Bonus hole broke

[IceQueenoftheWest]

Jo's Trust has gone under, with immediate effect. I'm sorry for the people they support, but is this because of the bonus hole fiasco last year? Alienate your core group and pay the price? Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust | Cervical Cancer Charity (jostrust.org.uk)

That's ridiculous. Surely developmental pathway observed at birth makes far more sense.

Why have so many charities become so embroiled in gender ideology? There seems so many who have really lost all sense of why they were originally set up. Is it a case of placating generous donors but then getting to a position they have ultimately alienated a large amount of their donor base? Is this what happened here?

I looked up their accounts on the Charity Commission site:

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1133542

Interesting to learn both that they had a relatively large income (£1.3m in 2021/22) plus that they overspent it by £300k. Unless I'm being unfair, that would suggest a degree of financial mismanagement.

However, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that their decision to use weird terms like "bonus hole" is necessarily the reason for them going under.

No, it's possibly a symptomatic outcome of weak structures, though.

Or of appointing Righteous People rather than competent people, possibly.

😯🤮

Honestly that is outrageous. Something had gone very wrong in our society for an educational institution to think this is acceptable. Calling a vagina a bonus hole relegates our existence to a walking set of holes for men to have sex with. How could a university think it appropriate to inflict that on young women accessing education?

It’s just ridiculous, anything to deny reality. That is another term that has been stolen and manipulated. It was originally used to refer to babies with genitals that weren’t clearly male or female. In the past doctors would normally just assign them a female sex because they viewed it as easier to surgically recreate. They would then amputate parts of their genitals to make them acceptably female to society. I can only imagine they are furious about TRAs stealing a term describing genital mutilation to deny the simple recognition of sex.

WHAT’S IT CALLED?

Do you have a fanny?
Or do you have a foof?
Do you call it cunt?
Or are you more aloof?

Do you use its Sunday name,
and call it a vagina?
Or maybe call it Coco,
after the designer.

If you are a woman
then you definitely have a vag.
There’s no need to announce it
with a pronoun badge.

But if you are a man
and you think you too have one,
what you have is a bonus hole
made from penis or colon.

Pretty upset about where Jo’s Trust went. They helped my cousin through cervical cancer 20 years ago and she made many friends through the charity and did lots of fund raising.

Google reviews are really bad, all talking about the language used.

Another tragedy and loss for WOMEN, the real kind.

They're all muddled. But by listing "transmen and non-binary" as separate from "women" the latter quite obviously can't mean adult human female. Maybe adult human females who don't deny they are one. My point - and I've made it before elsewhere- is that this type of additive language isn't win-win, since it's still promoting a woman (perceived-gender) view over woman (sex.) So a little friendlier than menstruators etc, but still essentially the same old crap.

In my view - like I outlined above. Woman, asterisk, footnote: "the word woman as used here includes people who may not identify as women, such as transmen and some non-binary people."

The BBC adopted a similar formula during the great migrant vs refugee linguistic bunfight and it seems to have worked well for them and still occasionally crops up in articles. Too bad they didn't feel able to take a similar dispassionate approach to gender.

I guess the issue could be that people might not read the footnote and therefore not access the service? I can imagine that smear tests, which aren't fun for anyone, are probably even worse for those who hate the fact they are female. I do understand why you would prefer this option though.

I can’t disagree there, it is sad to see a charity that helps women with cancer go under. It is them who will suffer, not the people prompting hateful misogynistic language.

I have mixed feelings on that. I agree that we shouldn’t support an ideology that pretends transmen are not women, or that transwomen are, no matter how nicely it pretends to do so.

Equally though, I think that women identifying as transmen share some specific needs and they aren’t the only group of women that Jo’s wrote personalised guidance for. I can see how body dysmorphia could make it very distressing for a woman to be in a state of undress. I also know there are some physical and practical barriers like early onset vaginal atrophy and a lack of routine invitation. As such, I don’t have a problem with information catering to them… as long as it doesn’t promote gender ideology or misogynistic language.

@TicklishLemur Special medical needs such as you've outlined would seem to call fir entirely separate brochures then. Makes sense to me, although tbh I've no idea how one would even go about distributing those.

While hopefully more research and tracking will slow this train down until it's dead on the tracks, I can also help but be a tad sick of the "we need more research" position. People knew giving testosterone to women is a bad idea.

East German Olympic female athletes WERE the original canary in the coal mine and every medical body seemed to pretend these women and their subsequent complications never happened.

Such willful ignorance.

Well I think a lot of literature is accessed on line now which makes it easier. If people have particular needs they can go to those guides. There are some for sexual violence survivors and women with learning disabilities too.

Ok not always a disability. Most people wouldn't consider themselves 'disabled' with dyslexia. It can depend on what you are doing at that time / what service you are trying to access.

Thinking of inclusivity and funding I wonder whether the conditions of funding meant that Jo's cervical trust had to be seen to be inclusive. I notice that on the NHS website about resources for those with cervical cancer that Jo's Trust is listed as a resource for 'everyone'. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/further-help-and-support/ There are additional sources for LGBT but none for women specifically. Now there is no resource for everyone but the LGBT resources remain. I assume that the birth control charities still provide help but its clear that Jo's was the go-to place for support for everyone (including and primarily women). It is these who have lost out.

Will the charities commission hold an inquiry into the running of this charity to establish why it became insolvent? It is a crying shame that women are left without this valuable support.

I very much doubt it. Charities have been going bust all over the place over the last 18 months.

charity commissions job is to ensure charities comply with the charities act and other associated laws eg employment law, health & safety, equality etc

tnh if the charity commission started investigating every charity riddled with gender ideology we’d pretty much have none left :/