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?

Look how unclear non-sexed language is: ^people going
through a miscarriage like his
own^ . Quite apart from the fact that the miscarriage was not John's but his wife Chrissy's. A man can feel very invested in his wife's pregnancy and grieve if she loses it. So I'm not arguing about that. But that sentence is ridiculously confusing, firstly erasing a woman with non-sexed language and then assigning her pregnancy to a man with sexed language.

I think I understand your point OP and there is so far as I'm concerned a really crucial difference between what you see as happening and what those objecting see as happening (do correct me if I'm wrong about your point)

"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."

I personally have absolutely no objection to nhs staff such as midwives being trained to be as considerate and kind as possible in their language choices when talking to service users. But think that that shouldn't extend to lying or giving inaccurate information as I don't agree that that is kind, helpful, supportive etc.

However, women's anatomy and bodies have historically been treated as obscene and unspeakable. You cannot assume all women have a firm and confident understanding of their own anatomy, even to the extent of knowing the principal structures let alone the proper names for them. SO in writing that is intended to talk to women about women's health and what they need to do, watch out for etc. Erasing the word woman is seriously detrimental to those messages being effectively communicated.

When I was a child I thought that the reason my mother didn't use certain words was a kind of squeamishness. In her 70s I had to come to term with the fact that it was way more than that and teach my mum the words for her own anatomy as doctors kept assuming she knew what they were taking about.

India Willoughby is far from the only person who is unable to figure out whether they belong in the group cervix havers. But its women whose lives are at risk from the kind of confusion this language causes.

What's your point?

First I was establishing if you would answer a simple question about replacing the word "woman"

This was your question :
Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

My objective of getting an answer to my question was to establish a base line with regard to your observations.

From that I can begin to trying to explore your objective(s) posting your question.

You start off with a claim how removing the word "woman" is beneficial to 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
and also
does everything to ensure females go for the treatment they need.

This is an extact from the linked article:

Dr Karleen Gribble, a nursing and midwifery expert from Western Sydney University in Australia, said: 'Who decided that women should have less easily understandable information about medical conditions impacting them than men?'

Which is not supporting your observation.

You then continue to say that this forced language is not beneficial to males who want to disassociate with being men. For me the second part of your observation has limited value without a base line on the on the word "woman".

Once again I ask that you remove the word "woman" in the text and replace it another word or a number of words.

Yes indeed. You really think we could ever get to a society where children actually don't know what sex they are? How long do you think that would take? There's so many children who still know and their parents won't pretend otherwise, myself included.

Sorry I worded it badly, I don't think this is beneficial to women at all. I was asking about the practical implications of the change in relation to the pages for men remaining unchanged. I thought this was all about validating men who wanted to be women. The change of the women's pages and not the men's doesn't do this.

That is a brilliant question. You're right, I hadn't thought of this. This is the question to ask them.

I thought this was all about validating men who wanted to be women. The change of the women's pages and not the men's doesn't do this.

Two possibilities:

In order for men to be counted as women, the meaning of 'woman' has to be divorced from its sex-specifying meaning. So this anti-women action indirectly validates Tw.

Or it's straight up misogynistic coercive control.

Or both.

The men who have a whole fetish about female anatomy can read this stuff and pretend it's about them.

The TRA end goal is to abolish same sex spaces completely and replace them with "same gender" spaces.
If this is achieved then in practice everything will be mixed-sex but be called "women's" whatever and "men's" whatever, which will be women's or men's in name only, because anyone can use either.
So yes, just everything being mixed sex is how it would look.

Unisex is different because that means a single person service or space suitable for either sex to use, one at a time.

It's all about the trans!

Most oppressed marginalised group ever ever

AlisonDonut
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?
That is a brilliant question. You're right, I hadn't thought of this. This is the question to ask them.^
^
Its been a while since mine were at school, don't children still get taught PHSE or equivalent at school? Or you know, as parents, actually talk to your children about stuff?

"Sorry I worded it badly, I don't think this is beneficial to women at all. I was asking about the practical implications of the change in relation to the pages for men remaining unchanged. I thought this was all about validating men who wanted to be women. The change of the women's pages and not the men's doesn't do this."

You are right, this is about including trans man and non-binary people, it has nothing to do with validating men and the people on here insisting it does are beginning to look a little paranoid. If anything the men's pages should also start to be amended soon, each page has a review by date on it, and I've seen a couple that mention 'people with a prostate' so it's laughable when people squeal 'it's only women being erased'.

If anything the men's pages should also start to be amended soon

Why would they be left alone while the women's pages were desexed?

@rumplestiltskinp What would the end goal look like?

It's a great question and an important thing to consider, there's a Rebecca West quote I've long admired "I myself have never been able to find out what a feminist is I only know that people call me one whenever I say something which differentiates me from a doormat" and that seems to be as true as ever (substituting the word transphobe for feminist)

One thought experiment I saw suggested a man (male bodied male presenting) walks in to a women's changing room, a woman tries to hold the door closed but he swears and overpowers her forcing his way in to the room.
If he is a man their fear alarm and attempts to keep him out are entirely reasonable. If he is a transwoman they are, apparently, not. The only difference between a man and a transwoman, the ideology tells us, is the man's feelings. Therefore what the women and girls are allowed to feel is up to the man. Even attempting to cover up their bodies could be complained about as transphobic, and transphobia could be a crime. To allow men to dictate women's realities in this way seems to me to be nothing but gaslighting.

