Woman's hour 7th feb - pregnant people

[WarriorN]

They're doing a piece on the language of reproduction:

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]The article was out a couple of weeks ago - apparently the full thing was being published today with additional information. Which is unusual, I think - do academic papers usually have a "soft launch"?

www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html[/quote]
I think they have been building momentum. This article is a BIG DEAL where I work.

I think it's significant that it's an international paper with some huge brains on the author list, @AgathaMystery

Courage calls to courage.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]The article was out a couple of weeks ago - apparently the full thing was being published today with additional information. Which is unusual, I think - do academic papers usually have a "soft launch"?

www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html[/quote]
I'm not sure in general, but there's early/preprint publication of papers relevant to covid.

Thank you for letting us know. I’ll listen on iPlayer. That is good news.

@AgathaMystery I'm dying to ask what field you work in...

I'm an HCP and there's barely been a sniff from my lot. They have all read it but are too scared to say they agree.

@FrancescaContini

Surely the onus is on the individual to stay abreast - no pun intended whatsoever - of what their healthcare needs may be?? Is it really the responsibility of the NHS to remind people that they still have a cervix etc?

Many women don't know who has a "cervix", just as many men don't know they have a prostate and don't have a cervix. In one survey, only 44% of women were able to identify the cervix.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]The article was out a couple of weeks ago - apparently the full thing was being published today with additional information. Which is unusual, I think - do academic papers usually have a "soft launch"?

www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html[/quote]
Thank you for the link.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]@AgathaMystery I'm dying to ask what field you work in...

I'm an HCP and there's barely been a sniff from my lot. They have all read it but are too scared to say they agree.[/quote]
Oh, midwifery. It's no secret.

@BaronMunchausen
That 44% figure is shocking. Don’t children learn about the reproductive system at school any more? I would have thought that most women over 18 or so at least know they have a cervix due to being called for screening.

From following some links on twitter, the supplementary files have only just been added.

twitter.com/drkarleeng/status/1490562732818862080?s=21

[quote FrancescaContini]@BaronMunchausen
That 44% figure is shocking. Don’t children learn about the reproductive system at school any more? I would have thought that most women over 18 or so at least know they have a cervix due to being called for screening.[/quote]
Yes, children learn about biology. They learn there are vagina's and penisses but it is a mystery who has what.

I also think a lot of kids who don't do A level biology probably never get beyond vagina, uterus and ovary. Just enough to learn what parts you need to make a baby. But again, some men can have babies too nowadays. So good luck making sense of it all

@AgathaMystery, yes, midwifery is a bonkers place at the moment.

I'm in sexual health.

If you look at genitals all day you get a good understanding of what sex is. It's fascinating to me that they pretend they can't see what is plainly facing the nose on their face.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]@AgathaMystery, yes, midwifery is a bonkers place at the moment.

I'm in sexual health.

If you look at genitals all day you get a good understanding of what sex is. It's fascinating to me that they pretend they can't see what is plainly facing the nose on their face.[/quote]
the mind boggles

@LilithOfEden
The scenarios you outline are terrifying but the logical end conclusion of believing or being led to believe that you really can change sex.

[quote FrancescaContini]@BaronMunchausen
That 44% figure is shocking. Don’t children learn about the reproductive system at school any more? I would have thought that most women over 18 or so at least know they have a cervix due to being called for screening.[/quote]
Cervical screening doesn't start till 25.

Midspousery

Reproduction as a topic isn't in the current A level Biology specification for two of the major exam boards (AQA, OCR).
Inheritance and genetics, yes, but not the reproductive system, although it is covered at GCSE.

[quote WarriorN]From following some links on twitter, the supplementary files have only just been added.

twitter.com/drkarleeng/status/1490562732818862080?s=21[/quote]
Says "sorry, we can't preview this file" when I click the link, @WarriorN

It's open access, isn't it?

I just came on to see if there was a thread about this!

I thought Jenny Gamble did well at highlighting the confusion that can occur when 'people' is used imprecisely. I also liked the way she highlighted the need for clear language in information and advice and referring respectfully to individuals, such as trans men and non binary people giving birth.

The onus might be on individuals 'to stay abreast ... of what their healthcare needs might be' but we know there will always be those who cannot/will not do this. Otherwise we would be able to close most of the NHS.

As others have said, these changes that we are told are to make health care more inclusive only seem to involve women and girls' health. Amid the references to chest feeding, pregnant people, menstruators (which auto correct is trying to correct to 'men's tractors'), and cervix havers, has anyone ever seen a leaflet aimed at prostate havers? The prostate cancer campaign is all men men men, with no references to trans women or non binary people.

[quote FrancescaContini]@BaronMunchausen
That 44% figure is shocking. Don’t children learn about the reproductive system at school any more? I would have thought that most women over 18 or so at least know they have a cervix due to being called for screening.[/quote]
A week or so ago Woman's Hour itself did a feature on ignorance and confusion between the words vulva and vagina (Channel 4's nude dating show had been mixing them up) and a guest also mentioned many didn't know what a cervix was either.

@FrancescaContini

Surely the onus is on the individual to stay abreast - no pun intended whatsoever - of what their healthcare needs may be?? Is it really the responsibility of the NHS to remind people that they still have a cervix etc?

Just to clarify what I meant by this: I am not referring to anyone who may ever need any kind of medical treatment but to the group of people referred to in the radio interview ie “trans” people. What I mean is: even if these people genuinely believe they have “become” the other sex by whatever means, surely they realise that they still retain, for example, a cervix and therefore need to attend screening (assuming they want to be screened). So if they wish to be registered with their GP as their “gender identity” ie male rather than female, how is the surgery then supposed to know to keep these people in the loop regarding routine cancer screenings, whether for prostate or cervix? So it has to be the responsibility of the individual to come forward and remind the surgery that they need an appointment.

Makes much better sense to remain registered as your sex rather than “gender identity” with health services, as the researcher pointed out.

Not sure what I have said that's warranted deletion, MN moderators. If a child with the birth sex female is told/affirmed she is a boy, that all her biological functions are those experienced by males, and is sheltered from any education that might tell her otherwise because it might be triggering, then yes, she might not have the faintest idea she has a cervix.

[quote WarriorN]From following some links on twitter, the supplementary files have only just been added.

twitter.com/drkarleeng/status/1490562732818862080?s=21[/quote]
Figured it out - to open the supplementary files you have to click on the red button and download it.

It's a comprehensive collection of examples where sexed language was not used and so meaning was obfuscated. There are cases where sexed language from e.g. a conference presentation was made gender neutral for sharing on social media.

It's FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS.

@LilithOfEden

Not sure what I have said that's warranted deletion, MN moderators. If a child with the birth sex female is told/affirmed she is a boy, that all her biological functions are those experienced by males, and is sheltered from any education that might tell her otherwise because it might be triggering, then yes, she might not have the faintest idea she has a cervix.

It was an excellent post. Why was it deleted?