Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I think they're probably trying to do what they think is right and what they think will include most ppl and upset fewest. I doubt anyone wants to deliberately offend. A thankless task tbh....  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police" Agreed. Bet there's an ungodly amount of outrage over a bloody leaflet and the lack of one word. So sensitive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Literal works for me. I don’t feel excluded or like it’s gone too far. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also: the HSE updated their guidance on cervical cancer in December - meanwhile the prostate cancer guidance was last updated in 2011. So, expect an update at some point. Also also: we have a cervical screening programme in the UK, so it's important people have an accurate understanding of whether or not they should be screened. We do not currently have a prostate screening programme in the UK, so it's far less important (though many would argue that there should be one). Don't get outraged - get informed "11,000 men die a year from it in the UK it should be a screening procedures...same sort wording should apply though unless it’s removed as part of the MtF surgery? I hold my hands up and take accountability that I don’t know what happens in that kind of surgery. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair I’m pretty difficult to offend or upset. My thinking is that it’s literal. If you have a cervix you’re at risk of cervical cancer so yes all good
Literal works for me. I don’t feel excluded or like it’s gone too far. "I agree
Lu  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also: the HSE updated their guidance on cervical cancer in December - meanwhile the prostate cancer guidance was last updated in 2011. So, expect an update at some point. Also also: we have a cervical screening programme in the UK, so it's important people have an accurate understanding of whether or not they should be screened. We do not currently have a prostate screening programme in the UK, so it's far less important (though many would argue that there should be one). Don't get outraged - get informed
11,000 men die a year from it in the UK it should be a screening procedures...same sort wording should apply though unless it’s removed as part of the MtF surgery? I hold my hands up and take accountability that I don’t know what happens in that kind of surgery. "I forgot to say 11,000 men die from prostate cancer. I don’t know the figures for cervical cancer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's lots of talk in the UK about 'snowflakes' getting upset.....and these snowflakes being lefty liberals. My observation is that the people getting most upset are the Daily mail / Telegraph readers.....getting upset about people allegedly getting upset. "And so attacking another "group" of individuals because you feel your "group" of individuals has been attacked is helping that problem then....? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police" Woh dude chill dont have a melt down over something that affects you not I think snowflakes need to be careful how they use snowflake or at least understand the concept of irony | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police Woh dude chill dont have a melt down over something that affects you not I think snowflakes need to be careful how they use snowflake or at least understand the concept of irony " Hmm meltdown? Or maybe just flippant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police Woh dude chill dont have a melt down over something that affects you not I think snowflakes need to be careful how they use snowflake or at least understand the concept of irony Hmm meltdown? Or maybe just flippant " Third message in and the word s fucking snowflake Seems more hot and bothered mini rant than witty nonchalance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police Woh dude chill dont have a melt down over something that affects you not I think snowflakes need to be careful how they use snowflake or at least understand the concept of irony Hmm meltdown? Or maybe just flippant Third message in and the word s fucking snowflake Seems more hot and bothered mini rant than witty nonchalance " Ok bud because nobody casually throws around swears these days. Lets just say your right rather than have this descend in to something completely pointless shall we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
It's a general information leaflet for the masses. If you're a minority category not referred to in the leaflet but the science and medical advice still applies to you, then get over the semantics and focus on the medical advice | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police Woh dude chill dont have a melt down over something that affects you not I think snowflakes need to be careful how they use snowflake or at least understand the concept of irony Hmm meltdown? Or maybe just flippant Third message in and the word s fucking snowflake Seems more hot and bothered mini rant than witty nonchalance Ok bud because nobody casually throws around swears these days. Lets just say your right rather than have this descend in to something completely pointless shall we?" Awesome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The HSE (the Irish equivalent of the NHS) have removed the word women from a leaflet on cervical cancer and replaced it with "people with a cervix". The word women does not appear at all. The prostate leaflet still refers to men. Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? " Being honest I dont think them as being inclusive I see them as being specific It's a cervical cancer thing thus it's quite reasonable to be specific I'd suggest the prostate leaflet follow suit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it "Great answer, well put. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it
Great answer, well put. "
Exactly this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority "I'm with you. However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Glad to see you posting WW
I think they're probably trying to do what they think is right and what they think will include most ppl and upset fewest. I doubt anyone wants to deliberately offend. A thankless task tbh.... "Thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel. "Phew! I thought I was the only one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether the guidance offends some or not, maybe overall it is good thing if gets those that need the check to have it. Personally, if it saves one life then the controversy is worth it. Sometimes the same guidance in a PC format, whatever that is these days, goes sadly unnoticed. Sometimes I see these type of notices and think the worlds gone mad. " I think it's usually possible to achieve both goals and I don't think we should sacrifice some peoples feelings for the sake of efficiency, because then we could justify that in other areas of life. We should always strive to be good humans.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
Phew! I thought I was the only one "30 replies but only 7 women on the thread. *zips mouth* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
Phew! I thought I was the only one
