Isn't this a good thing?

[rumplestiltskinp]

Just looking for some way to clear my thoughts around this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11080589/Why-NHS-sexing-WOMENS-health-pages.html

The effect of this is;

Allowing women who "identify as male" to go and be treated for gynae problems whilst having their "gender identity" recognised and not being put off going for treatment regarding their female anatomy.

Means that men (people with male anatomy) are still going to be referred to as men and male with no conditioning to refer to them by their gender.

So on face value it seems like this policy does nothing to validate transwomen and does everything to ensure females go for the treatment they need.

Just like with unisex/mixed sex toilets it doesn't mean men can go into women's toilets, it means men and women use the same space - again not validating men as women.

Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

The claim is that desexing language is to accommodate the sensitivities to transmen but the reality is that it decouples female sexed based language from the word woman in order to make it harder (or so the TRA's think) to define what a woman is and therefore easier for men to claim to be women. No all women have periods and not only women have periods etc therefore a transwoman not having periods doesn't make a TW less of a woman.

Ask yourself in what other area of life are women able to gain enough power to dictate anything? How would that suddenly be different in healthcare? It is all about accomodating men who like to think of themselves as women.

By referring to us formerly known as women as "person with a cervix" or "person who menstruates" you are very much indeed validating men as women. That's pretty much the desired outcome. It's why language around the female body has been targeted so vehemently.

It creates the space for "people with a penis" to be called "women".

There is nothing good about removing clarity about who these conditions affect. The key to effective health messaging is clarity and plan English.

This 'de-sexing' only ever tends to affect female charities and health messages.

It's a direct discrimination against women with learning difficulties or with English as second language, i.e. poor and immigrant women.

Do you think that is good?

The idea that the NHS has deconstructed all of it's female healthcare information for the benefit of transmen (other female people) is laughable. It's all been done for the benefit of people with a penis who want to be called women.

Regarding this
Just like with unisex/mixed sex toilets it doesn't mean men can go into women's toilets, it means men and women use the same space

The TRA agenda is to break down the norms of men's/women's spaces so that people with a penis can enter women's spaces without being questioned, and the addition of more mixed sex private spaces is a stepping stone in achieving this goal.

OP how does a child growing up to be an adult even know if they have a cervix or not? Is there a guide to knowing if you have one?

If those goals are achieved, what would that look like? Just unisex everywhere?

I don't think it's female transitioners pushing for this, either.

Witness this exchange on Twitter.

the official twitter account of the President of the United States Today, I issued a Presidential Memorandum to protect and expand access to reproductive health care. I am fully committed to protecting women’s health here at home and around the world.

Response Hi President Biden! Thank you so much for doing this. I'm wondering if you could adjust your wording from "women's healthcare" to "healthcare for people who get pregnant and bleed". I am a (trans) woman but dont need these services. Thank you for your work!

OP, it would look like in some US states, where the segregation is maintained, but by gender identity, not sex - see the thread about 80-yr old who was almost arrested when she questioned what a male (who identified as a woman since this March) was doing in women's changing room whilst little girls were getting undressed.

I believe it has since been reported it was a transwoman (male) member of stuff who was given a job of supervising these little girls to get changed.

What a wonderful world it would be if we were just more progressive and kind, like in LA or Washington State, huh?

Who the hell is it inclusive of when illogical, inaccurate nonsense is presented as medical information?

How is it inclusive or supportive of any demographic to provide them with substandard medical care?

Chestfeeding is feeding your baby with milk from your chest.

'The old, now deleted version, of the overview page said: 'Ovarian cancer, or cancer of the ovaries, is one of the most common types of cancer in women.'
It also said: 'Ovarian cancer mainly affects women who have been through the menopause (usually over the age of 50), but it can sometimes affect younger women.'
But these paragraphs were deleted, and all mention of the female sex removed in the January update.
The new gender-neutral description on the page now reads: 'Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer, but it mostly affects those over 50'.'

Who the hell thinks that new version is better? Why?

Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

No, as others have said, it's about removing biology from the word 'woman', and making women's health a series of conditions that happen to some random people. Cervical cancer doesn't happen to women, just people with a cervix, pregnancy doesn't happen to women just fertile people with a uterus.

Its to stop women being able to see themselves as a class who are different from men. Not every women will become pregnant, or have periods, but we all have the same reproductive system, just in some of us it's immature, others it's not working too well, some of us are old enough to have gone through the menopause. But instead of us all being called women, we have been divided into menstruaters, menopausal people, cervix havers.

It also helps avoid having to admit that it's women who are used in the surrogacy industry. Instead of women we become surrogate, women havers, egg donors.

