The NHS responded to my query about erasing women from their website

[pink85]

Been a lurker here for a while and saw the thread about the NHS erasing the word woman from biological women's cancers. This was the response email. What does everyone think? (also sorry if I do anything wrong, not posted here before but love the gender discussions which are always honest and fair as I believe in sex based reality and am on the side of JK)

Thank you for contacting the NHS Website service desk.
The NHS Website provides information for everyone. We aim to use language that is inclusive, respectful, and relevant to the people reading it.
We are working to improve content across the NHS website to make it clearer, easier to understand and more accessible. This includes improving the structure of the pages, writing in plain English, and improving the inclusivity of the language we use to ensure people get the correct clinical information.
As part of this work, we recently updated a number of our cancer topics. As a result of our user research, we made significant changes to how the information was originally structured.
We have not removed the word women from any of our cancer topics, we use it on the causes page when speaking about who is at risk. On topics like ovarian and cervical cancers, where we previously only mentioned "women" we now say "women, trans men, non-binary and intersex people with ovaries". This ensures anyone who could get these cancers can understand the information is relevant to them.
There are 1000s of pages of content on the website and doing this work takes time. Some cancers (such as ovarian, penile and anal cancer) have been updated already, whereas some still need to be updated (such as vulval and testicular cancer). This can lead to some differences in our content. We are working towards being clear and consistent across the website.
^You can find out more about our approach to inclusive content and writing about sex and gender here: service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/sex-gender-and-sexuality.^

(funny how the results on testicular cancer on the first page state men yet for cervical cancer it lists a whole load of people)

The purpose of the nhs website is to inform. Websites are found by their content on Google so if a transman Googles "can a transman get ovarian cancer" , and the page makes no mention of trans, that page won't be found. The nhs has to serve everyone regardless of whether you think transmen should just accept that they are women.

It occurred to me that some people really DO think they’ve changed their biology, which is why it’s such a priority for the words woman/women to be erased or subjugated.

we’re the uncomfortable reminder that they are not what they want to be.

I have no problem in them living the way they want to, but that doesn’t mean I get erased or told I can’t call myself a woman, be known as a woman or have information written that includes me as I am with common sense and science applied.

I think the description on all medical pages would have utterly solved this NHS mess.

Exactly. That's all that is needed.

Badqueen you are completely missing the point, with respect. If the website says “women + lots of other categories of biologically female people” it must mean they think woman doesn’t mean biologically female person. It can’t mean anything else, can it? So what do they think “woman” means?
one likely answer is they use woman to mean “female plus female gender identity”, or females who “identify as” women. So female people like me, who are female but have no gender identity, and are not any of the other categories either, but are happy and proud to think of themselves as women, are excluded. They take sides and end up excluding most of the people whom the message is intended for. It’s absurd and insulting.

@badqueen Please don't put words in my mouth. I was simply highlighting how confusing it has become on such an important site. Healthcare should be simple to understand, nothing about what they are doing is consistent or clear. It is only biological women that it affects I don't know why thats so wrong to say these days.

Tbh, as long as the word woman is there, I am content to leave it as it is.

And I mean woman not cisgender woman.

It’s when they erase the word woman and use uterus havers, period people and other words like that. That’s when I have a problem

Agreed

Just say “woman”, and spell out that you’re talking biological categories only. Everyone’s included, no sides taken. Bingo.

And it includes people it shouldn't - male people who consider themselves women. I think it goes to show that we do need a word that means adult human females. We do already have that word - women. Maybe we need to educate people on the meaning of this word.

It is not clear and not consistent. What people writing these things from the NHS to cancer charities do not want to admit is that:

1. many women, and probably men too, either do not have the vocab or have English as second language so reducing things to terms like vulva befuddles many. As does long lists of who might get those cancers - the naive reader might even think you have to be all of the so-called inclusive list at the same time, (women, trans and non-binary), to get it!

2. (and this is is key) in contrast to the above there is not a trans person or non-binary person on the planet that does not know what their biological sex is, so sticking to women and men in any health description is very clear to everyone. And is frankly the most inclusive - as it includes everyone what ever their language or educational ability.

Why do we all have to pretend that trans people and non-binary people do not know what their biological sex is?

They are excluding me and women like me

This is what you put earlier. So you call yourself a woman. The website says woman. Ergo, you are represented. You are not a victim.

From here, as someone who is a gender critical feminist, its looking like some people on Mumsnet would be happy to see any female who doesnt adhere to gender stereotypes and who doesnt call themselves a woman, excluded from healthcare. Like i said. If a trans man googled whether their symptoms could be ovarian cancer, would you be happier if the NHS website didn't show up to help that person? Because if the words transman aren't on that page, it won't show up because of SEO. Are females only worthy of help from the NHS if they look and sound and think like you?