To suggest that transwoman are in some way incapable of being interested in woman's bodies in a creepy or fetishistic way seems an unwarranted generalisation and misses the point that if [the group of men allowed into the woman's changing room] is equal to [the group of men that want to go into the women's changing room] then that will absolutely include men who are there to look at our bodies without our consent and to show us their penises without our consent

My colleagues in the Digital services (I also work in IT but not NHS) that are responsible for updating the web pages (not the content) say each page has a review date on it and they get updated when that date comes around unless there's priority medical information that needs updating e.g. covid.

The women's pages have been changed more than once, I think. How come the men's pages weren't?

All this makes it so obvious, as most of us know, that sex, the unchangeable sex of our born body, is one definite thing.

"Gender" is anything anyone may want it to be, and variable in time and society. So an infinite variable.

As I said perhaps the pages referring to those cancers, etc. you've seen aren't up for their review yet. Some have been changed.

If the pages relating to women's cancers have been changed more than once that's likely because that was still during the review period. Each page has to be checked for consistency, and new design patterns or templates implemented and all the links checked, there are millions of pages including the links they can't do it all at once.

rumplestiltskinp
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?

I saw that Tweet, she apologised afterwards and said she was sorry if it made it all about her and that she was thinking of her trans men and non-binary friends who 'bleed' but weren't women. I'm sure I believe them though, could be because of the backlash.

I don't agree with her wording by the way, I don't think women should be referred to as 'people that bleed'. I am not squeamish about bodily functions in any way but to have that suggested as wording for US legislation to POTUS of all people is somewhat disconcerting

Interesting thought experiment which makes sense to me. I don't think trans women should be in a position where they can see naked women without their (the naked women's) consent, and I don't think that women should have to see penis's (peni?) without their consent either.

My children are in their early thirties and we've never been to a pool, even they when they were small, where people changed out in the open; the changing rooms were for everyone, everyone used cubicles and there were larger ones available for families. I'm surprised these communal changing rooms still exist

I'm sure I believe them though, could be because of the backlash.

Sorry that should be not sure I believe them though

If the day comes where you routinely see men referred to as ejaculators, people with erections, penis owners and sperm suppliers, then you might have a point.

This is a mens rights movement though. And one that needs to claim the word woman for a handful of men. So it therefore can't be conditional on female biology.

What benifit would a male TRA gain by actively campaigning to remove the word man from male healthcare?

The male TRA knows that he is male.

By actively campaiging he focus attention on that maleness.

The majority of people in authority in healthcare are still going to be male, that language change would have a indirect negitive impact on their status and a direct negitive impact on the provision of health care for men.

Men are much quicker to voice a simple, clear no in any discussion. Look at the reaction to male cancer charities who publish "no & PFO" while womens change the wording to the body parts which need to be amputated to save the womans life.

What is the social assumption if there is a doctor and nurse in room and one is female and one is male?

So women are so much more likely to advocate for the de-sexing of language. The seed of the idea has been there since women had to campaign to be seen as men to gain the right to fully participate in paid employment. There are a whole lot of women who have grown up with access to Birth control who don't fully realise the systemic disadvantages in a social system which places no economic value on having children. This is fully reflected in the drive to keep child care costs low so that women can be economically productive "anywhere" else. Again look at all the Western breast feeding groups who are ripping themselves apart to share the "experience" as a "male experience". To reduce demand and prevent the risk of babies starving to death did the US health department seek emergency compassionate work leave for women who were still breastfeeding during the non-human milk formula shortage or was it just airlift emergancy supplies?

Mens health campaigns lag behind womens health campaigns, have you noticed that?
Guess which sex is told they have to be kind and be inclusive in their campaigning efforts? Adopt a Mothering mentality?

Male "no possibility of being pregnant" has been the default HCP teaching since the village wise woman was rebranded a witch. Doctors, all male, would not involve themselves in "womens troubles" nor provide medical assistance at births.

How about the HC"P" who sat down and composed teaching materials for a male (the penis kind) giving birth, then that teaching material was reviewed and signed off by other HC"P" and then taught to students HCP who were too afraid to openly challange that piece of fiction.
Was that laughable when people squeal (in a high pitch, which is difficult for post puberty testosterone impacted male voices to reach) it's only women being erased'?
I am 100% sure that pretending that pregnant TW and pregnant non-binary are not female and pregnancy and female reproductive system is a people thing will work out just great.

Even today the HCP work safety protocols are designed around "male not pregnant", just as schedules for (junior) hospital doctors remains designed around someone who has no child care responsibilities.

Male TRA know that they are male and that mankind is seen as the default.

@the winter soldier

Do you want to have a go at amending the legislation below to provide including trans-man and non-binary people (you will have to make a word choice there, because its used in the section already) ?

FYI the politicians who passed this legislation are voting on legislation to to remove the word woman from existing pregnancy legislation.
Also the best legal opinion is that this is nevessary because females with GRC are specifically excluded as they are legal men.

And for the same reason bleeding people legislation which provided free period products was championed by a person with needs due to bleeding.

If it makes it easier you may add in additional definition paragraphs to help define inclusive words which may not be currently recognised by the Court system (eg non-binary)

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;

"If the day comes where you routinely see men referred to as ejaculators, people with erections, penis owners and sperm suppliers, then you might have a point.

This is a mens rights movement though. And one that needs to claim the word woman for a handful of men. So it therefore can't be conditional on female biology."

I don't think that would be a good day, and if you regularly see women referred to with that language that's not right either.