NHS GP referring to “people with a uterus”

[LumenLights]

My local GP surgery has been organising talks and events regarding endometriosis. They recently hosted an event which was open to sufferers and their friends and family - fair enough.

Most of the literature and social media posts from my surgery explicitly refer to women when talking about women, which is a relief.

However, I noticed they have posted a short video advertising an event in which a young male junior doctor proudly declares “endometriosis can affect anyone with a uterus” and doesn’t use the word “woman” or “female” at all. This has really pissed me off.

Is this still allowed? I thought we had left this nonsense behind. I want to complain but not sure the best way to do this, or if I have any right to in the first place.

I get the impression this young male doctor is very involved in the work they are doing around endometriosis, but I haven’t attended any of the events they have hosted so can’t comment on the language used in person.

Saying that women are biologically female is the least reductive possible definition….and for all the fans of simple and inclusive language it meets both those criteria too.

Ethnic minority women significantly less likely to attend smears: https://srh.bmj.com/content/41/4/248

With language access part of the issue:

"Language barriers represent a fundamental challenge, with people who don't speak English well struggling to understand information about cervical screening when material isn't available in their language, leading to lower uptake"

www.acrosstheborder.org/blog/immigrants-and-cervical-screening-addressing-barriers-and-misconceptions

Adunlin G, Cyrus JW, Asare M, et al. Barriers to cervical cancer screening faced by immigrants: a registry-based study of 1.4 million women in Norway. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(5):873-879. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx054

Please.. Transphobic people protest inclusive language because it acknowledges the existence of, and respects, trans people. The same reason racists rage against language options, and ableists decry provisions for neurodiverse people.

Most inclusive language used in the NHS is tacked-on - 'men and everyone else with a prostate' for example.

The NHS has a responsibility to every community, and needs to adapt its messaging to include everyone. It isn't the fault of trans people if it fails other minorities.

Cis girls, for example, need to be included - too often, pregnancy messaging excludes them, even though pregnant girls are an incredibly vulnerable group. I met an ex-student of mine in hospital who hadn't attended any pregnancy healthcare at 17 for fear of being judged. Everyone who is pregnant or needs intimate care needs to feel they can trust healthcare professionals.

I'm working-class, and know working-class trans people, many of whom have autism (something common within the out trans community, since autistic people tend to be highly honest about themselves). Inclusive language is vital, and needs to be adapted to every community's needs.

Aautistic people are merely likely not to understand subtext, btw. Which is why plain, inclusive language targeted at them is so necessary.

'Anyone who has a uterus' is very specific, and should be translated to every community as well. That's basic healthcare. The NHS is for everyone.

Vulnerable refugee women need interpreters, trans people need gender- inclusive language, and my deaf son would quite like his audiology clinic to get an LED sign instead of calling out names from a desk.

*More likely not to understand subtext. Apologies for typo.

Utter bullshit.

Sure, point your shaky finger of hate at women who care that female people also exist and pretend we are just like racists if that makes you feel better.

You are still wrong, and your increasingly hyperbolic accusations won't stop rationality returning.

Sex exists. It matters.

Trans people's sexist projections don't overwrite everyone else's identity.

If trans people are too fragile to live with that reality then the kind and humane thing is to help them with therapy.

You can't force the world to play along with your harmful and sexist beliefs, and I believe your increasingly irrationally angry posts are because you are despite yourself coming to realise this as well.

So it’s inclusive to include TW in “people with a penis”. Got it. So therefore all “people with a penis” stay out of female spaces. Now I get where you’re going with this. You’re breaking through the “who is a woman” question by breaking it down to the simplest form, biology. I knew you were on our side really. Great double agent work.

You know what? I am fine with targeted "anyone with a uterus" type messaging aimed specifically at a vulnerable community who needs it. I am not fine with it replacing less complex wording in messaging for the general public, where it excludes vulnerable people with low literacy.

So if we are to discuss testicular cancer in men we can’t mention the fact that it’s a cancer in men’s balls because we would be pervy?

They are so Victorian aren't they? They can't even think about bodies without collapsing in a fit of the vapours.

They accuse everyone else of being pervs but they are the ones who apply all sorts of weird sex hangups and projections to the simple reality that bodies and all their bits - yes, even genitals 😱- exist.

“They” are obsessed with genitalia if you asked me! It’s constant from that poster.

i had thought to use breast cancer as an example, but strictly speaking they are not genitalia. But breasts are a real giveaway, because women generally don’t think of them in a sexual way, we just see them as part of our body, whereas the transsexuals obsess about them like most men. Maybe that’s where this started, the changing of words. It’s bonkers of course.

I agree. Women and people with... (a uterus, a cervix), or women and female at birth, as in this case, given the fact that endometriosis affects also people who had an hysterectomy.
Obviously I expect the reverse to be applied to men.
I think, on the long term, accepting the biological reality of the sexed body is psicologically good for trans people too.

She said Genitals 😱

Genitals!

Ooooh she said it again 😱😱

Genitals! Genitals! Genitals! Can't get any worse can it? I mean you already called me a Nazi genocidal bigot, might as well add pervert to the list - Genitals! Genitals! Genitals!

But isn’t that reducing people to body parts? That’s bad according to the TRA. I mean, reducing people to “those with a uterus”. Doesn’t seem very nice to me.

