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)

So as much as it is a mouthful saying 'women, trans men and non binary people with a cervix' is probably the best way to be inclusive. I definitely think including woman or female is essential though.

I take the point and I wouldn't object to wording along the lines of 'women, including ... etc'
But I object to 'women and....'

The word 'Women' includes those other groups, not the other way round.

Call me the grammar police, but nodding through inaccurate language is not a benign act. It’s how we end up with people like Stella Creasey telling us ‘female’ doesn’t have the same meaning any more.

That's the problem that the years of TRA action have brought us to, isn't it?

They have fucked up the language to the point that anyone who wants to be helpful, inclusive and nice (in all of their true meanings) ends up with alphabetti spaghetti on the page.

That and your friend's experience only underlines the very real need for honest and detailed discussions with young people who want to transition. They simply cannot be left in that hinterland of daft for reasons of 'being nice'. Which is why so many women, like me, continue to fight this. Trans people deserve better than TRA lies.

Yes ideally her sibling would understand she will always be female no matter what hormones and surgery she has, but that's unfortunately not the current situation. The current ideology is very dangerous on this

Why are those prescribing the drugs or advising them NOT clearly explaining the biology facts to them? Pointing out that as someone with a female body, female anatomy, they have to take responsibility to maintaining their body with respect to this? If they can understand that, say F2M won’t need a prostate check, how can they not know that they need to have relevant gynae checks?

something is not working here. It’s almost as if there is money to make and no after care.

Exactly right. It’s a sneaky redefinition. And it excludes everyone who does not have any kind of gender identity, because the intention is to reify the idea that everyone does.

I prefer the additional qualifiers being added, rather than using inaccurate terms such as 'people with cervixes'. It is important to use women, men, female and male to make it clear - adding the other bits to be inclusive does not offend me. However, 'people who bleed' etc. does offend me. It's dehumanising and inaccurate. Plenty of that bullshit happening here in Wales at the moment with 'period positive' websites and policies. Good to see male conditions also finally being updated on the NHS. At one time, it was only female conditions which made me question their sexism.

When they say women, don't they mean the frilly kind with painted nails and high heels? So by that reckoning, I'm not sure I am at risk of ovarian cancer. Fucktards.

I think it would be much more clear if, instead of using "and", they used "including":
women, including transmen and non-binary females, ...

That way, it is clear that "women" means those of female sex, and does not include any of male sex such as transwomen.

The language argument is a poor analogy. Some people needing to use the NHS simply don't have English. A transman DOES have (one assumes and hopes) the knowledge that however they identify, they physically have ovaries/a uterus etc, and so will know to google 'ovarian cancer symptoms'.

I agree that the sensible approach would be a disclaimer about the words 'woman' and 'man' and how they're used and meant here.

once you state “women plus trans men, non binary etc etc” is is obvious that you are using the word woman to mean something other than biologically female person

No it isn’t. It’s acknowledging that some people originally born female do not consider themselves women. They regard themselves as men or trans men. They may even be legally male. That’s just a fact.

The confusion all this creates in language is frightening.

How do we analyse, say, sex discrimination in the labour force without being allowed to have terms meaning the individuals who belong to the female sex?

What does it mean, in the New Language of Gender Identity (NLGI) ideology, to state that "though most men don't commit sexual violence, almost all perpetrators of sexual violence are men?"

How do we explain why some people must wear burqas and can't go to school or to work in Afghanistan using NLGI?

If we are required to speak only NLGI, most sex-based oppression becomes impossible to discuss in clear terms that wouldn't be insulting to vast groups of people. For instance, the second of my questions would have to be rewritten like this, for the sake of clarity:

Though most penis people don't commit sexual violence, almost all perpetrators of sexual violence are penis people.

Or penis-havers or 'individuals assigned a penis at birth' and so on.

So this NHS question links to far wider questions about the colonisation and appropriation of language.

The hysteria just keeps coming doesn’t it. Once again, nothing has been removed, terms have been added. If you read a list that says women, trans men and non binary people with a cervix, and you’re insisting you’re not represented there then really you need to get out in the big wide world a bit more.

Yep. I can't believe this thread is still going. People are tying themselves on knots to turn something quite simple into 'women being erased' when that absolutely has NOT happened here. The exact same construction has been used on the prostate cancer section, FFS.

The definition of women as adult female human beings has been erased.

In the list "women, trans men and non binary people with a cervix" the word 'women' must, by logic, refer to those who identify as women, not to those who are biologically female, because the other listed groups are also biologically female people.

That the NHS, belatedly, is also altering the definition of 'man' so that it cannot refer to the male sex, either, is not really a consolation at all. The project of sex erasure has been deeply asymmetric so far, and in a way men seeing it happen to them, too, is likely to increase opposition to the project. But the fact remains that sexism and sex-based oppression, sex-based discrimination etc. are rarely aimed at the male sex, so it suffers fewer losses from the use of this new language than the female sex.

And as an aside, no, I am not represented in that list as I don't have an abstract gender identity.

My seeing myself on that list depends on exactly the kind of confusion that is happening now, i.e., that the first group listed (women here) is supposed to cover biological women only (as trans women don't need information on ovarian cancer, say), while the other two groups are supposed to be abstract gender identities. But creating the list that way is not logical, and as it stands it is about gender identities so trans women would be included in the first group.