30 replies but only 7 women on the thread. *zips mouth*"How many have a cervix ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it "This. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not sure why some people feel person dehumanising over woman, I'm female presenting (but actually gender queer) and I think it's much more inclusive while actually targeting exactly who it needs to, regardless of their gender or how people present themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Id be more concerned that people wouldnt know if they had a cervix or not. " Yep, that came up in the debate today. Good point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure why some people feel person dehumanising over woman, I'm female presenting (but actually gender queer) and I think it's much more inclusive while actually targeting exactly who it needs to, regardless of their gender or how people present themselves. " Well the problem is that lots of people find it dehumanising to have to share a gender category with anyone that falls outside of the "ideal woman". (Which is ironic, because these people often also consider themselves to be feminists.) But again - it's medical language, deployed in the interest of being specific. Taking it up as a proxy battle in the culture wars politicises something that should, at the heart of it, be led by doctors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a fucked up snowflake world we live in. Beware the thought police" Big Brother is already here! It's called a mobile phone with cookies and location!!?? Ohs@%** | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure why some people feel person dehumanising over woman, I'm female presenting (but actually gender queer) and I think it's much more inclusive while actually targeting exactly who it needs to, regardless of their gender or how people present themselves. Well the problem is that lots of people find it dehumanising to have to share a gender category with anyone that falls outside of the "ideal woman". (Which is ironic, because these people often also consider themselves to be feminists.) But again - it's medical language, deployed in the interest of being specific. Taking it up as a proxy battle in the culture wars politicises something that should, at the heart of it, be led by doctors." I said the phrase was dehumanising, not about sharing a category that falls outside of the ideal woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel. "I'm with you both, I also find it dehumanising. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's lots of talk in the UK about 'snowflakes' getting upset.....and these snowflakes being lefty liberals. My observation is that the people getting most upset are the Daily mail / Telegraph readers.....getting upset about people allegedly getting upset.
And so attacking another "group" of individuals because you feel your "group" of individuals has been attacked is helping that problem then....? "Wow....'attcked'. That seems a bit of an over reaction lol It's an observation - no one is being 'attacked'. Ironically, your post does illustrate the point though  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority "No your not, the majority are much quieter than the loud minority. It's sad that women are the ones losing out here. The trans community accounts for about 0.3 of the population,a tiny percentage, yet these things are done for some strange reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
I'm with you both, I also find it dehumanising. "Its odd how there was such a strong drive for female empowerment and female spaces for many years yet recently, these are all being stripped away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure why some people feel person dehumanising over woman, I'm female presenting (but actually gender queer) and I think it's much more inclusive while actually targeting exactly who it needs to, regardless of their gender or how people present themselves. Well the problem is that lots of people find it dehumanising to have to share a gender category with anyone that falls outside of the "ideal woman". (Which is ironic, because these people often also consider themselves to be feminists.) But again - it's medical language, deployed in the interest of being specific. Taking it up as a proxy battle in the culture wars politicises something that should, at the heart of it, be led by doctors." When you say "lots of people".... In 99% of cases, people will identify with their born gender, you are talking about a tiny percentage of the population. What do you mean "ideal women"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure why some people feel person dehumanising over woman, I'm female presenting (but actually gender queer) and I think it's much more inclusive while actually targeting exactly who it needs to, regardless of their gender or how people present themselves. Well the problem is that lots of people find it dehumanising to have to share a gender category with anyone that falls outside of the "ideal woman". (Which is ironic, because these people often also consider themselves to be feminists.) But again - it's medical language, deployed in the interest of being specific. Taking it up as a proxy battle in the culture wars politicises something that should, at the heart of it, be led by doctors." When you say "lots of people".... In 99% of cases, people will identify with their born gender, you are talking about a tiny percentage of the population. What do you mean "ideal women"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
panic over it may not be the biggest but deffo not a vigina, phew.... but then i read something about HPV which can cause cancer in a mans penis im panicing again. Wish this was just a sex site i wont sleep tonight now  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's sad that women are the ones losing out here. The trans community accounts for about 0.3 of the population,a tiny percentage, yet these things are done for some strange reason. " While this happens to also be inclusive of trans women (the horror!) it's primarily aimed at the many more women that have undergone hysterectomies and undergo unnecessary medical procedures. Your implication is that trans women, and women without a cervix, aren't "real women" - the "ideal" I refer to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happily, I'm neither outraged nor offended. I heard the debate on the radio this afternoon and thought I'd get some fabbers' views. I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
Phew! I thought I was the only one
30 replies but only 7 women on the thread. *zips mouth*
How many have a cervix ? "Not me. I had to ask to be taken off the list so I didn’t waste their time chasing me. I’m still on the list for mamagrams though and if they have a list for people with a prostate I hope I’m on that too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's lots of talk in the UK about 'snowflakes' getting upset.....and these snowflakes being lefty liberals. My observation is that the people getting most upset are the Daily mail / Telegraph readers.....getting upset about people allegedly getting upset.
And so attacking another "group" of individuals because you feel your "group" of individuals has been attacked is helping that problem then....? "BOOM!!! Thats a KO right there! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is the phrase 'people with a cervix' dehumanising? It has the word 'people' in there, ie humans. " Exactly...it actually makes no difference. Some people just enjoy being offended I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we should ban the word snowflake, if a group of people are sensitive to an opinion they have the right to be heard. Being insensitive is why they are offended in the first place. Tasmin. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
I'm with you both, I also find it dehumanising.
