Wording in NHS literature

[EdgeOfACoin]

I was browsing the NHS website looking for information about different forms of contraception.

The section on the coil cheerfully advises "most people with a womb can use an IUD".

Women. The word the NHS is looking for is women.

I'm so tired of this. If the word "woman" does not refer to biological reality, it can only mean something other than biology. This gives rise to the question: what is that something "other than biology"? Girly, giggly feelings? A soft, feminine, coy "gender identity"? A penchant for washing up? I have no idea, but whatever it is, the NHS should not be unthinkingly adopting this language and tacitly endorsing such sexism.

Who is in charge of this stuff? Is it worth writing to the new health secretary, Victoria Atkins, to complain, or should I direct my complaint to someone else?

The previous health secretary did make a directive about language, so it's worth trying the new one to see if it's being followed through. Even if it has been taken on board it's going to take a while to update every page.

The NHS website would be under the control of NHS Digital, I think, rather than directly from NHS England. NICE is separate (but uses the 'women and people with...' style, rather than writing us out entirely). And individual trusts also write their own stuff.

Bump. I’ve no idea where to direct complaints towards but this is an utter shambles. Healthcare should be immune from gender ideology, it’s only biology that matters.

This wording implies that some men may have a womb. They don’t. Transmen do, but they are biological women. They’re well aware of that fact, which is why they have gender dysphoria. They wouldn’t be transmen if they didn’t know they were female.

This attempt at inclusive language to appease a tiny minority is degrading and insulting to women.

Anyway, a biological man who marries a woman can technically be classed as a person with a womb. He is lying next to one every night. Just as he might call himself a person with a cat, if he shares his home with one.

Unfortunately this is increasing as more and more NHS employees are indoctrinated. My local trust recently updated some policies and other documents with “inclusive” language. The roll out continues. I fear the roll back will be a long time coming.

Anyway, a biological man who marries a woman can technically be classed as a person with a womb. He is lying next to one every night. Just as he might call himself a person with a cat, if he shares his home with one.

😂 Priceless!

I must tell dh that he is a person with a womb. After all, he owns my womb just as much as he owns our feline overlord.

😆 🐈‍⬛

Well yes, my wife obviously belongs to me, so her womb is clearly my womb. Also, logically, my prostate is her prostate. I don't think she is very interested in my prostate, any more than I have much interest in her womb as long as she's healthy.

But if Transwomen are women, no questions asked, why are they adopting people with (insert body part)? makes no sense.

Good point about the previous Health Secretary. It's probably worth sending an email, then.

Surely if you didn't have a womb there would be no need for contraception in any form?

Who writes this stuff? The stupidity is just so infuriating. I'm sick of this shit too.

Whoever you get in touch with, point out that this sort of wording flies in the face of all the principles of health literacy communication. The NHS's own clear language guidelines are very clear on the need for plain, non-obfuscatory language. The average reading age is something like 13, which means that there are a huge amount of functionally illiterate people out there who will not understand this language.

Do listen to this week's File on Four programme about mothers (mainly refugees[ and babies who have died and suffered brain damage at birth due to language misunderstandings. It's heartbreaking but so important. One man who lost his wife in childbirth was unable to be with her because neither had any idea she was going into the ward to be induced. They simply had no idea what the verb "to induce" meant.

I've complained to the NHS time and time again and it's always the same response. They are committed to using language that is accessible, or some nonsense like that. They are not open to reason.

And yet there was a report in the Daily Mail yesterday saying cervical screening is at an all time low. I wonder how much of that is because some women simply don’t understand how the information is written. Am I a cervix owner, hmm I dunno, am
I a woman, oh yes I am.

People with trans identities have existed for a long time. They didn’t curl up and die when they read healthcare literature that referred to “women” instead of “people with a womb”. This change in the language has only happened in recent years. But the negatives for the majority far, far outweigh any crumbs of positivity for a tiny minority seeking validation.

Keep healthcare language clear and easy to understand. Men and women, boys and girls. Lives could well depend on it.

Anyone who finds this clear language triggering can always request a gender-neutral copy of the information. This could be issued separately, I’m sure ChatGPT could do the honours quite easily.

Average reading age of 13.

My dh is an intelligent, gender critical man with a PhD. His dad has had bladder cancer, my dad has had prostate cancer, and I have spoken to dh about my concerns regarding him weeing at night and leaving a drip on the seat (he is normally as clean as a cat), because it may be a red flag for prostate problems.

A year or two ago there was an article about prostate problems on the BBC News app. I had more than half of the symptoms listed, and he was concerned: maybe I should get it checked.

I had those symptoms because I am a menopausal woman. But the article did not mention sex in any way. People, people, people.

My intelligent, gender critical, highly educated dh did not know that the prostate was a male organ.

Language matters.

This.

They know.

Claiming that this language is more 'accessible' and 'inclusive' is flat out lying.

It's exclusionary to all but a small group of men who are unaffected by these issues other than to be piqued.

I thought things were generally moving in the opposite direction? The contraceptive pages I’m looking at were last reviewed in 2020 and the next is due in December this year. Fingers crossed they will be changed.

The list I found on the diaphragm/cap page made me realize how poorly it works when they change their pages to “you” instead of “women”. They seem to have left off the most obvious reason a diaphragm or cap might not be suitable, which is “if you’re a person with (or you are the previous owner of) a penis and testicles”. I wonder why they left that important information out. 🤨

Tbf using "you" is generally good practice in health communication.

And yet, a little while ago I looked up prostrate cancer and it referred to this being a MALE health concern, suffered by MEN!!!
(Quite rightly!)

Similar to how many women are persons with penises at times in their lives. Those times being when they are gestating a male child.

Ooo, that means I've had two penises - bet there aren't many men can say that!

They still manage to use the word 'man' in their literature about prostate cancer. Why aren't they people with prostates, or KJK's favourite, 'penis-havers'

Yes. Perhaps we should be outraged on their behalf.

Just checked. The page is now overdue for review - pity, I hoped it might have changed for the better.