Response Hi President Biden! Thank you so much for doing this. I'm wondering if you could adjust your wording from "women's healthcare" to "healthcare for people who get pregnant and bleed". I am a (trans) woman but dont need these services. Thank you for your work!

I have very little tolerance for this shit. It's an admission they know that they are not a woman.

I do not need "reproductive healthcare" either because I no longer "bleed" and therefore can't get pregnant but because I am as much a woman as I was when I did bleed and could get pregnant I do not need to have language changed to reflect my current reproductive potential.

It makes no sense because most women do need them so what's "her" problem with them being called women's if he knows he doesn't need them?

Well it's just inaccurate because milk comes from mammary glands, not chests. But I didn't say it was inclusive. I said it would have the effect of not validating trans women as women because the pages for people with testicles etc. still say men. So any TW who accesses that care will still be referred to as a man.

You didn't say it was inclusive, but that is the excuse given for using de-sexed language in situations where sex is relevant.

What is the relevance of validating people in a belief? The purpose of the information is medical. It is not there for validation. No mention of belief systems is made, because they are not relevant.

Every single transman knows that they is female. They know that medical information referring to women is aimed at them. Whether it is relevant to them also depends on physiological situations, such as whether they are pregnant or have passed the menopause, not on whether they have rejected certain stereotypes or want to be called something else.

As for whether transwomen are validated, thats not my problem. I, and all other women, are not service humans. We do not have to give up our language and our healthcare and our spaces in order to make a person feel validated in their belief.

How super to have observations

How about you, @rumplestiltskinp de-sex this bit of legislation?

Now
^The cervix referred to is not found in the spine of both female and male.
The cervix is only found in the female (thats half of the human population)

This is nice simple English and should be very very easy to de-sex the languge to include in your words women who "identify as male"

Definitions

2. In this Act—

“appropriate person” means—

(a) a relevant woman, or

(b) where a relevant woman has died, a dependant of the relevant woman concerned;

"relevant woman” means—

(a) a woman—

(i) identified as part of the Review of Cervical Screening as having CervicalCheck cytology review findings that were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned, or

(ii) whose cytology slides were sought, by the Review of Cervical Screening, to be re-examined as part of its review but where one or more of those slides could not be re-examined as part of that review by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the woman concerned,

or

(b) a woman who received a diagnosis of cervical cancer—

(i) who had a screening history through CervicalCheck,

(ii) whose diagnosis of cervical cancer was notified to CervicalCheck,

(iii) whose cytology slides were re-examined as part of the retrospective CervicalCheck cytology clinical audit, and

(iv) whose cytology review findings, following the re-examination in accordance with subparagraph (iii), were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned;

“restoration of trust meeting” has the meaning assigned to it by section 32 ;

“retrospective CervicalCheck cytology clinical audit” means the lookback clinical audit of cytology slides in relation to 1,482 women carried out by CervicalCheck between 2008 and prior to 5 May 2018;

“Review of Cervical Screening” means the review commissioned by the Minister and conducted by a Clinical Expert Review Panel under the auspices of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the results of screening tests of all women who have developed cervical cancer since 2008 who participated in CervicalCheck;

Sorry I'm unsure what you are getting at.

Can you remove the word woman in the text provided and replace it another word or a number of words?

If you can please provide the word(s)

Indirect discrimination, surely?

Hi OP.

This is quite a simple question that you might have missed.

If you are a child growing up to be an adult, how would you know whether you had a cervix or not?

If men are the only ones allowed to call themselves women, it creates a problem. Any fool can see that.

Except the OP, seemingly .

It's important that gendered language is used when referring to health. Reading the NHS page about menopause makes it sound like anyone can go through the menopause. I teach Year 4 and we now cover puberty and changes to bodies. Can't imagine teaching that without gendered language. Half the boys will come out thinking they'll be starting their periods in the next few years 🤣

What's your point? Could you? Yes, they could.
When a man goes for a testicle check or whatever I wonder why they aren't up in arms going 'we are women with testicles, not men'

The majority of these people are adult men, of the age you go for these checks. I expected they'd be most eager to get that language changed to refer to "people who have testicles" so they aren't constantly reminded they are male.

Good points raised above and yes it's about erasing women. Just that one thing I can't get my head around. They're still happy to be reminded they are men via the NHS as all services still refer to men. None of the cervical stuff affects TW in any way, it doesn't validate them, neither do the unisex toilets.

It all just erases women as a group. I worded my OP lazily sorry, this whole thing is a mindfuck.

Hmmm… my husband (father of my children) may get ovarian cancer soon, that is so scary. Should I book him a consultation?