Its odd how there was such a strong drive for female empowerment and female spaces for many years yet recently, these are all being stripped away. "Men need to push women down. Women are below them and need to remember this. Erase "women" and replace with "people" so that men (etc) feel included. The only way to be inclusive is to eradicate other groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. ". Males do get breast cancer, you've got breasts, there just very small | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. "Unfortunately there is no screening program for men at the mo. If a man has symptoms and needs to go to a breast cancer clinic it’s all very ‘female’ oriented. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. ". On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
Males do get breast cancer, you've got breasts, there just very small "Indeed, so when should i expect my invitation to screening? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer. "It's because we only have one prostate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked.
Unfortunately there is no screening program for men at the mo. If a man has symptoms and needs to go to a breast cancer clinic it’s all very ‘female’ oriented. "This needs to change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. ". I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even though these types of threads give me a headache - I find it interesting how people (over) react to things. Especially a supposedly Liberal bunch of swingers.
"You know how people that are bullied then go on to bully other people? School bully was bullied by his dad etc. Same thing happens everywhere else - the civil rights movement sidelined LGBT people in their communities, Bi people are attacked in LGBT communities (especially if they have a hetero relationship), cis women attack trans women. Lots of swingers are very intolerant, except of their specific kinks and fetishes. Each time, it's a fear that they will lose ground on their own liberation by being inclusive of other oppressed people. But darkness cannot drive out darkness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings."Nah, 2 tits. One prostate. Half the funding. It's maths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings."Same as covid. Let the young uns party and let it kill off all the oldies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Nah, 2 tits. One prostate. Half the funding. It's maths. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Nah, 2 tits. One prostate. Half the funding. It's maths.
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Same as covid. Let the young uns party and let it kill off all the oldies. "+fatties | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Same as covid. Let the young uns party and let it kill off all the oldies. ". It's the evolutionary process  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even though these types of threads give me a headache - I find it interesting how people (over) react to things. Especially a supposedly Liberal bunch of swingers.
""supposedly liberal" = A hell of a lot of racism, misogyny and homophobia that I ever would've guessed. I was surprised how un-liberal some members of the community *can* be, but I guess that's on me for making those presumptions in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Same as covid. Let the young uns party and let it kill off all the oldies. .
It's the evolutionary process "I think there's actually a really important discussion around this... the better medicine gets, the longer people live in prolonged misery. "simple" diseases that could kill you in days get replaced by degenerative conditions that drag out the pain for years, at huge expense. At some point you've got to ask if it's actually a good place to be. No? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we should ban the word snowflake, if a group of people are sensitive to an opinion they have the right to be heard. Being insensitive is why they are offended in the first place. Tasmin. "All sorts of reasons why it's an absurd word. Ultimately it's a way to dismiss peoples opinions without paying any attention to them at all. Shitty. That said, it is very fun calling all the brexiters, anti maskers and other loons snowflakes for getting upset about so many small things... much hypocrisy! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Creating problems, when once there was none. " Creating problems, when once there was none that affected you and your life, only other people, so bollocks to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Id be more concerned that people wouldnt know if they had a cervix or not. Yep, that came up in the debate today. Good point. " I heard the debate, and initially thought it was a strange way to present advice. It's like advising people who have a heart to take care of it. I jest.. But, i didnt know that there might be people who are uneducated regarding anatomy, and are unaware they have an organ called a cervix, or that for non English speakers, the word cervix doesn't exist in some languages. If this campaign helps people to remain healthy, then whatever language is used is OK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even though these types of threads give me a headache - I find it interesting how people (over) react to things. Especially a supposedly Liberal bunch of swingers.
"supposedly liberal" = A hell of a lot of racism, misogyny and homophobia that I ever would've guessed.
I was surprised how un-liberal some members of the community *can* be, but I guess that's on me for making those presumptions in the first place."It's almost like Swingers are humans and not an elite super race. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we should ban the word snowflake, if a group of people are sensitive to an opinion they have the right to be heard. Being insensitive is why they are offended in the first place. Tasmin.
All sorts of reasons why it's an absurd word. Ultimately it's a way to dismiss peoples opinions without paying any attention to them at all. Shitty.
That said, it is very fun calling all the brexiters, anti maskers and other loons snowflakes for getting upset about so many small things... much hypocrisy!"Loons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Creating problems, when once there was none. Creating problems, when once there was none that affected you and your life, only other people, so bollocks to them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? " Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. .
On a sad note twice as many men die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer yet unfortunately it only receives half the funding of breast cancer.
It's because we only have one prostate. .
I think it's the reality that older men get prostate cancer in general where as alot of younger women get breast cancer and people tend to feel more "sorry" for the mum with two little uns than the 75 year old that's had a reasonable innings.
