NHS has erased women from ovarian cancer guidance

[bootsyjam]

First image is old guidance.
Second image is new guidance which has also been changed.
Third image is now the final guidance after changes to drop the controversial stuff in the second screen grab. This is the guidance that now appears here:
www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/
It's now 'anyone with ovaries' can get ovarian cancer.

There's a couple of things here:

1. The obvious one-men can't get ovarian cancer. Full stop. No matter what they want to think.

2. Science and medicine is now infected with this madness. How are we going to combat this if we are always told to 'follow the science' and the monopoly in healthcare in the UK is now actively agreeing with this madness?

3. On a more general point, massive changes are being introduced into society that NO ONE has voted on. From stopping gas/oil/petrol to go to Net Zero, shutting roads down permanently in cities, allowing trans right to take over the govt and a host of others, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON ANY OF THIS.

Please note that I am not taking a particular stance on any of the issues mentioned (except for the trans one).
It's a more general point regarding the state of democracy from a local level and upwards and a more philosophical one regarding how society is run.

If you agree with the measures that I have mentioned that have been introduced then try the following thought experiment:
Imagine that instead of cutting back on various fuels, we had instead decided to double our reliance. Double the plastic, double the roads, double the diesel fumes, double the coal and wood fired fired power stations. Closing down pavements to let more cars through. Or think of anything that you agree with being implemented and imagine instead that the exact opposite is being implemented. It has not been discussed at a local/national level, no one has campaigned for it and yet you are being forced to follow it and it will cause huge upheaval in society (whether it is good or bad is not the point).

Or, to make it simple, just keep thinking of this trans madness as a the best example. No one has been allowed to vote on any of this. No one seems to represent us on the political/civil service level on any of this or provide any alternative.

How are we supposed to fight it? Or are we just hate filled bigots as we are constantly being told and therefore don't deserve a voice?

Ahh yes I forgot, it's the last one isn't it. We're bigots.

The word female is next to go.

As an addendum to the original post, the NHS was contacted for an explanation. They were unaware of the changes and referred the reporter to NHS Digital, an agency that manages the government health site.
NHS Digital responded, noting “We use language that is inclusive, respectful and relevant to the people reading it.”

They added “It is not correct to say that there is no mention of women on the ovarian cancer pages. We have updated the pages as part of our routine review of web pages to keep them in line with the best clinical evidence, and make them as helpful as possible to everyone who needs them.”
The report also notes that guidance on prostate cancer on the NHS site has not been altered and still notes that only men can get it.

Well that's ok then. Classic bureaucratic buck passing with a dash of semantics with a light sprinkling of men being ok.
Although in fairness I'm certain the prostate cancer guidance will be getting changed soon enough.

Honestly, I couldn’t get worked up about this if it means someone with ovaries who doesn’t ‘identify’ as a woman might be spared ovarian cancer.

I'm not a person with ovaries

I'm a person who menstruates. But yesterday I was a person with a cervix.

Next week I plan on being a birthing body, as I am a human body who last gave birth over seven years ago. Or I might be a person with a vulva. I'm not certain anymore anyway, which of these types of people I identify as being on any given day.

What was wrong with the middle one, aside from being a bit verbose?

Oh well it's fine for women with learning disabilities or language barriers to die from ovarian cancer though.

I'm wondering when the first case will arise of the NHS being sued for discrimination because a woman has been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Interesting inference. How did you arrive at that?

If means many more women who call themselves women are likely to die of ovarian cancer.

You good with that?

how many more threads do we need about this.

this is from the penile cancer page

“Who is more likely to get penile cancer

Anyone with a penis can get penile cancer. This includes men, trans women, non-binary people and intersex people with a penis.”

they’re not erasing women they’re making language more accessible.

Quite. I'm a woman, I can't get ovarian cancer, I don't have ovaries so the advice doesn't apply to me.

I’ve just looked at the page myself and women are still very much included. Intersex is also a biological presentation rather than a social construct; they don’t choose their genitals so I feel they absolutely should be included in the guidance if they have ovaries.

