Check your chest breast cancer awareness/charity.

[LostMyPantsAtGatwickAirport]

I keep hearing adverts from a charity (Coppafeel) about checking your chest - not breasts - and it amazes me how happy women are to see off our language and anatomy and allow inclusion to basically write us out of an issue that mainly affects us.

I know men can also get breast cancer, but it’s in breast tissue, so using breast is entirely clear and anatomically correct.

On the same radio station I’ve heard adverts aimed at men to have their prostate checked - not once is this information muddied at all by falling over backwards to be inclusive to a small minority.

I thought we were heading out of this abysmal wasteland, but apparently not.

I have complained, but blah blah blah inclusion, kindness etc.

So don't you think it's better to avoid the inference that 'breast' implies a feminine identity?

Isn't it better to just use clear language when referring to body parts?

'Breast' is a gender neutral term.

This is why we talk about breast cancer, not chest cancer.

Primary breast cancer occurs in breast tissue.

Secondary breast cancer can spread to other areas such as the chest area including the lungs.

Why is it helpful to suggest that the possession of breast tissue suggests anything about anyone's identity?

This comes on the back of campaigns referring to women as cervix owners, of Macmillan cancer charity once not referring to women AT ALL on the information pages about female only cancers like ovarian, cervical, uterine etc. Yet on the very same website referring to men over ten times in a short description of male only cancers.

I think if in the world of cancer campaigns and information there was an even inclusion policy where everyone is covered fairly there wouldn’t be this reaction to this advert. But it’s not. It’s only women’s health and language that are being pushed to the bottom of the heap for the benefit of a very few people. And it’s not even for their benefit because campaigns like this encourage a deluded attitude that humans can change sex, that trans men don’t have breasts. Trans health care as demanded by trans campaigners actually puts them more at risk. Lack of clarity puts more people at risk.

Almost like this whole ideology is inherently misogynistic and doesn’t give a shit about women.

As a trans person who's had cancer (though not breast) I'm always pleased to see trans people considered in literature intended to target those at risk. Trans men and trans women can both get breast cancer, both have a lower risk than cis women but a higher risk than cis men so obviously they need to be included in campaigns. It's unclear why this would be a problem to be quite honest, it's still perfectly clear language and this is a group for whom reluctance to engage with medical professionals due to fear of mistreatment is a known risk factor.
Presumably even the most ardent of gender criticals wouldn't actually want to prevent trans people from learning about their cancer risk or from accessing treatment.

Of course not, but weirdly the same changes of language and wholesale writing off of sex-based language is not seen at all in male health campaigns.

My problem isn’t that it’s including trans people, but that they’re completely ignoring that most of those affected by these diseases are simply women (not cis - women are not a subset of their own sex), and there have been cases where this lack of clarity means that vulnerable women have no idea that the information is for them.

I doubt that I'm the intended audience of a charity named Coppafeel, so perhaps any personal quibbles I might have with their terminology are irrelevant.

But the more posts I read on this thread, the more unease I feel about awareness of other cancers. If we're using every word except breast to describe breast cancer, is there potential for that to impact messaging about cancers elsewhere in the body?

Every single person reading and posting in this thread has a chest. Sorry, but you do, because you wouldn't have anywhere for your heart and lungs to be situated otherwise. On the subject of hearts, I was under the impression that in health messaging about heart attacks, "chest pain" meant something different from breast tenderness. Did I have that wrong? Clearly I did.

To quote the British Heart Foundation,

Coronary heart disease, the main cause of heart attacks, kills twice as many women as breast cancer in the UK each year, and was the single biggest killer of women worldwide in 2023.

Also from the British Heart Foundation:

What are the signs and symptoms of a heart attack in women?

Symptoms of a heart attack include:

pain or discomfort in your chest that happens suddenly and does not go away
pain that spreads to either arm, your neck, jaw, upper back or stomach
feeling sick, sweaty, light-headed or short of breath.
Other less common symptoms include:

suddenly feeling anxious, similar to a panic attack
severe tummy (abdominal) pain
lots of coughing or wheezing.
The pain can feel very bad while for others it’s more uncomfortable. It can feel like heaviness or a burning pain similar to indigestion.

Heart attack symptoms are different for different people. You may not have all of these symptoms.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/conditions/heart-attack/signs-and-symptoms-of-heart-attacks-in-women

Some prostate and testicular cancer campaigns do use neutral language, and this is something patient advocacy groups do campaign for (I am involved in some of this advocacy myself). I do agree however that there could be greater parity. Though I admit I'm not entirely convinced you would be satisfied if only there were parity, you've already rather betrayed this by insisting I avoid the simple, handy, commonly -used and non-offensive adjective that distinguishes between trans men and women and other men and women, and instead insisted I use a definition of "woman" that includes trans men but excludes trans women. That's rather at odds with your claim that you don't mind trans-inclusive language.