Nah, 2 tits. One prostate. Half the funding. It's maths. "Yep. That’s me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's sad that women are the ones losing out here. The trans community accounts for about 0.3 of the population,a tiny percentage, yet these things are done for some strange reason. While this happens to also be inclusive of trans women (the horror!) it's primarily aimed at the many more women that have undergone hysterectomies and undergo unnecessary medical procedures. Your implication is that trans women, and women without a cervix, aren't "real women" - the "ideal" I refer to." What implication? I asked for your definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hopefully they'll do the same with breast screening soon. After all there's alot of men with tits these days. And they could well develop breast cancer AND prostate cancer! Double fucked. "Bloody hell, I agree with Clem on something . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in." But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet. "Because not all women have cervixes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it "When you put it like that... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes. "Then it should also list all the people, animals and vegetables it doesn't refer to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
Then it should also list all the people, animals and vegetables it doesn't refer to. "Why? It’s only people with cervix’s that it relates to. Women. Trans men who’ve not had a hysterectomy. Non binary.... and so on. What’s the point in a huge list? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
Then it should also list all the people, animals and vegetables it doesn't refer to. ""People with cervixes" is quite adequate as animals and vegetables are not people . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do find it a tad dehumanising, but I'm obviously in the minority
I'm with you.
However we have to feel about it the way we are told we must feel.
I'm with you both, I also find it dehumanising. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes. "So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix "Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Similar to what JK Rowling got blasted for , complaint that an article said “people who have periods” This is not about snowflakes or young people, it’s all because labour abandoned the working class in the 80s , believing in their own merit rather than society. It’s fascinating how it’s resulted in this political correctness , entitlement and identity politics. " Surely insisting on having your gender referenced rather than just the part of your anatomy being screened for cancer is the identity politics at play here? Do we need to have his and hers bowel screening? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix " It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Really, there's no reason to reference "women" unless you're specifically talking about women. But not all women have a cervix, and some people that have a cervix aren't women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Really, there's no reason to reference "women" unless you're specifically talking about women. But not all women have a cervix, and some people that have a cervix aren't women." Exactly and very few people have had their biological sex tested for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary." Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? " What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? " Current research is leaning more towards the sy gene and which chromosome it latches onto rather than Turner syndrome, which I think you’re mixing it up with. Turner syndrome is where a person has more than two chromosomes and that doesn’t make them trans. The sy gene is linked to what gender your brain is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix
Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities. "Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases. Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix "They could but that then excludes trans men because they’re not female. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? " An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix
Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities.
Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true. "Nobody said that saying the majority of people born female are born with a cervix is bigoted though so I don't get the comparison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? " So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes." You must tame all the kittens.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes." Also most people don't know what their sex chromosomes are as it's not something regularly tested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix
Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities.
Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true.
Nobody said that saying the majority of people born female are born with a cervix is bigoted though so I don't get the comparison. "You don't get the comparison? I'm not surprised | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes." That first stat doesn't sound right. 0.06% of the population is 4 million? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? " People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix
Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities.
Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true.
Nobody said that saying the majority of people born female are born with a cervix is bigoted though so I don't get the comparison.
You don't get the comparison?
I'm not surprised"Would you mind explaining? Why are you not surprised? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases. Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true. " It's not bigoted to say that all/only women have a cervix. It's just incorrect. Insisting that people share incorrect information to match your world view might be bigoted, mind. In the 80s and 90s children were not allowed to be taught about homosexual relationships in classrooms, which was definitely driven by bigotry. Lots of children grew up into adults with severe mental health problems because their sexuality was not acknowledged (and where it was, it was demonised). We're still dealing with that legacy today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair I’m pretty difficult to offend or upset. My thinking is that it’s literal. If you have a cervix you’re at risk of cervical cancer so yes all good
Literal works for me. I don’t feel excluded or like it’s gone too far. "
I've often wondered about medical problems and treatment that would appear to be birth gender related, so I'm happy to know about this. It's good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? " Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. " Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes. That first stat doesn't sound right. 0.06% of the population is 4 million? " Lol, yes you're absolutely right. I'm out by a factor of 100: - An estimated 0.06%, so FORTY THOUSAND people in the UK are not XX or XY. - An estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, SIX THOUSAND). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it "Post TOTAL hysterectomy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases. Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true. It's not bigoted to say that all/only women have a cervix. It's just incorrect. Insisting that people share incorrect information to match your world view might be bigoted, mind. In the 80s and 90s children were not allowed to be taught about homosexual relationships in classrooms, which was definitely driven by bigotry. Lots of children grew up into adults with severe mental health problems because their sexuality was not acknowledged (and where it was, it was demonised). We're still dealing with that legacy today." All/only women have a cervix - Who said that? Don't ascribe statements to me, I did NOT say that Really.... Thanks for your wonderful insight into what children in the 80s and 90s were allowed to be taught... However im a child of the 90s, and we were taught those things, so maybe just your school? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted." We should have worse health outcomes to make you feel better? And FWIW: no, most people don't care. There have been quite a few polls now that show this - it's just a loud minority that believe they're the silent majority (as they always do). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. We should have worse health outcomes to make you feel better? And FWIW: no, most people don't care. There have been quite a few polls now that show this - it's just a loud minority that believe they're the silent majority (as they always do)." Sounds scientific.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it
Post TOTAL hysterectomy. "Not necessarily. Some way have their ovaries still intact but no cervix. I'm hoping for a hysterectomy one day and I didn't realise how many variations there were . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it
Post TOTAL hysterectomy.
