Righto...

[FettleOfKish]

So, cervical screening obviously isn't for me then, a Woman, who doesn't consider herself to have been 'assigned' anything at any stage? 🤷🏼‍♀️

CandlelightGlow · Yesterday 22:12
Sorry but that's bollocks. All of those points only apply if it wasn't the case that the vast majority of cervical screening advertisement and information wasn't aimed at cis women solely.

I realise you meant no harm, but please would you not use the term ‘cis’ women? It is offensive.

I agree. There does seem to be an assumption here that the other campaign designs are adequate enough to reach and convince all others.

That this one application of the campaign will save some extra lives, but we have then seen ‘well those who can’t understand English well ‘should be reached via other methods’. The campaigns need to focused on reaching the maximum number of people.

The ‘inclusive’ ad is fine for its purpose. The two general ads don’t seem to be able to use the words that the majority need to use to maximise reach and therefore are not fine.

It feels like a message testing campaign at this stage. Like they have different message wording and they are trialling them to see which ones get more clicks from the target audience.

However, neither applications targeted to the general female population aged 18-64 contain the language that that segment use. It doesn’t use the word women.

The first is completely detached and relies on knowledge of cervixes. And we know that a huge number of women don’t know about their ‘cervix’ from recent research. The second mentions ‘female’ and cervix.

So trans people get the language they use. The rest of the female population get the language someone wants them to accept.

This is discrimination against the wider population. It has been pointed out upthread in repeated posts.

Bluntly, people care more about that small segment responding that the wider. Or. If just one extra trans life is saved that is great. The rest, they should accept their needs don’t count if they don’t accept the words we insist you use. Or people assume that ‘they will be reached other ways’. How?

Or is that just the thing people say to deflect the complaints. Don’t worry. This department has a large enough budget to reach those with language difficulties otherways, using ‘woman’ cannot be seen by this government department as then the department would be not inclusive.

Either the team putting this together are testing their messages and a fourth one is coming and will be in accessible English. OR the team has been led to believe that one segment should be respected and use the language they use, the rest … well they have to use the de-womaned language due to either the personal bias of the person signing off the campaign or the guidance that is so obviously skewed by whichever consultant’s view sold it in and the marketing manager signing off has to follow the guidance. Or it has been signed off by someone who has never done a marketing degree and doesn’t understand their remit properly.

Either way, the two ads aimed at the general population fail.

Unless virtue signalling is all that the team is aiming for. Then it is a success.

I have omitted the use of cis in all subsequent posts

The ‘inclusive’ ad is fine for its purpose. The two general ads don’t seem to be able to use the words that the majority need to use to maximise reach and therefore are not fine.

This is a fair point and I feel like it could be raised without ever bringing the trans element of the advert into it.

This is terrible marketing. Putting a woman (sorry for using that dirty word) dressed as a man on the poster for cervical screening is confusing for a lot of people.

I'm looking forward to seeing the poster girl for prostate cancer screening.

Even worse marketing from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Who knows who this refers to .

twitter.com/NHSGGC/status/1483061719375175684

The only reason trans is ever brought into anything is because when women say they need posters which say "women", they are not believed to be asking for something relevant. You yourself believed it was about anti trans. We genuinely need posters for women to say women! Women matter!

Thanks @Helleofabore for putting things so succinctly, as always.

I don't, however, think the inclusive ad is actually fit for purpose when the second type it references is a 'gender non-conforming person'. The language contortions they are performing here end up with the possibility that a biological man could think it applies to him.

No.

The reasons for the enforced language is directly because of the ‘trans element’s. Without gender ideological thinking, the general ads would use generally accepted English language. Ie. Woman!

You cannot separate the two.

The trans targeted ad - inclusive and approachable language to suit trans people.

The general ads - inclusive language that is not approachable to many but language changes to suit trans people.

This is a case on complete bias towards one group. Supposedly so tiny on one hand as to not be an issue and women’s concerns are meaningless and over exaggerated. Yet, so powerful that the entire language has to be changed.

I have yet to see one poster saying the general ads are as they should be, acknowledge this contradiction.

There is an obvious inconsistency and it makes arguments incoherent.

To be clear. The bias is towards only accommodating trans people.

Just in case that was unclear.

Woman! The general ad should use woman!

In the long run I don't think it will do anyone any favours when organisations tiptoe around the feelings of people who 'feel they are born in the wrong body'. It's going to lead to biological incomprehension for everybody.

This set of ads have been signed off by either someone without the power to deviate from a misinterpretation of guidance from a EDI consultant who missed the update from Stonewall, where Nancy Kelley tinkly laughed on Woman’s Hour that ‘of course woman should be used on this type of communication!

Or is a person entrenched in ideological thinking and believes they are righteous in this type of communication.

Or someone who mistakenly thinks this is ‘kind’ and ‘tolerant’.

Either way. The bias is fucking obvious and it is failing the majority - women and girls who need this service.

