Use of “inclusive” language in medical leaflets etc

[TimeandMotion]

As I understand it, one of the pillars of GC thinking is to resist the creeping use of “inclusive” terms in the medical context such as “people with cervixes” or “pregnant people” or “anyone who has ovaries”. I’ve seen examples of this and find the erasure of the word “women” and “female” quite chilling.

What I don’t understand is this: every trans person knows they are trans. They are well aware of what organs they do and don’t possess because they have either been through a complex set of medical procedures, or they have chosen not to transition medically. They have probably been advised during that process (if they had surgery) that they are still at risk of cancers etc in those organs.

Surely a trans man can’t find it that difficult to read a leaflet and say to themselves “I know this says women and I live as a man now but I understand that this applies to me because I have these organs”. Or, conversely, a trans woman thinks “I know this says women but I can ignore it because I live as a woman but I am perfectly aware that I don’t have a uterus”. There is no medical need for each leaflet to remind a trans man that this could apply to him too.

On the other hand, there are women out there who don’t have a good handle of their own biology, whether due to youth or lack of education. It’s important for them to say things like “women are at risk of this disease”. By their very history of having struggled with identity vs sex, trans people do not lack this awareness. And don’t they have any empathy for other members of their chosen gender who need to be protected like this through the use of simple, understandable language?

I know that I am not saying anything new or insightful here, but I am really failing to understand why this medical language thing is a hill that trans people feel the need to die on…or why the NHS have taken this approach.

But I am also painfully aware that what I have just said may well look like a classic example of “look at the words on that leaflet, it’s political correctness gone mad I tell ya”. And I know I’d be the first to say that an official form should, for example, never assume that all married women have husbands, or men wives.

Absolutely!

Add in that there is not-insignificant number of women in the U.K. who have limited English language skills, many of whom rely on their children to translate health related pamphlets and help with appointment making.

If a 7-9 year old doesn’t know who a person with a cervix is then he/she isn’t going to be able to tell mum she needs to make a smear appointment.

I don’t think those women should be thrown under the bus in the rush to be inclusive to people with gender identities. Use an additional language where appropriate, but keep the majority of the comms as simple as possible.

Because it's not about being inclusive, not really. As you say, the people affected already know what sex they are and what sexed healthcare does and doesn't apply to them (though I think you could argue that some of the unfortunate youngsters growing up on the crest of the gender wave might very well not have that understanding going forwards though).

It's about dominance. About dominating the language, about redefining what it means to be a woman. It's rarely men's healthcare messages which are compromised, but women's always are. It's just males, asserting their dominance.

@nothingcomestonothing but why do you think that the medical establishment panders to it? Especially when there is a potential risk that a larger section of the population might be put at increased risk as a result. Isn’t balancing risk a core tenet of medical decision-making?

Bugger just typed a long answer and lost it, stoopid phone.

Short answer - balancing risk and evidence based practice goes out of the window as soon as you invoke the TQ+. Sociologists will be studying it for years to come I'm sure. And the UK context is different to in countries where healthcare is privatised. NHS staff generally like to think of themselves as kind and inclusive and progressive and it was easy for activists to use that,it was cleverly done and very effective.

Well that pic says it all, doesn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with the "MEN" one, far from it: of course, the women's one should be similar. Clarity should be the aim. Not least, as noted by pp, for people for whom English is not a first language.

Agreed. I was in the train station yesterday and there were two huge posters stating "1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer".

It's power. Power lies with men. Men say they are women and demand that language is changed to accommodate them. Women say they are men, but the language remains unaltered. Gee, I wonder why.

They aren't inclusive terms though.

They exclude people who aren't educated or have limited English language skills.

It's total bullshit.

That's before talking about how offensive it is to women when the same is NOT happening in parallel to men.

It's indirect discrimination to women imho.

It’s all a bit ridiculous though because changing the language draws attention to the fact that trans men still need medical services designed for women. You’d think they would want to keep that quiet.

I guess trans women are happy with things like prostate cancer issues being described as for men because they don’t want to be reminded that they are male sex?

Also if you stop using the word “woman” then would that not, taken to its extreme, eventually mean that “trans woman” had no meaning because the word woman no longer existed?

