People missing out on cancer screening recalls to due gender not sex being recorded.

[HidingBehindTheWallpaper]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-data-gender-identity-nhs-police-review-b2718090.html

If only someone could have foreseen this!

Yes and the guidelines make it clear trans men registered as male wont get those reminders. Trans men are aware of that. Have you got a reference of them complaining about missing these reminders?

But what about the fish ?

A family member was part of a panel rewording the leaflets of a drug that must be used with extreme caution in women and girls, the panel of experts (over 20 of them) met several times to fight it out discuss acceptable terms, deal with the inevitable “it’s transphobic to call women and girls women and girls” conversations which would have left women and girls at risk from lack of clarity.
I’m not sure the changes went ahead, but the proposed change and the time involved around this would have cost at least tens of thousands. Had the changes gone ahead hundreds of thousands.

Everything has to be agreed, leaflets updated, all information everywhere - websites, text books, pharmaceutical info, would have to be changed, all for a regressive movement that doesn’t know its arse from its elbow.

That's why the guidelines says women and people with a cervix, not just people with a cervix.

I think that could go both ways though given how much people want the same money spent in reverse to undo any literature or guidelines that use people with a cervix for example. What drug was this?

Pombearsallday -if they choose to register as male and not be invited automatically - so what?
Well, they are contributing to inaccurate data, where females are counted as males, and most people prefer their stats, especially medical stats, to represent biological reality rather than personal preference.
The article highlights just one problem arising from inaccurate recording of biological sex.

There is a bigger picture underlying the points made in the article, about accurate, factual data being fundamental to planning, research, delivery etc., especially in healthcare.

Ok, a few more filters then to remove those who have had specific medical treatments.

But that still doesn’t address how you select the “male” patients who need cervical screening. What database field can be used for that? Oh yes, “gender identity”would be useful. So a good reason for separating this from sex.

Any female (sex field) who identifies as a man (gender identity field) could be filtered for easily and included.

But not if this isn’t recorded separately.

The database doesn’t exist for reasons of self expression but to record medically important information.

Again, you were concerned that a transman might be turned away from a smear because of a male sex markers. I said this would be avoided if the marker said female.

Healthcare is about your body. If you say your body is one way when actually it is not, this will affect your care.

I haven't said anything about people complaining.

You seem to prefer a situation where trans people are disadvantaged when it comes to sex specific screening tests to one where everyone's sex is correctly recorded which would eliminate that disadvantage

The drug isn’t important as this is going on all the time.

There are too many in favour of leaving out the women and girls bit altogether, and those in the panels rooted in reality can have a hard time to get their point across and be understood that when it comes to medical drugs, particularly ones with potentially devastating side effects, clarity is vital - but apparently to many mentioning women and girls at all is transphobic.

So if it's working for that population of people, what's your complaint?

Well I was interested to know as it particularly affected women and girls, of all ages, including all those who may have had certain surgeries etc. if there were no exceptions I'd be surprised they had to have so many meetings about the wording.

How do you know it's working? Are you sure that all trans identified women are booking smear tests?

It was you who raised the whole transman being turned away in the first place!!

@Hemlocked
Intersex is a controversial term for a medical condition, not a third sex (or in-between sex). The non-controversial terms are "person with a DSD/VSD" - acronyms for difference/variation in sexual development respectively.

Edited for grammar

It’s almost like some of us have been saying since the beginning that the only way to protect transgender people is to accurately record their data.

For both individual health and patterns of discrimination, we need data to track things and prove issues.

But it's already currently avoided by the guidelines being clear that people with a cervix are eligible, so your concerns aren't warranted ?

Yes because a PP said that the mention of people with a cervix is to raise awareness in trans people because theyre so deluded that don't realise they need screening or something. I said it's also more likely there to clarify for HCPs not to turn away a trans man presenting for screening.

@Pombearsallday I'm not sure why you're so fixated on the fact that the article doesn't say trans people are complaining about missing their screening invitations? That could potentially be because they're not aware of it, which can still negatively impact their health. All four UK nations have trans specific screening leaflets which specify which programmes people are eligible for and whether or not they will be automatically invited, but it introduces an extra set of actions that increases the likelihood that people will not take part.

It's really important that both sex and gender identity (if there is one) are recorded - for example, a small number of men get breast cancer and trans women on cross sex hormones are at increased risk, so their screening needs are different from a man who isn't taking hormones. And if course outside of screening there are many other contexts in healthcare where both pieces of information might be relevant.

I work in screening. Do you think if it wasn't working the article would have highlighted that given it was the Drs argument that it "could" cause problems?

Well given PPs had said about people whining etc, calling it self harm etc. I'm not fixated on it to say that the article doesn't included any of that.

You work in screening but don't appear to understand the rationale for sending out invitations rather than just relying on women to book their own tests

I have no idea of the cost but I suspect it to be huge as with all NHS spending.

You are correct that there is currently no national prostate cancer screening but many GPs offer mens health checks and screening.

I completely understand it. I'm saying that the current system where trans men aren't automatically invited because they're registered as male hasn't caused a massive screening issue with them not attending. You do know that an invite still relies on a patient booking an appt? They aren't auto booked. You're invited but the onus is still on you to choose to attend.

How can you know that if the transmen are recorded as male? How are you keeping track?