Not necessarily. Some way have their ovaries still intact but no cervix. I'm hoping for a hysterectomy one day and I didn't realise how many variations there were . "I was pointing out a cervix is removed under total hysterectomy (the f tubes and ovaries are not warranting a mention in this context). Therefore, post hysterectomy some women still have a cervix. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Really.... Thanks for your wonderful insight into what children in the 80s and 90s were allowed to be taught... However im a child of the 90s, and we were taught those things, so maybe just your school? " You are two years younger than me, so you would have still been at school after Section 28 was repealed. As older people will be able to corroborate, it was illegal to "intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality", as well as to "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 My primary school headteacher insisted on teaching it anyway, as part of her strong Christian morals (oh how that's been corrupted) - all the other teachers were told to leave the room so that if she were charged under the act she would go down alone. One of the many fond memories I have of brave people that faced down this kind of evil in my childhood, and I know that her actions had a positive effect on many of my peers. It was repealed in 2003, so it would've been legal for you in year 9? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't?" People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world. If they weren't stuck in an echo chamber, they would expect these losses, instead they are completely bewildered, because in the chamber, everyone agrees! So when you don't leave the chamber, you don't see the vast majority of people are not in there. Otherwise the election results would have been expected The whole "there are no biological differences between men and women" is going to be a tough sell The 2 Trans people I know,believe there are differences. But I digress | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? An estimated 0.06%, so ~4 million people in the UK are not XX or XY. But: biological sex is more than simply chromosomes, though it's likely you were taught this at school for two reasons: 1) Our scientific understanding of biological sex has progressed since you/I was at school. 2) At school, you're taught reductive ideas because otherwise you'd never be able to digest any knowledge. As an example, an estimated 1/20k males are XX (0.01%, 600 thousand - or a population the size of Glasgow). This is one of many examples of populations of people in the UK whose biological sex does not (in whole or in part) match their chromosomes. That first stat doesn't sound right. 0.06% of the population is 4 million? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying. "Where did people blame trans women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world" This isn't a left/right thing. It's a facts thing. These leaflets are made by medical professionals, not some cabal of lefties. Unless you think medicine is a liberal conspiracy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Really.... Thanks for your wonderful insight into what children in the 80s and 90s were allowed to be taught... However im a child of the 90s, and we were taught those things, so maybe just your school? You are two years younger than me, so you would have still been at school after Section 28 was repealed. As older people will be able to corroborate, it was illegal to "intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality", as well as to "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 My primary school headteacher insisted on teaching it anyway, as part of her strong Christian morals (oh how that's been corrupted) - all the other teachers were told to leave the room so that if she were charged under the act she would go down alone. One of the many fond memories I have of brave people that faced down this kind of evil in my childhood, and I know that her actions had a positive effect on many of my peers. It was repealed in 2003, so it would've been legal for you in year 9?" I left school in 1997 You must be looking at the Mrs age, she is younger than I am. Your teacher clearly wasn't the only one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world This isn't a left/right thing. It's a facts thing. " Then why have 90% of those defending this all been of that political persuasion? Coincidence? Your smarter than that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I left school in 1997 You must be looking at the Mrs age, she is younger than I am. Your teacher clearly wasn't the only one." Was your mind illegally polluted by radical leftists breaking the law to give you the facts, regardless of what the bigots in power would have you believe?
Or do you think that what they did - break the law to give you the truth and the facts - was a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I left school in 1997 You must be looking at the Mrs age, she is younger than I am. Your teacher clearly wasn't the only one. Was your mind illegally polluted by radical leftists breaking the law to give you the facts, regardless of what the bigots in power would have you believe?
Or do you think that what they did - break the law to give you the truth and the facts - was a good thing?"Believing in gay rights is by no means radical. Believing there are no differences between men and women is radical If there's no difference, what does same sex attraction actually mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying. "But transmen may. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't? People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world. If they weren't stuck in an echo chamber, they would expect these losses, instead they are completely bewildered, because in the chamber, everyone agrees! So when you don't leave the chamber, you don't see the vast majority of people are not in there. Otherwise the election results would have been expected The whole "there are no biological differences between men and women" is going to be a tough sell The 2 Trans people I know,believe there are differences. But I digress " I don’t think anyone said there was no difference And for the record most of my friends are trans or gay.... or both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Believing in gay rights is by no means radical. Believing there are no differences between men and women is radical If there's no difference, what does same sex attraction actually mean? " When you and I were growing up, believing in gay rights was very radical. Section 28 had popular support, and was kept for the first Labour government because of it. It's not radical anymore because people were persuaded by activists and campaigners, relying on facts to overcome ignorance. It didn't happen by accident. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't? People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world. If they weren't stuck in an echo chamber, they would expect these losses, instead they are completely bewildered, because in the chamber, everyone agrees! So when you don't leave the chamber, you don't see the vast majority of people are not in there. Otherwise the election results would have been expected The whole "there are no biological differences between men and women" is going to be a tough sell The 2 Trans people I know,believe there are differences. But I digress I don’t think anyone said there was no difference And for the record most of my friends are trans or gay.... or both. "To clarify: I'm not saying anyone said that in this thread, just that its said alot in modern political discourse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it
Post TOTAL hysterectomy.