Can you provide a specific example of a case where a woman has not sought medical treatment because she has not understood that trans-inclusive information is also aimed at her? An actual evidenced example, not a hypothetical or an anecdote. And do you have any evidence that this type of event is commonplace, or at least more commonplace than trans people failing to engage with medical care because they fear a negative experience? Because there are is a body of research that shows this is a significant risk, and a body of research that show trans people are more likely to die of certain cancers than cis people, not because they get these cancers more often but because they're more likely to avoid screenings, and less likely to seek help before their cancer progresses to an untreatable stage. This is an evidenced risk that costs lives and it's very easily solved by using inclusive language which gives trans people confidence in approaching services when they need them.

That's because men have breasts albeit with some differences in form and function from women's breasts. And in both sexes the breast is not the same thing as the chest.

The only reason not to use the correct word is from seriously deep misogyny which should not be tolerated still less promulgated by health services or charities.

Jesus, this is hateful. Fml

MissingLynks

Will this inclusive language accompany language that is accessible for people with learning disabilities? Or will it, as has been my observation, replace it?

In 2019, NHS England reported:
The proportion [of women with learning disabilities] taking up the offer of cervical screening may be even lower in the South West. A study in Exeter has found that only one in four of women with learning disabilities attend their cervical screening appointment when invited.

www.england.nhs.uk/south/2019/01/23/study-shows-only-1-in-4-women-with-learning-disabilities-attend-cervical-screening-in-the-south-west/
.

People with learning disabilities are well known to encounter barriers in accessing health screening, and this is a contributing factor to why they have an average life expectancy of 20 years less than the rest of the population.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/cancer-screening-and-people-with-learning-disabilities/cancer-screening-making-reasonable-adjustments

Evidence and research
People with learning disabilities have poorer health and are more likely to die at a younger age than people in the general population, in part because of poor access to health services. Evidence suggests they’re at a much higher risk of gastrointestinal cancer. It’s likely that the rates and pattern of cancer among people with learning disabilities is changing as they’re living longer.

It’s been well documented over some years that women with learning disabilities have a much lower participation rate in cervical and breast screening programmes than women in the general population. This has been more comprehensively documented by the Learning Disability Health and Care dataset collected by NHS Digital.

This dataset shows differing participation rates for the 3 national cancer screening programmes and for each, substantial variation around the country. In the most recent year for which we have figures (2015 to 2016), 75% of people with learning disabilities eligible for colorectal cancer screening had the test compared to 83% of eligible people without identified learning disabilities. Corresponding figures for breast cancer screening were 51% and 67% and for uterine cervical cancer screening 30% and 76%.

Barriers to uptake
Research shows that there are many practical barriers to various types of cancer screening.

These may include:

lack of routine use of easy-read invitations
difficulties using appointment systems
time pressures
mobility issues
communication difficulties
Women with learning disabilities are more likely to be stopped from taking part in cervical or breast screening programmes because if they’re stopped from taking part in a screening, a call and recall system will remove them from taking part in all screening programmes.

^Healthcare professionals and carers attitudes and knowledge of screenings
The attitudes and knowledge of both professionals and carers supporting people with learning disabilities play a part in the poor uptake of screening.^

Many screening professionals have had little experience of supporting people with learning disabilities and may lack the appropriate knowledge and skills. Equally, many support staff will not have had any training in cancer prevention. Evidence suggests family carers do not always consider screening to be a high priority and discussions about it can be difficult because it is considered to be a sensitive topic and may involve conversations about sexual activity.

There are also issues about the attitude and knowledge of people with learning disabilities themselves. They may not understand why screening is important and fear, anxiety and embarrassment may stop them going for screening.

A lot of accessible information and resources are available to help people with learning disabilities understand the need for screening, what it involves and how to be prepared for it. However, many staff are unaware of these resources and do not make use of them. Accessible information can raise awareness and therefore can be used to support informed consent. Research has shown that concerns about the capacity of people with learning disabilities to consent to participate in screening programmes can also be a barrier.

At this juncture, I must also point out that women with learning disabilities are sexually abused at sky-high rates, so we cannot assume they have not been exposed to HPV.

