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.

I actually suspect that in general they would agree that it's vital to use clear, accurate language.

Then why aren't they using it, Breast cancer affects women, typically adolescent women grow breast during puberty in preparation for reproduction, adolescents males don't grow them because they're not the sex that is biologically suited to lactation.
Men can and do develop breast cancer but in such small figures that mentioning them is just whataboutery. It's young women they need to be targeting and the language they use should be clear and unequivocable because is too serious a concern for women that they can play silly buggers with the language.

https://pillowtalk.scot/body-language-naming-parts-sex-education/

https://eveappeal.org.uk/news/call-your-body-by-its-name/

Here are two articles explaining the importance of accurate language.

Again, I completely accept and endorse the argument that sometimes language needs to be tailored towards a particular recipient. I know that some doctors avoid the word 'cancer' with some patients.

But when language aimed at a general audience avoids accuracy it instead endorses the idea that some body parts are taboo,

Have you gone to coppafeels website? Their self examination guide lets you select breast, boobs, chest and pecs so literally no words are taboo and everyone has a guide to check themselves in language they prefer. I really can't imagine getting so annoyed that a charity is using as much terminology as possible to educate as many people as possible to save their lives that you don't even check the website and realise they've made none of the words "taboo"

Your point really isn't making sense. Using the word breast also doesn't make it immediately obvious for anyone how to perform a breast exam step by step either hence the whole point of looking up "how" to check. I don't think coppafeels are hoping people check their breasts without any guidance how to do so 🫠 which is why there's a whole step by step guide everyone in your family could follow

is using as much terminology as possible to educate as many people as possible to save their lives

See my posts. A basic understanding of proportions makes it very clear that they're not doing that.

I'm not saying they shouldn't refer to chests etc. - it's great that they do.

I am saying that the way they do so is far more likely to have a negative than positive impact as far as saving "as many people as possible" goes. It's simple maths and logic.

Disguising or misrepresenting risk ratios so the huge majority at most risk are 1) at least somewhat less likely to access the information (see my post listing multiple other vulnerable groups impacted) and 2) far less likely to fully understand its implications (see my post re. average intelligence - and my and other posters' surprise and subsequent research re. risk ratios) feels irresponsible and even dangerous.

Particularly so when all you need to do is foreground "female" and "breast" etc. while also including "male" and "chest" etc., perhaps with some stats. It's really not hard.

That this isn't done, despite the obvious value of so doing, is hard to understand.

I think the problem with the ad is the opening “guys, gals, and non-binary pals” as this leads into the breast, chest, and pecs. This sets the tone and if the idea was a basic ‘men can get it too’ then why not just clearly focus on that. It’s the use of non binary that made me eye roll if I’m honest. The childish voice used also frustrates. Appreciate it’s not about me and they apparently do great work so it’s sad their ad seems to miss the mark for many plain old men and women.

Yes, the website is so, so clear that they're talking about breast cancer.

The masthead says 'Breast Cancer Charity'. The front page mentions breast cancer multiple times. The colour scheme is pink. Anyone casually reading, on the fence, should head over to www.coppafeel.org and take a look.

This is nothing to do with 'clear language'. Its about sticking the boot into anyone who acknowledges the existence of trans people. Even cancer charities.

It's quite fucked up.

The silly voice and chirpy style irritated me too. Why does a serious health message need to be delivered like an advert for a theme park?
And just saying "both women and men can have breast cancer" would suffice.

Here we are again with "existence". 😂

Like a 15 year old having a strop at their mum.

People can read the thread and make their own minds up, can’t they.

glad you find the subject funny.

What a wild interpretation.

Where have I suggested I find the subject of breast cancer funny?
Do tell.

What I DO find funny (and a bit tragic) is the juvenile language used by some TRAs.
We know you exist. No one is suggesting you shouldn't exist.
Like a teenager crying about a love interest that "doesn't even know I exist!"
Its really very silly and doesn't encourage any sort of meaningful debate when the language used is dripping in hyperbole.

And FYI, reacting to posts you dont agree with with the bunch of flowers is equally juvenile.

I have no doubt that they also use the word breast and that they produce guides on how to check your breasts.

However, 'check you chest' is targeted language, not inclusive language.

Your 'pecs' are muscles and you do not get primary breast cancer in your pectoral muscles.

It's like using 'winky' to refer to a penis or 'downstairs' for vagina.

If you are using as much terminology as possible you aren't educating. You are just being inaccurate and rendering accurate language taboo.

To quote myself in the post that you quoted

I do understand that doctors have to make treatment patient specific, and when targeting a specific community or treating a specific patient I don't care what words they use.

I am baffled that you seem unable to understand why accurate language is important, but I wouldn't accuse you of wanting more people to get cancer. I just think you have taken a side on an internet forum. If there had been no reference to trans people I imagine that you would agree that health advice should be clear, neutral and accurate.