The hills you lot choose to die on are baffling.

many women, and probably men too, either do not have the vocab or have English as second language so reducing things to terms like vulva befuddles many. As does long lists of who might get those cancers - the naive reader might even think you have to be all of the so-called inclusive list at the same time, (women, trans and non-binary), to get it

What should they say instead of vulva on a page about female cancer?

But this is about bodies not minds.

Someone who is ‘mature enough’ to declare/‘live as’ their sex the opposite, really should be ‘mature enough’ to acknowledge that Mother Nature doesn’t care what you feel and even if you can’t see it - you still may have the internal plumbing (you will know if you have had surgery).

if it’s ‘just a word’, then keep it as it is. What next - change any race/ethnic origin categories because people feel differently? Even though some groups of the community are more at risk from certain diseases and need monitoring?

lets just keep this scientific please.

So gender non conforming people are simply immature? There it is then. They just need to grow up and that will solve everything. Stick them all in a Boden sundress until they see the error of their ways.

Your argument is more akin to saying that the nhs website shouldn't bother offering information in different languages because if people want to use the nhs, the majority speak English and it's confusing to the majority to have options to change the website into different languages. Even though it's still there, in English and it makes no difference to you if there are also options to make the site more accessible to non english speakers.

They haven't removed the word woman. You're still represented. What this boils down to is that you just don't respect other people's choices to live their lives in a different way to you, and youd rather see that resources were inaccessible to them but you're tying yourself up in semantics and using non English speakers as a reason not to make the NHS more inclusive.

And you want to keep it scientific. Someone above doesn't want them using the word vulva because it's too confusing for non English speakers. Which is it? Should they use scientific language, or shouldn't they?

No - I said if someone cannot bear the idea that their body sex is what it is - who will say they are insulted/triggered whatever by reading the descriptive word for the body they inhabit and need to have euphemisms/other terms to describe it (when a single word will absolutely do) then they aren’t particularly robust, and that is surely a worry?

live your life, certainly. But reality is there.

That's not what you said at all.

Well it is.

Are you taking offence at the term ‘mature enough’ - which was meant to mean that it’s not the mature reaction to refuse to answer to a descriptive word regarding your sex (you know your sex) because you don’t feel?

How is it ‘inaccessible’ for someone who knows their bodily sex to use it on a website referring to bodies?

That. It's perfectly clear to me. Women are not excluded, the word is very clearly there.

The role of the NHS on that site is to ensure that those at risk, know that they are. They need to make it clear in simple terms by listing ALL the people who are at risk, and not assume that everyone is educated enough to know that they are.

There seem to be people here who'd prefer others to remain undiagnosed, rather than have anyone else included on that list other than women.

They have a job to do, and they're doing it in real time, and equally across male and female cancers.

Just wanna say thanks to those who understand my pov and don't twist my reason for posting this and try and say I don't want people to get the appropriate heathcare advice because that is not it at all.

I wish all the people who want to turn biological sex into a philosophical debate and render words meaningless would go back to debating how many angels can dance on a pin head

Google works for transmen the same way as for anyone else. They would Google their symptoms, they would find a page about ovarian cancer, and they would say "ah yes, I have ovaries after all, so I'd better have a read".

Or when you Google your symptoms do you always add your "gender identity" in there as a search term? "Non-binary demi-boi achy leg sore throat"?

"So gender non conforming people are simply immature? There it is then. They just need to grow up and that will solve everything. Stick them all in a Boden sundress until they see the error of their ways."

"Boden sundress"? WTF are you talking about?

I just want to point out that are people who biologically do not fall into either sex category. It is not so simple as ‘people know their sex’ or are exclusively biologically male or female. It is completely scientifically possible to have a mixed picture.

If an argument is based on the fact there are only two sexes and everyone is definitively biologically one or the other, it’s scientifically flawed.

I don’t have a strong position on the whole trans thing. But I do have a strong position science, particularly biology. It is completely BIOLOGICALLY possible to be born, or develop, as neither male or rename or various combinations thereof.

The trans debate is about gender, and the role of gender in society. It’s a valid topic for discussion. But it can’t be based on the foundation that there are only two discrete and fixed biological sexes, because that is not accurate.

Fenlaindia - the quote you draw attention to:

"So gender non conforming people are simply immature? There it is then. They just need to grow up and that will solve everything. Stick them all in a Boden sundress until they see the error of their ways."

Seems to underscore the poster's earlier confusion where the poster says:

"From here, as someone who is a gender critical feminist, its looking like some people on Mumsnet would be happy to see any female who doesnt adhere to gender stereotypes and who doesnt call themselves a woman, excluded from healthcare".

The poster erroneously seems to think we are all about being nice, good proper women wearing Boden sundresses (I don't actually know what this beastie is), sipping pink gin and having orgasms at the thought of doing our husbands' laundry or something. The poster has missed the point that we are actually about challenging gender and sex-role stereotypes.

The poster has missed the point that we are actually about challenging gender and sex-role stereotypes.

If that's true why are you so threatened by the NHS including people who step outside of stereotypes?