Not necessarily. Some way have their ovaries still intact but no cervix. I'm hoping for a hysterectomy one day and I didn't realise how many variations there were .
I was pointing out a cervix is removed under total hysterectomy (the f tubes and ovaries are not warranting a mention in this context). Therefore, post hysterectomy some women still have a cervix. "Some do of course but some women who have had a partial hysterectomy don't have a cervix too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Believing in gay rights is by no means radical. Believing there are no differences between men and women is radical If there's no difference, what does same sex attraction actually mean? When you and I were growing up, believing in gay rights was very radical. Section 28 had popular support, and was kept for the first Labour government because of it. It's not radical anymore because people were persuaded by activists and campaigners, relying on facts to overcome ignorance. It didn't happen by accident." No sorry your wrong, my uncle and brother both came out as gay men I the 90s Gay rights were not radical thinking at that point. Maybe years before that, but not in the 90s, most people didnt really care tbh as they weren't affected one way or the other | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
Where did people blame trans women? "It probably wasn't your intention to lay the blame for "dehumanising" women directly at the feet of transwomen, and I apologise if I've offended you with my response. However, if you read through the thread there is a definite drift in that direction, even though this advice has absolutely nothing to do with us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't? People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world. If they weren't stuck in an echo chamber, they would expect these losses, instead they are completely bewildered, because in the chamber, everyone agrees! So when you don't leave the chamber, you don't see the vast majority of people are not in there. Otherwise the election results would have been expected The whole "there are no biological differences between men and women" is going to be a tough sell The 2 Trans people I know,believe there are differences. But I digress I don’t think anyone said there was no difference And for the record most of my friends are trans or gay.... or both.
To clarify:
I'm not saying anyone said that in this thread, just that its said alot in modern political discourse.
"Strange; as a subject I take a lot of interest in I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say there is ‘no biological differences’ between men and women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of women don't have a cervix, and some trans men still do. Lots of women go for unnecessary medical appointments because they don't realise it doesn't apply to then post-hysterectomy, and trans men don't realise it still applies to them. It's not about being inclusive, it's about giving accurate medical advice. Don't politicise it
Post TOTAL hysterectomy.
Not necessarily. Some way have their ovaries still intact but no cervix. I'm hoping for a hysterectomy one day and I didn't realise how many variations there were .
I was pointing out a cervix is removed under total hysterectomy (the f tubes and ovaries are not warranting a mention in this context). Therefore, post hysterectomy some women still have a cervix.
Some do... "FTFY - Yep my point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may. "Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. Unless you're part of the 1% and don't attend screening as the information provided didn't apply to you. What makes you say that most don't? People don't believe these things like the radical left and those on twitter do If they did, the left would win more elections in the western world. If they weren't stuck in an echo chamber, they would expect these losses, instead they are completely bewildered, because in the chamber, everyone agrees! So when you don't leave the chamber, you don't see the vast majority of people are not in there. Otherwise the election results would have been expected The whole "there are no biological differences between men and women" is going to be a tough sell The 2 Trans people I know,believe there are differences. But I digress " Don't believe what things? Is cervix ownership well discussed among the radical left or on twitter? Neither the left or right is a hive mind. I don't agree on everything with all my left leaning friends and at times me and my right leaning friends agree on things. Such is the way of life. Things aren't as polarised as the media likes to imply. Though still not sure what that has to do with cervixes. Who said there was no biological difference between men and woman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?", no but they are the important ones in this context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context. "Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen."Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men. Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No sorry your wrong, my uncle and brother both came out as gay men I the 90s Gay rights were not radical thinking at that point. Maybe years before that, but not in the 90s, most people didnt really care tbh as they weren't affected one way or the other " No mate, you're wrong: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/11/acceptance-gay-sex-decline-uk-first-time-since-aids-crisis Throughout the 90s support for same-sex relationships went from ~15% to ~35%, and didn't reach 50% until post-2010. Seriously, you need to pay attention to facts instead of just saying what you "feel" is right. Most of the problems in the world today could be resolved by a little less opinion and a little more fact, and you're part of the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Believing in gay rights is by no means radical. Believing there are no differences between men and women is radical If there's no difference, what does same sex attraction actually mean? When you and I were growing up, believing in gay rights was very radical. Section 28 had popular support, and was kept for the first Labour government because of it. It's not radical anymore because people were persuaded by activists and campaigners, relying on facts to overcome ignorance. It didn't happen by accident. No sorry your wrong, my uncle and brother both came out as gay men I the 90s Gay rights were not radical thinking at that point. Maybe years before that, but not in the 90s, most people didnt really care tbh as they weren't affected one way or the other " I'm really glad your brother and uncle have told you that. I know plenty of friends who would say otherwise, especially if you didn't live in a city. As for gay rights being radical thinking. I mean. The legal age for consent between men was only lowered to 18 in 1994, and then matched hetrosexual sex in 2000. Same sex civil partnerships didn't exist till 2004 and it took a further 10 years before same sex marriage became legal. I was involved in marches, petitions etc etc. So don't tell me gay rights weren't radical thinking and noone cared. Believe me they did,and still do. Homophobia still exists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I've not seen this actual leaflet, but it naturally follows the CNN article (which I believe was using the American Cancer Society's use of language: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every five years as the preferred method of testing, according