of the population. And any female (incidentally populations multiple times the size of the one being protected from seeing unpleasant facts about other people's lives and needs) who is not in on this secret and the decoding of it all - well, it's not like they matter enough to worry about their lives and feelings, is it? Only females. Haven't even identified into anything more powerful, so they've kind of asked for it.

I really am starting to wonder about people who can actually think like this.

I think also questions have to be asked about why bother wasting money and resources at this point on advertising screening?

Anyone who is privileged enough to know will do it anyway, and the messaging sure as hell isn't going to reach anyone who doesn't know. Waste of money, time and resources. And apparently worrying about being inclusive and accessible is a thing of the past now. Old hat.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Isn't the average reading age in the UK something like 12?

Ads like this exclude everyone who doesn't have a high education level. Or was raised by someone with a low educational level because you are probably relying on yr 7 biology lesson or something here.

And it excludes women with LDS, disabilities , EAL etc who need plain English.

Now that we have been idiots who allow people who don't believe in reality and biology to renive their sex markers from their medical records, ads like that don't even include trans men. Because they won't know it affects then unless they are told who it affects and why.

So who's this for ?

Well we know the answer to that don't we.

We live in a society we qouod rather women die in that men and males be told no.

What a bunch of hypocritical.arseholes . They can only do ads like this because " evil witches" like us do the rest for them

In Ireland the removal of the word woman from women's cancer care was allegedly driven by a women who hates being a woman. Some misogynist idiot(s) in the HSE (Irish NHS) decided that is was an 'inclusive' idea. The funding is from the tax payers and their employment obligations is as a result of legislation which uses the word woman.

Women is the word which targets the health message. As per usual the word man is not removed from equivelant health messages.

A lot of non-nationals and new citizens come from non-english speaking countries. But most women (and men too) in Ireland understand that cervical cancer kills women.
This is because the decision was implemented while the HSE was in court fight against women who's screening failed to report that they had abnormal cells and required further investigation. All of the involved, some who have died, some still fighting the cancer were women. When the HSE discovered the medical mistakes the debate was if the HSE should treat the women like people adults and inform them of what happened or not.

The scandal broke when a very courageous woman refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of a settlement. The government ended up funding additional screening for any woman who had concerns about the results of her scheduled test.

The irony is that the legislation used to pay for the ad is sex specific for women. If a woman obtains a GRC she, as a legal man, self excludes herself from State funded cervical screening.
This could be amended by TRA lobbying for an amending piece of legislation to add in the phrase "women and those issued with a GRC.

Instead the focus is to remove the word woman from womens health care.

It's when I see women in healthcare who want to pretend that we are the "same as men" and argue use "people" that I see women with a internal bias who see men as the "ideal benchmark".

*MrMrsJones
But man can be named
Because that doesn't make men kick off.

Heads men win, tails women lose. (But sex isn't a Thing. Mornington Crescent!)*

And because when men kick off, people listen. So men who feel excluded by the word ' women' kick off and are listened to, but women who feel excluded by the absence of the word 'women' are considered unkind and hysterical - and are excluded from their own group.

Funny how women who have had to have their cervices removed (as a result of delayed diagnosis of cervical cancer, for example) do not feel excluded by the use of 'women' in this context.