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.

They are not just changing language around female cancers. They are also changing the wording around male cancers which is why I linked to the wording on the page about penile cancer. They just haven’t got to them all yet, it’s a huge piece of work. They haven’t done vulval cancer yet either - don’t go look there though - you might have to admit you might be wrong

You seem to be conveniently ignoring my point about intersex people.

The scope of the guidance is explicitly stated in the screenshot I took this morning, which I am going to post again for your ease of reference.

Sajid Javid has weighed in on this issue now:
news.sky.com/story/health-secretary-sajid-javid-says-biological-sex-matters-after-nhs-removes-women-on-ovarian-cancer-page-12629920

Would the women with learning difficulties need support anyway and the women who have issues with written English.

I don't have fallopian tubes so another thing to add to the list.

What is wrong with targeting information to the people who need the information?

He needs to read the link @WhackingPhoenix gave, it clearly states women. Maybe he didn't read it properly before giving his opinion, still do we need men telling us what information we need?

I've used their online form and complained at the almost total erasure of the words woman and women from their ovarian cancer information, and added that I'm willing to bet that the words man and men haven't been erased from prostate cancer information!

I am not holding my breath for a reasonable answer.

The people who need the information are older women @ancientgran. Not young women who are labouring under the misapprehension that it's possible for humans to change sex.

Older women with ovaries. I don't need the information, lots of us don't. They are targeting the people who need the informaiton.

I don't know how to make it clearer.

Whether I agree or disagree with any of the things I have listed is not the point.
I don't change my opinion on the democratic deficit depending on whether I happen to agree with the given policy or not.
I'm a democrat, a proper one, and think people should have the chance to vote on all major issues that result in wholesale changes in society. I was giving examples off the top of my head that have resulted/will result in huge changes without people being given the chance to vote on them. I'm sure you could think of some as well.

I remember years ago listening to a phone in discussing Prince Charles and his spider memos to Government. Caller after caller stated "I don't know what the problem is, I think he has a good point."
I remember thinking that this was a dangerous way to look at it and I haven't changed my opinion.

I fail to see your point. If they're changing wording around male cancers to be (in your words) 'more accessible' then so what. It's the same issue. Anyway, have a nice day, and don't forget the point I raised:
"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."

Since your point is “theyre erasing women omg they don’t do it to men” I’m pointing out they are making changes in the same way.

it’s not inaccessible to you. They use the word woman which presumably you identify with. Just being obtuse for the sake of it

Ah yes, nobody young develops ovarian cancer, and definitely not the 32 year old woman I nursed as she was dying from it. Let’s just forget about them because only older women need the information.

Ah. Right.
Shame you didn't read my second post at the start of the thread which states:
"Although in fairness I'm certain the prostate cancer guidance will be getting changed soon enough."

And yeah, good job avoiding my assertion that invoking 'inclusive' tries to paint those who disagree as being uninclusive in order to negate arguments and make people look bad.

Have a wonderful day!

Two days ago the womb cancer landing page didn't mention 'woman' or 'female' at all, and was last reviewed October 21 2021. On the same day the prostate cancer landing page mentioned 'men' many times and 'male' at least once. It was reviewed on October 18, 2021.

So clearly it cannot be the entire case that for some weird reason they are just getting to the men's pages later and nothing else sexist at all is going on here. The asymmetry is visible everywhere, not only in the NHS, but also in the Irish health system's online pages, in private health charities and so on.

I spotted this asymmetry in 2019 and waited and waited and waited for the male sex to start getting erased. It is happening a little now, but probably only because people like me are complaining about this deeply sexist difference. Much in gender identity ideology really smells and looks and sounds exactly like old-fashioned contempt towards women as a sex.

He's the Health Secretary, so yes, this particular man's view is important. According to the Sky News article he said: "You won't be surprised to know that as a health secretary, I think that your that your sex matters, your biological sex is incredibly important to make sure you get the right treatment, the very best treatment."

The report added: ' "It's important that when messaging is given to people for cancers that words like women and men are used," Mr Javid said.

The health secretary said he is "looking into this" and added: "I know there's some sensitivity around this language, but we have to use common sense and use the right language so that we can give people the best possible patient care." '

Here's Debbie Hayton's piece on this issue (it originally appeared in The Spectator): debbiehayton.com/2022/06/01/why-is-the-nhs-erasing-women/

I was in my 40s when mine had to go, not sure if that qualifies as young or old as I think it depends on your age, at 70 I have to say 40 seems young but to a teenager it is probably old.

Unfortunately if he thinks the word woman has been eradicated then he does need to read that link because it clearly says woman. I don't care what his title is if he can't read he's not much use as secretary of anything and regardless of what he thinks on the subject as a woman with no ovaries I don't need information on ovaries.