Why? Do you think women don't know if they have ovaries or not?

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Could you supply evidence to support your viewpoint?

Seems pretty clear.

I find this board very interesting. It’s all about how it’s impossible for someone to ‘identify’ as something different to how they were born, but as soon as there’s someone with female reproductive organs choosing to identify as something else, they’re not women so their health doesn’t matter as much as a ‘cis’ woman’s.

I have my own social views on gender, which I don’t think are relevant in terms of healthcare.

I'm quite happy to identify as a human being and for specific things to be addressed e.g. I am female but I don't have ovaries or a cervix or a womb, I don't menstruate so all the advice about those issues for women don't apply to me.

'they’re not erasing women they’re making language more accessible.'

What a fantastic example of how to sell a controversial political ideology/idea by wrapping it in feelgood friendly sounding terms by saying it makes language 'accessible.' Thereby labelling those who oppose it as wanting to make things inaccessible. We know your game.

We are told language matters. So erasing women from medical guidance matters. It's just the start and will continue slowly but surely. Push a bit here, push a bit there, change this, change that, let's see where we are in a few years shall we.

as soon as there’s someone with female reproductive organs choosing to identify as something else, they’re not women so their health doesn’t matter as much as a ‘cis’ woman’s.

It's not that it "doesn't matter as much", it's that it's a much smaller problem.

You're "solving" a small problem to create a bigger one.

Because

1. Those women who "identify as something else" know they're women, they're just pretending they don't.
2. There are very, very few of them.

So the "harm" caused by using "women" from their end is basically non-existent.

At least compared to the harm caused by the much larger number of women with poor health knowledge or low English skills.

And the women-pretending-they're-not-women is a very specific sub-community, with their own iconography, and they're relatively easily targetted via some specific rainbowy "LGBTQ+" literature meeting their special needs. We don't need to screw up the main resource to handle them.

Yes @ancientgran many women don't know they have ovaries. Many women have learning difficulties or don't have English as a first language or are poorly educated.

metro.co.uk/2020/11/09/almost-50-of-women-dont-know-where-their-cervix-is-finds-study-13561743/

Women's knowledge of their bodies is woeful. And healthcare needs to be in clear and easy to understand language.

By making the language unclear, the NHS is putting more women at risk of dying from ovarian cancer.

And in addition to being confusing, the new line that says that women who have had their ovaries removed cannot get ovarian cancer is wrong. Women can get ovarian cancer in their Fallopian tubes. Finally, people with disorders of sexual development are still either male or female.

But nobody has ‘screwed it up’. I just pasted a copy of the same page where it lists women as well as all the other groups who may have ovaries. It’s language designed to encompass ALL of those groups for ALL their health.

All of those people are women though @WhackingPhoenix. If they have female reproductive systems they're women.

The guidance is medical advice.

Intersex people may or may not call themselves women depending on how they wish to express themselves with the genitals they have. They may have ovaries, but also a penis or testes.

I work in a field concerned with reproductive health, and I can recall a recent trans-man (with female anatomy) who wouldn’t have disclosed vaginal sex if I’d used that terminology, yet still had vaginal sex. It made no difference to me to use the language they were comfortable with, because it meant they got the healthcare they needed, and treatment for the problem they had.

The equivalence you're trying to draw between 1. making public health communications less accessible / intelligible and 2. energy transition and 3.low traffic neighbourhoods makes no sense.

the only conclusion I can draw is that you are highly likely to be a pro car campaigner. if you don't like LTNs you are going to lose your shit if our government ever actually tries to take adequate action to prevent complete climate breakdown.

And I have no issue with you using whichever terms individual patients are comfortable with @WhackingPhoenix

But this is public health information. And, as such, it needs to be as clear as possible to the vast majority of women who do not buy in to gender identity.

It's absolutely scandalous that a cancer which primarily affects older women is being targeted in this way.