Is calling it chest not actually inclusive, just confusing, given both males and females have breast tissue and it’s that that gets cancer ?

It’s not though, is it?

do you think a single person looks at the coppafeel website and doesn’t understand it’s about breast cancer? Honestly?

Then why not offer prostate checks for women?

you've already rather betrayed this by insisting I avoid the simple, handy, commonly -used and non-offensive adjective that distinguishes between trans men and women and other men and women, and instead insisted I use a definition of "woman" that includes trans men but excludes trans women. That's rather at odds with your claim that you don't mind trans-inclusive language.

I am not the poster you are addressing, but nevertheless. We request you do not use that term because it is presumptuous on your part to attribute a "cis" gender identity to anyone without consulting them. By your own lights, it is illogical as there are masses and masses of gender identities. It baffles me that online trans activists always categorise people they disagree with as "cis", and not, for example, agender.

Exactly.

Thanks for highlighting this, it's well-known that people with learning disabilities also face challenges in accessing medical care, however nothing you've provided here is evidence that language-use in awareness campaigns specifically is a barrier, indeed given that this research dates from 2019 when inclusive language was much less common (it's still not terribly common) this doesn't seem likely. The research you cite provides multiple other compelling reasons for this disparity which are probably far greater priorities to resolve, such as attitudes and knowledge amongst professionals and carers.

"Cis" isn't a gender identity, it simply means someone is not trans. If you personally would like me to refer to you as agender I will do so if the need ever comes up, but this doesn't substitute as a logical opposite to trans for all purposes as not all non-trans people will be agender.

I would prefer you did not try to compel my language please. I am not trying to compel yours.

ScrollingLeaves

Well, you might think that. In a world where hospital doctors are trained to verbally refer to the oesophagus as "your food tube" when talking to patients face-to-face, I am often surprised by the complexity and opacity of written health information for general audiences.

I know a woman who was diagnosed at stage 4 with breast cancer because the lump she first noticed was on her collar bone, and she assumed a breast cancer lump would be in her breast. So possibly "check your (whole) chest" is advice that could be useful for a lot of people who aren't aware that the lump doesn't actually need to be in the boob to be suspicious.

As others have pointed out, the words "breast cancer" are all over Coppafeel's website and social media and if OP is referring to the radio advert I've heard (she may not be) while it does say "check your chest" it does also use the words breast cancer. I think it would be very difficult indeed for anyone to be engaging with this organisation and not realise what kind of cancer they are talking about.

Cis doesn’t mean not trans

it means you accept the idea of gender identity and believing that yours matches your sex

if you don’t believe in gender identity then you can’t be cis gender. You can accept that others have a gender identity and when it doesn’t match their sex ( ie stereotype ) they call themselves trans but you should not force gender on people who actually often have strong reasons for hating gender , for how gender has been used to hurt and abuse them and then you have the cheek to say they buy into the whole thing - essentially victim blaming women for everything from pay and promotion issues to lack of female safety gear.
Cis is not neutral

it’s abusive

Oh give over, I am not "forcing" gender upon anyone nor am I abusing anyone, nor can you just make up your own definition of a word in common usage.

What you are doing is trying to force me to use language which excludes trans people by robbing me of my ability to simply distinguish between trans people and cis people, instead forcing me to use tortuous and unclear workarounds or to use the word "woman" in an exclusionary way. That is far closer to abuse than anything I've been doing; I am not attempting to control anyone else's speech but you are trying to control mine.

I am not assuming anyone does or does not have a gender when I use the word "cis", I simply mean someone who isn't trans which is the widely understood and accepted common usage.

Can you please stretch yourself to acknowledging that multitudes of other people on this planet do not follow your philosophy, and thus should not be defined by your own philosophy's internal categories?

It's like hearing that I'm an atheist, but insisting on telling me I'm actually a follower of Arianism (a 3rd Century Christian heresy condemned by the First Council of Nicaea).

Your collar bone is not your chest.

I agree!! But the wording is misleading. It's breast tissue that needs to be checked, not just "chests" is the argument.

You are

i have whole heartily rejected the concept of gender
it has been used as an excuse to underpay me ( formally recognised ) , to dismiss my opinions ( also formally recognised ) . It’s why I lack confidence in certain situations because I was forced to take a back seat, put myself last , be a good girl and a good woman

gender is a cage that the world tries to put me in and I don’t want to go there.

it may be nothing to you but don’t you dare try and insist that others accept your ridiculous assertions and assumptions

i know - gender assumptions make your life easy? Tough. Take people how they are and don’t make lazy assumptions about them