Vulnerable groups are not being dismissed though, at all.
It’s, yet again, women who get the duff end of the deal because we are ignored in favour of minorities, rather than being fairly and equally represented. And this only happens to women, it never happens to men - they never need to have their needs diminished for inclusion, ever.
Why might that be? And why is it always women who have to pipe down because we’re big meanies?

Great, as long as people take the time to go to the website!

This is information produced by the charity as part of this campaign.

https://coppafeel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Orchid-X-CoppaFeel-Posters-2022.pdf

The first poster doesn't mention breast cancer at all and it's not immediately clear that it even relates to cancer.

You can scan the QR code, but at no point does it explain the key information - Men have breast tissue and men get breast cancer too.

The second poster 'ball skills' is happy to mention testicular cancer.

I suppose some people on this thread would argue that everyone knows what the coppafeel charity does and everyone knows about breast cancer, but, they really, really don't. (And what would be the point of producing the information if everyone already knew it anyway...?)

If that’s how you take it that’s on you.

My issue is purely that the vast majority of people who have breast cancer are women, plain old women who are left yet again scraping the barrel for clear information with regards to their own health.

Not only do we have to endure medical misogyny at an alarming rate, to the point where life limiting conditions are routinely taking years to investigate and diagnose because it’s easier to write women off as liars, anxious and fat, but we have the clear medical language (that helps us all - including those whose first language is not English, and those with learning difficulties - keep safe and healthy) taken away because a tiny and vulnerable minority are so disassociated from their reality that we have to lose that clearly presented information.

I don’t want minorities to be left behind at all, but women are routinely being written out of the picture or diluted to the point where we’re expected to accept a newspeak that barely acknowledges that we’re even there.

There is a stark different use of language across those two posters. The balls one clearly states that testicular cancer can affect men of any age. Very clear. Presumably some would regard this as exclusionary to transwomen or non binary pals but it surely does what it is meant to. Quick edit the boob one could follow suit: breast cancer can affect men and women of any age”.

As an aside I am clueless what’s meant by pecs, I thought it related to a six pack or fabulous body stuff 🙈

I'm lost why you think more women wouldn't get information from an add or campaign that also specifically used the term breast cancer?

But it also uses the accurate language and has a examination tool where you select the language that fits the area for you. Some men may only see that area as their pecs, it tells you step by step where to feel. I wouldn't get offended if a gentinal cancer campaign let people select the guide with wishy washy language if they can't stand the word vulva either. It's about being accessible for as many people as possible.

I'm quite proud of my first deletion above! Do I get a badge?!

For the curious, in that post I:

• expressed concern at other posters taking a swearily aggressive approach to a valid question
• suggested this may harm vulnerable groups besides women - including trans people, as they need more rational, persuasive advocates
• invited readers to look at the more complex arguments in my earlier posts about why this campaign isn't as effective as it could be

I assume the post was blasted because I also gently suggested that some posters may be trolling. Mumsnet mods, is a suggestion that the posters busy calling women "shrieking" and "fucking despicable" for thoughtful analysis of an ad campaign really the issue here?

Still, it's cool - once again, it lets the evidence speak for itself.

GC feminists: considered analysis of the relative effectiveness of messaging on a wide range of demographics, considering stats, context and target audiences etc.

The opposition: 1) aggressive swears, 2) deletions and, now, the earnest suggestion that I think "more women wouldn't get information from an add or campaign that also specifically used the term breast cancer" (a bit garbled, but seems to be technique number 3) - bring on the nice, safe straw men).

If you're honestly "lost", Genericfestiveusername (good user name!) my other posts explain what I'm actually saying - as do other posters. The below may be a good start to a more persuasive counter-argument...:

I recognise what you're saying - that females are proportionately more vulnerable to this disease by a ration of 99:1, and that making this explicit could save proportionately more lives than de-sexed language will. However, I personally don't believe this. Firstly, you suggest this relatively gender-neutral approach may inegatively mpact how women with learning difficulties / English as a second language / casual skim-readers etc. may understand their relative risk level. I disagree, because... Secondly, you argue that a female-focussed campaign, with additive language used to acknowledge trans men and males, would be more proportionately inclusive of all affected groups. I question this suggestion, because...

I can't fill in the gaps above, as I don't know what you'd say. But an answer to this as opposed to 1), 2) or 3) above would be great for everyone, moving things forward. No debate is over, so let's actually debate!!!

(Having said that, slightly ironically, must acknowledge am out all day today with a crazily busy week, so may leave others to continue this - but will revisit in interest at some point!)

The only word that accurately describes your vulva is vulva.

It's not a question of being offended. Everyone has the right to accurate information, and by using inaccurate language you endorse the idea that people should be offended and that certain words carry stigma.

You seem to have ignored the link to the poster that only mentions cancer in the branding and then only in general terms.

It's about being accessible for as many people as possible.

Agree, and you do that by using clear language.