to a new guideline released Thursday by the American Cancer Society." Exactly the same bigoted outrage for this one last month. HOWEVER It just reads really poorly, doesn't it? Compared to: "Screening for cervix cancers is now recommended to start at 25 and continue through age 65..." Is it not bad writing at fault for stoking up the angers online? Or was the even possibly an explicit choice of language to *try to* annoy people who wouldn't approve? I doubt it, but it's possible, and would be a very stupid move, as ultimately we shouldn't be having this fun discussion in the first place right? And if the rewording was done better, then no one would even notice, except those benefiting from the subtle change." Your second example text is much better. You should write the leaflets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I've not seen this actual leaflet, but it naturally follows the CNN article (which I believe was using the American Cancer Society's use of language: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every five years as the preferred method of testing, according to a new guideline released Thursday by the American Cancer Society." Exactly the same bigoted outrage for this one last month. HOWEVER It just reads really poorly, doesn't it? Compared to: "Screening for cervix cancers is now recommended to start at 25 and continue through age 65..." Is it not bad writing at fault for stoking up the angers online? Or was the even possibly an explicit choice of language to *try to* annoy people who wouldn't approve? I doubt it, but it's possible, and would be a very stupid move, as ultimately we shouldn't be having this fun discussion in the first place right? And if the rewording was done better, then no one would even notice, except those benefiting from the subtle change. Your second example text is much better. You should write the leaflets. "INORITE!!?? I WRITE DED GOOD. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women. "They were my thoughts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I've not seen this actual leaflet, but it naturally follows the CNN article (which I believe was using the American Cancer Society's use of language: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every five years as the preferred method of testing, according to a new guideline released Thursday by the American Cancer Society." Exactly the same bigoted outrage for this one last month. HOWEVER It just reads really poorly, doesn't it? Compared to: "Screening for cervix cancers is now recommended to start at 25 and continue through age 65..." Is it not bad writing at fault for stoking up the angers online? Or was the even possibly an explicit choice of language to *try to* annoy people who wouldn't approve? I doubt it, but it's possible, and would be a very stupid move, as ultimately we shouldn't be having this fun discussion in the first place right? And if the rewording was done better, then no one would even notice, except those benefiting from the subtle change. Your second example text is much better. You should write the leaflets.
INORITE!!?? I WRITE DED GOOD." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women. "Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex. A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The HSE (the Irish equivalent of the NHS) have removed the word women from a leaflet on cervical cancer and replaced it with "people with a cervix". The word women does not appear at all. The prostate leaflet still refers to men. Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? " I will check this out when I’m next over | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.
Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex.
A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough.
"Yes. My inbox is shows the clues now and then. I’ve been here a long time and I used to get attacked from all directions on the forums. Little by little things have changed and I hope I’ve been a part of bringing that about by simply being me and being open about the experiences of transition. I’m not convinced trans women face more discrimination than trans men. I think it’s a pretty even split. I talk to a lot of both and am a member of several support groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.
Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex.
A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough.
Yes. My inbox is shows the clues now and then.
I’ve been here a long time and I used to get attacked from all directions on the forums. Little by little things have changed and I hope I’ve been a part of bringing that about by simply being me and being open about the experiences of transition.
I’m not convinced trans women face more discrimination than trans men. I think it’s a pretty even split. I talk to a lot of both and am a member of several support groups. "I'm pleased that you've been part of the culture of change on these forums and it is noticeable that attitudes have improved immensely, however due to past experience I still tend to be somewhat wary. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. It's good that you're a member of support groups, as they're always worthwhile. Although I do have a number of trans friends, I've always tended to be rather self reliant in life and that has continued on through my transition. As for discrimination, I know that transmen also suffer quite badly, but sections of the media and some fairly high profile individuals sometimes appear obsessed with dehumanising transwomen, and it can become very hurtful after a while. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.
Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex.
A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough.
Yes. My inbox is shows the clues now and then.
I’ve been here a long time and I used to get attacked from all directions on the forums. Little by little things have changed and I hope I’ve been a part of bringing that about by simply being me and being open about the experiences of transition.
I’m not convinced trans women face more discrimination than trans men. I think it’s a pretty even split. I talk to a lot of both and am a member of several support groups. "Do you think I am transphobic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.
Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex.
A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough.
Yes. My inbox is shows the clues now and then.
I’ve been here a long time and I used to get attacked from all directions on the forums. Little by little things have changed and I hope I’ve been a part of bringing that about by simply being me and being open about the experiences of transition.
I’m not convinced trans women face more discrimination than trans men. I think it’s a pretty even split. I talk to a lot of both and am a member of several support groups.
Do you think I am transphobic?"I can’t say I’ve noticed you or your posts. Are you? Do you recognise people’s brain can be a different gender to their physical exterior? Or are you in the politically correct ‘let’s humour them’ camp? Or the outright ‘ you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig” fraternity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anyone has a problem with the wording of this information, then perhaps they should write to the people responsible, i.e. the HSE, and not try to obliquely lay the blame at the foot of transwomen, who have had no input into, nor have any interest in, information regarding people with a cervix. Just saying.