One gaft a kid at school made when doing GCSEs always brings it home to me.

We had just come out of our dual science and were comparing notes. One of the questions was about reproductive sex in humans.

Now bless her she was a lovely girl but she wasn't the smart knife in the drawer.

When she said she put "the penis enters the anus" I think the rest of us were most unkind are were busy howling and rolling around the floor killing ourselves. I've remembered it all these years because it was so funny and she was so sincere and really thought she'd got it right. We were very cruel to her for a while after that.

But it illustrates the point well about accessibility of language.

One of the tenets of my practice is to treat people as individuals whilst doing my best to maintain their dignity and privacy.

Funnily enough, I have never felt the need to use so called inclusive language. "You" works perfectly well in a one to one conversation.

Leaflets referring to males and females or men and women are clear to everyone who isn't looking to be offended and I prefer to prioritise clear and unambiguous language.

This is how the NHS approaches cervical screening:

Cervical screening: leaflet for women considering screening

Cervical screening is for women and people with a cervix.

This seems entirely unobjectional - but GC people never fail to surprise me if there is even a hint of inclusion. No trans woman I know would complain about this, because, as OP mentions, they know they don't have a cervix.

They have a separate leaflet for transgender people.

This is for Prostate cancer

It is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Some trans women and non-binary people (who are born male) can also get prostate cancer.

Again, almost no trans men would object to be excluded.

For midwives, the guidance is use the language the client wants. In almost every case, this is breastfeeding, woman, mother, vaginal birth. A trans man might ask for different language.

So, in the context where you are providing information to non-medical people use language most people understand, while including minorities.

So, I think that cervical cancer poster reaches fewer people than is should in order to be trans-inclusive. A supplementary campaign for trans men would do the job.

For medical professionals, I can't see any objection to using precise language. Cervical cancer only affects people with a cervix. One in five women don't have a cervix (obviously this includes trans women, but they are one in a thousand). So, saying "people with a cervix" makes sense when medical professionals discuss the issue. They aren't exclusing women, they are excluding people without a cervix. But, again, if they want to use "women with a cervix and trans men" in this context, I can't see a big issue with it.

@DadJoke I have no problem at all with the wording that you quoted above - any “women and…” formulation is fine by me.

I had understood, however, that there was a move to avoid use of the word woman/women altogether (either as a result of pressure or trying to pre-empt criticism). If that’s not backed by the evidence, great. Perhaps that bus shelter poster is an anomaly.

On your point about some women not having cervixes, that is true, but they will be equally as aware of this as a trans person is of their biology. Not to mention that quite a few may have had hysterectomies because they had cervical cancer in the past.

Love it when the man arrives to lecture us all about cervical screening and the language relating to women 😂

These threads are like catnip.

'People with a cervix'? Let's take that to its logical conclusion. What kind of people have a cervix? How do I know if I have one?

Oh god. It really is. The lack of awareness is off the scale.

OP
It doesn't make sense because it's not being done primarily for the benefit of women claiming to be men, it's for men claiming to be women.

They don't need cervical screening but they insist on being included in the category woman. So "people with a cervix" distinguishes between women and men claiming to be women. It's not dissimilar to the linguistic sleight of hand in evidence when certain people wail that we need "cis" to distinguish women from men claiming to be women. In reality they are distinct categories.

The mansplaining is strong in this one.

Again, why pander to this then? NHS/medical journalists unwitting pawns?

How do we know @DadJoke is a man? I mean, it would be a bit of an odd username for a woman to chose, especially one posting in this topic, but I’ve seen odder.

They are captured by the ideology and believe men can have a cervix

Or they think it's progressive or kind and haven't thought it through. They probably do think this is helpful for women claiming to be men because you do get the odd one demanding that all language is changed.

Or they are being forced to. Editorial or department policy.

Yes, and where is the editorial or dept policy coming from?

"Cervical screening is for women and people with a cervix." I thought @DadJoke's position was that TWAW, so would be included in group 1 (women). Unless...

Once ages ago he said he was. No reason to disbelieve him, after all people are who they say they are, to paraphrase E Watson....

Ideological capture of people in strategic positions.

TRAs in positions of influence.

Management or staff training by Stonewall et al.

The rich soup of misogyny in which we all swim.