To my mind all the ads should include Women, as the majority group the service applies to. 'Women and' is fine. 'Trans men, gender-non conforming people with a cervix and Women' is also fine.

I've been racking my brains to think of any other marketing campaign that uses language to deliberately exclude (or at least utterly bamboozle) a whole segment of the market, and all I can come up with is Yorkie Bar.

Thankfully I don't think any girls will have died for being told a chunky chocolate bar wasn't for them.

I think this ad is aimed at trans and non binary people, rather than women as a whole. It's ok to have targeted ads aimed at groups who may not be reached by standard screening when they co-exist with other material for other at risk groups.

Are the same efforts being put in to reach women with learning disabilities, women who are not fluent in English and so on? Is there even any empirical evidence that trans men are not picked up by standard cervical screening invitations? Or perhaps they don't get them because their NHS record says 'male'.

I am quite happy to pull up the transcript of Nancy Kelley denying that this type of treatment is what Stonewall advises. but that Stonewall leave it up to the organisation to decide what is ‘best’.

It was an appalling denial of what has happened and what Stonewall has been doing.

And although it appears that the poster showing a woman who calls herself a man is to reach out to GNC women, surely the real reason that the word 'woman' is omitted on such campaigns now, is because everyone is supposed to believe that TWAW.

In other words, it's all about the men - if the word woman is used on anything that is uniquely female, it reinforces the fact that transwomen are, in fact, NOT women.

As a PP said - I look forward to a transwoman being prominently featured on Jersey's 'inclusive' prostate screening posters

(apologies if this point has already been made - I skimmed through the posts and will go back for a proper read)

I'm just trying to imagine more straight talking ways of getting to target audiences.

"Transmen! Don't forget to get a smear test unless you've had your cervix removed"

"Cervical cancer is a danger to anyone who was born a woman, no matter how you currently identify. One little test could save your life."

Indeed @NancyDrawed

That's not true. You yourself argued with me for pages over the fact that a trans man was represented, over and above, and at the direct cost of, other demographics of women. Not the majority, but other intersectional minorities of women.

I don't agree with that at all, sounds like a massive overcomplication.

What's the issue with the principle of saying "we are fine with inclusion and inclusive terms, but prefer that the demographic that you are referring to as "female", we would prefer that to be called "women" because it's more comfortable for us and more inclusive to women who may have other accessibility issues".

You are making it controversial, emotive and combative because you're focusing on the trans people. You don't have to.

Re "plain English" - it's demonstrable that trans men do not want to be referred to as women. Just because you don't like that or don't care doesn't mean that representation for them should be avoided or diminished, because in your view the fact that it is factually correct that both trans men and women are all biologically women, there's no need for differentiation. That ignores their needs though and why? What benefit does it bring you to remove that dignity afforded to them? Why not just focus on ensuring that your own demographic, women, are referred to in terms you are comfortable with? Why do you only consider it a success if in addition to referring to women as, women, they also stop referring to trans men as not women?

What a fuss over nothing - it's clumsily written, but we all get the meaning behind the ad.

So what is NHSGGC's excuse for not even mentioning any of the possible groups affected. So much for prioritising Women's Health, if you can't even acknowledge who is affected by cervical cancer.

Who is ‘ignoring’ the needs of trans people? There is an ad tailored to them.

“You are making it controversial, emotive and combative because you're focusing on the trans people. You don't have to.”

And you think that the forced change in using ‘female’ and one general ad with not even that is not based on people’s emotions?

I think you are either missing the point or you are well established in allowing bias to accommodate a small group of people. Or you have missed my other posts.

“it's demonstrable that trans men do not want to be referred to as women. ”

And the same has been said by many women that they want to be. There is a ad tailored to trans people. There are two ads for women and girls.

I repeat, the general ads for women and girls have failed because they are using have been written to guidelines that are, if you want to get really emotional, anti women and girls. Because they are not using the language women and girls use for themselves in this instance.

”Just because you don't like that or don't care doesn't mean that representation for them should be avoided or diminished, because in your view the fact that it is factually correct that both trans men and women are all biologically women, there's no need for differentiation.”

You have obviously not bothered to actually read my posts.

”Why do you only consider it a success if in addition to referring to women as, women, they also stop referring to trans men as not women?”

Again. I am discussing and have been consistently discussing the two general ads. I have been pretty clear that the ad targeted at trans people is fine, I don’t think it is brilliant in its application, it could be improved.

“You are making it controversial, emotive and combative”.

Perhaps this is projection?

Who is ‘ignoring’ the needs of trans people? There is an ad tailored to them.

I'm saying that you are, because you're arguing that it's not reasonable that they're included and blaming their existence for this "forced use" of the word female instead of women.

Instead of agreeing that yes it's reasonable to advocate for the use of the word women if you want and that it doesn't need to come at a cost to trans mens' representation, you seem to be arguing with me.

If I've misunderstood you then clearly we are in agreement so what exactly is the problem?