But transmen may.
Transmen are not transwomen. Fairly obvious I'd have thought?
, no but they are the important ones in this context.
Yes of course they are, but you can be assured that when people talk about "dehumanising" women, they generally aren't blaming transmen.
Except the main driving force of changing the wording from women to people with a cervix was expressly to include trans men.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.
Yes I'm perfectly well aware of that thanks. However it doesn't alter the fact that transwomen face more discrimination than transmen do and that in discussions of this nature it generally doesn't take long for someone to mention 'chromosomes' or 'biological sex.
A few years ago these forums were rife with transphobes, and whilst I'm happy to say that things have improved a lot these days, it would be naive to think that they have completely disappeared. The clues are there if you look close enough.
Yes. My inbox is shows the clues now and then.
I’ve been here a long time and I used to get attacked from all directions on the forums. Little by little things have changed and I hope I’ve been a part of bringing that about by simply being me and being open about the experiences of transition.
I’m not convinced trans women face more discrimination than trans men. I think it’s a pretty even split. I talk to a lot of both and am a member of several support groups.
Do you think I am transphobic?
I can’t say I’ve noticed you or your posts.
Are you? Do you recognise people’s brain can be a different gender to their physical exterior? Or are you in the politically correct ‘let’s humour them’ camp? Or the outright ‘ you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig” fraternity? "Yes I am one of those things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix It's not accurate, as you alluded to with "fairly". Biological sex is more complex than a simple binary. Can you give an example , what percentage of people don’t have biological male or female chromosomes or have had chromosomes that changed after birth ? What's the point in answering this? Even if it's only a small number why use wording that covers only 99% of the people it's aimed at when there is perfectly suitable wording that covers everyone it's aimed at. Especially when the wording that covers 99% has more words in it. It's just making things unnecessarily complicated. It's less accurate and has more words and what is it achieving? So 99% isn't high enough it needs to be 100%? There are very very few statements anyone could make that account for 100% of people Other than 100% of people will die, virtually all other areas/topics NEVER account for 100% of people, why apply this unrealistically high standard here? People with a cervix accounts for 100% though. Why consciously choose wording that accounts for less of the people you are aiming at? Because 99% is more than adequate, and I think most don't like the way the language is being adapted. " I don’t think it’s the language , people with cervix , people who have periods is fine / accurate for 2020. It’s the elitist attitude of those re-writing culture and language without debate , creating new hate crimes in the process, not bringing people along, no platforming anyone who questions it and closing down debate, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well that’s Ireland for you " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don’t think it’s the language , people with cervix , people who have periods is fine / accurate for 2020. It’s the elitist attitude of those re-writing culture and language without debate , creating new hate crimes in the process, not bringing people along, no platforming anyone who questions it and closing down debate, " I think you're wrong on the language, as we're ONLY having this thread because the weird sounding language. It's a difficult situation though as like BLM, there are some utter fuck knuckles who are highly involved and influential in these forms of super important social progress. You've got to work out which bits to agree with and push, and which bits to intelligently push back on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s the elitist attitude of those re-writing culture and language without debate , creating new hate crimes in the process, not bringing people along, no platforming anyone who questions it and closing down debate," If the debate is being "closed down" then what the fuck is this 160+ message thread all about. It's a leaflet. About cervical cancer. That's all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think they're succeeding in being inclusive? Born and raised in Ireland OP, and moved to the UK when you would have been a small child... in my day Ireland wasn't an especially inclusive society, even for women. I absolutely love how Ireland has transformed itself in three decades, and while some will laugh at the "people with a cervix" its a step in the right direction. Many women won't have a cervix, and for many that is a painful reminder of lost opportunities to be a mother. I don't see the "people with a cervix" as a negative statement, rather a reflection and understanding of the diverse world we live in. But the word "women" has been removed, so it's not inclusive. Why can't it say "women and people with a cervix". That comment is out to the ether, not you personally. I am assuming you didn't write the leaflet.
Because not all women have cervixes.
So when removing the reference to gender, which is fine as anyone can chose any gender they want , why not replace it with biological sex which is accurate and fairly fixed , mostly male or female. They could say biological females with a cervix
Some people who aren't biologically female have a cervix though. People with a cervix literally accounts for all possibilities.
Some people aren't both with 10 fingers or toes, but that doesn't change the fact people usually are in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Teaching kids we have 10 fingers and toes is very reasonable and is NOT a bigoted way of excluding those who don't have 10 of each,its just pointing out in the majority of cases this is true. "Most people usually have ten fingers and toes...but not all.. those who have more than ten toes usually live in Norfolk | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s the elitist attitude of those re-writing culture and language without debate , creating new hate crimes in the process, not bringing people along, no platforming anyone who questions it and closing down debate, If the debate is being "closed down" then what the fuck is this 160+ message thread all about. It's a leaflet. About cervical cancer. That's all."
Funny how debates happen and people are talking about things that have been closed down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