It’s listing biologically female people using different terms people may identify most closely with

You can identify (feel like?) a wombat bit you are still a woman / girl and you know it.

What have wombats got to do with it?

What does how you feel have to do with it (your sex) either?

You, and @saraclara, just aren't listening. Changing the use of the word woman is the very, very thin end of the wedge. I have posted, others have posted, examples of how this small change is used as the basis for other changes, changes that do cause harm.

That you use the term 'identify' shows that you either don't care about or have not thought about that. What does 'identify' actually mean when it comes to the biological ex of a human being?

It can only mean one thing - a lie!

A lie that is used to place men sentenced for murder into the women's estate where they get drunk and have sex with a younger prisoner, a female with whom they are incarcerated, no barriers, no separation.

A lie that is used to place elite, but not the very best, male performers in female sports.

A lie that is used to prevent abused women accessing counselling.

Because all the men involved were transwomen, women, if not female.

And some of the most well know transwomen have even claimed to be female, as in actually physically female, not just in possession of a certificate!

So, as all of those things have happened this year, here in the UK, what do you suggest we do? Smile and open that door wider?

And that is quite separate from the reality that fucking up the language like that only makes things more inclusive for the entitled and privileged few who choose to 'identify' as anything.

Women who have poor literacy levels, with little or no written English, the most vulnerable women in society, are not included in this. They are excluded because the terminology they understand is being drowned in gender flummery.

What happened to the Crystal Mark? Did we suddenly lose the need for plain English? Was that a heinous lie used to deny transpeople their existence? Or does the current balderdash simply not give a fuck for anyone other than itself?

Stand still for a moment and think...

So non-binary is confusing in the middle there, because I could be a non-binary (biological born) man? Therefore cannot get O.C.

So I was going to suggest maybe just 'people with ovaries' would be simpler and more inclusive?

But actually, I am a (biological) woman without ovaries (hysterectomy) and I see someone up thread has said that does not preclude me from getting a form of ovarian cancer?

I actually did not know this and so perhaps the most helpful wording (if they must change it!) would be 'biological women, including those biological women who no longer have ovaries'

It seems, Fieldofgreycorn, you have not understood.

The point is that these people who 'regard themselves as men', in your words, are mistaken so to do. So to address them publically as what they regard themselves as would be (is) itself an error.

OK, you deny that. Some think you are wrong. A discussion ensues. But to claim it correct to address them in the way you would wish just because they so regard themselves is severely to beg the question: you assume, rather than offer justification for, the particular point of view you wish to convince your reader of.

Do you see? I suspect that not. To beg the question this way in full understanding of what you are doing would be dishonest, and I do not think that of you. But the only alternative is that you simply do not understand. I am not optimistic about your comprehension, even once you have read this. But, well, there you go.

Try.

Terms have been added, yes.
But the word woman apparently now means everybody, at least some politicians and others in the public eye have gone out to say so;
Some women are born with penises.

and trouble is, a surprising amount of people seem to truly believe this.

just yesterday I was lectured on Facebook (I am that old!) that people are maybe born one sex but then they somehow turn into the other sex when they decide they are trans. This person believed that this was latent in the body, and when the mind caught up with the real sex of the person, the body changed to its proper sex.

it was very weird. A complete mangling of the language and no understanding of biology at all.

it was suggested I should educate myself on the subject.

So it is not clear or helpful in anyway to have women and…
sadly.

Got distracted by dog.

point: the word woman (plural women) means biological female.

and so that is all that is needed.
women with such and such symptoms …

it includes all the women who may be afflicted by such an illness.
women are female.
trans men are female.
I don’t understand non-binary at all, but if you have female biology then you are female.
if you are a transwoman (or trans woman) you are not female.

it is very inclusive of everyone with a female biology, in fact.

ok, no I need a walk after having repeated the same stuff in as many ways as I could think of.

And we are just fine with any man taking offence and trying to fix that. If they see the need. That makes it no better for women, its not a race to the bottom.
I am very unbothered by this(its not my hill to die on) but I can still see the point being made.

Woman/women is a stand alone. Needs no qualifiers. And in this instance of ovarian cancer we cant even qualify it with womb haver, or the like as it could effect women who had a hysterectomy too. Not that I suggest ovary owning person or womb owner as alternatives, that definitely is all kinds of wrong.

In the cases of healthcare simple words are needed, not optional. We want to get through to as many people as possible or frankly why bother.
If someone is non binary, they still know what sex they are, a transwoman knows what sex they are, a transman knows what sex they are. Else why trans
The can identify as Richard the third, it doesn't alter the sex they are.
If we wont make it simple, then lots of people will not know if it applies to them.
12 years ago most of this stuff was niche, plenty of people still dont know, it's not mainstream enough yet( God I wish it was, this would all melt away) those people will not necessarily know this is aimed at them.

*just yesterday I was lectured on Facebook (I am that old!) that people are maybe born one sex but then they somehow turn into the other sex when they decide they are trans. This person believed that this was latent in the body, and when the mind caught up with the real sex of the person, the body changed to its proper sex.

it was very weird. A complete mangling of the language and no understanding of biology at all*

Well that simply doesn't help your argument at all. If some people genuinely believe they have changed sex, then it's a stellar idea for the NHS to ensure their literature can be understood by those people. Even if you think they're not very well educated in biology. Not very educated people still need healthcare.