I've always thought 'scrotum gantry', a phrase I saw somewhere, should be used more widely. Things like 'people with a uterus' makes me think it would also include anyone with medical specimens in jars. Jack the Ripper made off with some of his victim's uteri uteruses wombs.

I've seen medical texts, reports, etc. about women's health prefaced with disclaimers that they use 'women' to refer to anyone who may...blah, blah. Which is a bit cringy to me but ticks the inclusivity boxes and gets the nonsense out of the was in a small easily skippable package. It reminded me of the warnings you now get at the start of films. Although in the case of most films it's made-up nonsense you aren't supposed to take seriously.

Or just 'women' as a gender neutral word that includes all those people?

I agree with this.

There are many reasons why healthcare messaging targets specific groups in a way that isn't appropriate for everyone.

But avoidance of 'woman' suggests that there is something taboo about acknowledging sex categories.

My femaleness is very much related to my body parts.

I am unlike a man and like a cow, a mare and a ewe because I am female.

I am like a man and unlike a cow/mare/ewe because I am human.

In my day to day life, being human is my most relevant attribute, and I do think that some people find it difficult to comprehend that women are also human.

You can't force the world to play along with your harmful and sexist beliefs, and I believe your increasingly irrationally angry posts are because you are despite yourself coming to realise this as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon, this increasingly unhinged anger coming from "certain posters", as we've seen on another thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5550084-what-is-a-good-experience-in-a-womens-toilet

and the ravings on display in the ST tribunal
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

• it's becoming more frequent and the anger more apparent as they run out of argument, support, and road. I have no idea if these posters are in the UK or not, but it's fascinating to watch the meltdowns in real time as the UK slowly turns this juggernaut around.

ed. can't get rid of weird formatting

Agree

So called inclusive language that is potentially so inclusive that it’s both meaningless and harmful

When David Lammy thinks TW can grow a cervix is it beyond the realms of possibility that other people who are vulnerable will have no clue if they have a uterus or not?

When discussing/teaching biological facts is transphobic and MPs claim not to know if they are female or not because they haven’t had their chromosomes checked is it really the best way of getting the message across to people?

The coy nonsensical fantasies about some men like IW being called for cervical smears and young people bring encouraged to believe that sex is irrelevant gives potential for chaos if we have kids growing up not knowing what sex they are and thinking that specific body parts are not indicative if anything meaningful.

The message is intended for females, the vast majority of whom do not identify as trans so just use the language that clearly and unambiguously speaks to them and add on the necessary transmen and some NB etc

I was pleased to see the following on an NHS page regarding cervical screening:

Cervical screening is for women between the ages of 25 and 64. Everyone with a cervix should be offered screening.

If you're trans or non-binary
If you're a trans man or are non-binary and have a cervix, how you're invited depends on the sex you're registered with at a GP surgery.
If you're registered as female with a GP, you'll automatically be invited for cervical screening.
If you're registered as anything other than female, such as male or indeterminate, you may not be invited for cervical screening automatically – speak to your GP surgery, sexual health service, or transgender health clinic and ask to get invitations automatically.
If you're a trans woman or are non-binary and do not have a cervix, you do not need to have cervical screening. But, if you're registered with a GP as female, you may still be invited. Contact your GP surgery, sexual health service or transgender health clinic and ask to stop being invited.

….. so happy with most of that but annoyed that some males potentially gave managed to have their medical records changed to show female and potentially wasting NHS time and resources inviting them for screenings (that some might try and make precious appointments for).

Cis girls, for example, need to be included - too often, pregnancy messaging excludes them
What on God’s green earth does this mean, if not that in focusing on trans people’s feelings the very people the messaging is aimed at are not accessing it?
No need for “cis” anything, by the way. We know what girls are.

I don't disagree. Maybe one day trans men will genuinely feel included in this biological category and we won't need to add any other definition.

Yeah. It's so daft.

First Genderists decide "man" and "woman" mean types of minds rather than bodies, which literally no-one other than them thought in the first place, and then they get all riled up because they have the wrong label for their mind even though it's only their own weird redefining that made it wrong in the first place.

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot - if they'd just left the words for sex alone in the first place all these problems they have being the "wrong" word wouldn't have ever been a thing!

(I'm being disingenuous of course. That's the story for a lot of younger people especially trans identifying females, but we all know for a lot of trans identifying males they don't really want "man" and "woman" to actually become personality labels, they want "men" and "women" to still mean the sex of the body for most of us, because they want the special immersive experience of everyone pretending they are a member of the opposite sex and that means they need to rest of us to carry on providing the sex-based context in which their fantasy can be played.)

Endometriosis still affects women post-hysterectomy, so 'people with a uterus' is an inncaurate wat of describing those affected by the condition. Poor work from a doctor you'd hope knew anything about endometriosis.

-Saying a woman is somebody with a uterus isn't 'reducing them to their body parts' because it is simply a descriptor of a human being. In the same way calling myself a brunette does not reduce me in any way to my hair colour, a person is more than their hair colour like a person is more than their sex. They are still no less relevant in certain circumstances. Understand that.

-Caring about biological sex, and therefore biological indicators of their sex (like genitalia) is not 'pervy', it is accurate. It's just a part of the human body, not something that is automatically perverting anything else. You rely on this association because you are immature.

So a man is simply a person without a uterus? You are no different from a man because you are both people without uteruses?