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

twitter.com/doncasterccg/status/1482996741473505280?s=20

Give Doncaster a like.

@NotBadConsidering

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.

Clear as mud, isn't it!

All people can wear skirts

@Snog

All people can wear skirts

Indeed. And all skirtwearers are at risk of cervical cancer according to this graphic. Or - only skirtwearers are at risk of cervical cancer? Not sure.

@Apollo441

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.

It has absolutely nothing to do with trans women. Inclusive language like this is meant to include trans men.

Meant to. We all know it’s not though. It’s so males don’t see people and organisations using the word women deliberately not including them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with trans women. Inclusive language like this is meant to include trans men

You cannot claim these things are to include transmen whilst also insisting and/or allowing transmen to change their sex markers at the drs so they don't get called for the tests in the first place.

I mean It doesn't make sense at all does it.

If anyone actually cared about transmen they'd not refuse to talk about reality. Cervical cancer doesn't affect identities it affects biological bodies.

Their used to be a word that described adult human females that everyone was familiar with...

@Artichokeleaves

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.

I often wonder about this - there seems to be a lot of glossy advertising for cervical screening. It seems to be the only 'women's health' thing on offer these days and now it is 'people' 🤷‍♀️ Who knows what it is for - any message is gradually being lost in the sea of disinformation.

Why not spend the money getting people who do not engage with primary health care to make sure they are signed up then make sure they are getting appropriate health care from there.

Surely if people are taking cross sex hormones and having their markers changed on their health records, they are signed up somewhere to do it ?

Inclusive language like this is meant to include trans men

This faux 'inclusive language' bears as much relationship to inclusion as banning "Merry Christmas" does to religious tolerance.

If this was genuinely about including TM and NBs, the noun used to describe the people at risk would be females. Because it is females, adult human females, who are at risk of cervical cancer. Females, regardless of whether they subscribe to gender woo or how they identify.

It has absolutely nothing to do with trans women. Inclusive language like this is meant to include trans men

The wording does indeed include trans men because it refers to "people". People is everyone. But not everyone is at risk of cervical cancer. The diagram excludes trans men by using the conventional stick figure for women.

But you know all of that, don't you?

The skirt thing is a red herring - I never wear skirts and I got it!! Don't be lulled into a false sense of security .....

Chesney. I'm sorry. Damn shame the skirt-avoidance as protective measure is apparently not holding up.

@ArabellaScott thank you. I'm all good now. This was 2020. But yes the jeans wearing didn't keep me safe 😂

[quote MrMrsJones]@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.[/quote]
So?

Ignore them, they are just a bunch of ridiculous immature misogynist anyway.

Woman = Adult Human Female. And that is it.

twitter.com/macmillancancer/status/1483368623225847811

MacMillan are busy 'people-ing' on twitter this morning.

The money they must waste on advertising campaigns - how much of this is actually gettting to the actual women who are at higher risk of cervical cancer but not getting screening?

So much more is now known about the pathology of cervical cancer.

I would like to see how many more at risk women they actually get through the door (and not the 'worried well')

@NitroNine that MA dissertation link doesn't work for me, I'd like to read it, do you have a title for it?

@TwentyFirstCenturyTricoteuse

It is “English Language Acquisition by Chechen Programme Refugees in Roscommon, Ireland” (& is lodged as a Master’s Thesis rather than dissertation, though that wasn’t clear at time reading).

Have found it in a different format but possibly the Technical University of Dublin doesn’t approve of documents they hold being turned into clicky links Full. Stop.

I saw an ad today on my GP’s Fb page. Advertising the importance of cervical screening. People with a cervix can book for an appointment apparently…

I’m due mine. I’m going to wear my human female tshirt to my appointment.

@JellySaurus

Inclusive language like this is meant to include trans men

This faux 'inclusive language' bears as much relationship to inclusion as banning "Merry Christmas" does to religious tolerance.

If this was genuinely about including TM and NBs, the noun used to describe the people at risk would be females. Because it is females, adult human females, who are at risk of cervical cancer. Females, regardless of whether they subscribe to gender woo or how they identify.

I think trans men and NB people know what includes them better than you do. Not to mention plenty of people would find it alienating to be constantly referred as "females" like they're breeding stock or getting a smear test from a Ferengi or something.

And how do they know?

Could it be because someone had the dirty job of explaining to them the differences between men and women boys and girls?

Either you have to admit that pandering to gender and the language around it, is totally reliant on someone explaining reality then using it to gain popularity by using so called inclusive language that excludes anyone unlucky enough to not have been raised or taught by anyone who actually knows about the body.

Or you don't care that transmen and NB females will end up dead because they have no idea they have a cervix and the charities meant to support them.made drs remove the details that would have them alerted to the need fir the tests.

Which is it?

@BlueberryCheezecake clear language is important to me professionally and the NHS guidelines clearly state that the direction of travel should be towards using plainer English to empower patients. So I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Would you agree in principle that using clear language accessible to people with low levels of literacy for whatever reason is important in public health messaging?

1. Would you agree that some sort of impact assessment on linguistically vulnerable user groups is appropriate when making sweeping changes to the language in public health messaging, to make sure they still understand the message?

1. Have you seen any evidence of such impact assessments?

Not to mention plenty of people would find it alienating to be constantly referred as "females" like they're breeding stock or getting a smear test from a Ferengi or something.

But referring to women as 'cervix-havers' and 'people with vaginas' and 'menstruaters' is not alienating.

I think trans men and NB people know what includes them better than you do.

So why don't transwomen and non binary people born male insist on the removal of man from anything to do with male health needs?

Oh wait , is it perhaps that the erasure of the word ' woman" in anything to do with female health needs has nothing to do with including non gender conforming females , but is rather male people demanding it's erasure because otherwise it excludes these males from being included in " womanhood"

Its!! Sorry

I think trans men and NB people know what includes them better than you do.

I agree.

In which case, why change and obfusticate language in a way that excludes and impedes clear communication and access to the very much larger other groups of female humans who need clear, straightforward English?