For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1787500
Apart from the bizarre choice of the first four words, it's hard to disagree with the report's recommendations.

It's what we've been doing for 20 + years in the UK with the later confirmation of the role played by certain strains of HPV.

To the extent that HPV testing and vaccination of young girls (and hopefully boys to remove a potent source of HPV) will lead to the eradication of the scourge of cervical cancer.

I have no view on gender transitioning.

But I have read David/Diana Thomas's weekly blow by blow account in the Saturday Telegraph magazine with increasing indifference.

Still 'preparing', hasn't got to the knife yet.

Peter :wink:
#1787544
stevelup wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/health/new-cervical-cancer-screening-recommendations-wellness/index.html

Read the first paragraph...


Sorry, what do you think is wrong/ funny about it?

The article is about screening for cervical cancer. Obviously if you haven't got one then you don't need to be screened. I assume that would include all persons born with a male anatomy and those born with a female anatomy who have had, for example, a hysterectomy or other surgery that results in them no longer having one.

I don't understand why that provokes a discussion about trans people or whether the world has gone mad or not.
kanga liked this
By Spooky
#1787549
Don’t see any problem with it to be honest. I know that some women who were once men got a bit silly with demanding smear tests, but I’m guessing this is more about sensitivity towards women who’ve had to have a hysterectomy for whatever reason.
#1787562
No - there is now no word for someone who was born female that can be used without an activist yelling, and there is push back from that. A hashtag #OnlyFemalesGetCervicalCancer was trending.
You have people born male trying to enforce their "right" to compete with women (note recent international rugby discussion) which is demonstrably dangerous and unfair. You have people born male wanting to use female group changing rooms, making people in those changing rooms uncomfortable, including teenagers in schools who haven't been through any sort of process. You have people born male turning up for smear tests.

I don't care how someone wants to be referred to, but when prominent feminists are getting cancelled / no platformed and criminals born male are raping female prisoners there needs to be some balance. I don't know where that balance is, but there seems to be a need for more respect for others on all sides rather than shouting and asserting of "rights".
#1787569
Point of order:

Women who have had a hysterectomy for (pre)cancer of the cervix still need vaginal vault smears and HPV testing till three negative smears in a row.

On re-reading the original article which has ruffled feathers I guess it's only the use of the very first word - 'individuals'- instead ot the barn-door obvious 'women' which demonstrates fear of the J K Rowling effect.

Peter
#1787573
riverrock wrote:No - there is now no word for someone who was born female that can be used without an activist yelling, and there is push back from that. A hashtag #OnlyFemalesGetCervicalCancer was trending.


Yes there is, it's called Cisgender, it's based on Cis-trans isonerism used in organic chemistry and has been around in one form or another since the Roman empire.

riverrock wrote:You have people born male trying to enforce their "right" to compete with women (note recent international rugby discussion) which is demonstrably dangerous and unfair.


A balance has to be struck when it comes to physical ability. However if somebody said "no you have to compete with the men" I would simply give up the sport and find something else

riverrock wrote:You have people born male wanting to use female group changing rooms, making people in those changing rooms uncomfortable, including teenagers in schools who haven't been through any sort of process.


That ability been the case since the equality act of 2008 was brought in, it appears to have suddenly become an issue since TM announced a plan to reform the GRA.

Oh and you are aware that you can get a GRC even under the current not fit for purpose system, and the only document it changes is your birth certificate, I don't have GRC, but my passport for example has F as the gender marker.

riverrock wrote:You have people born male turning up for smear tests.


That is just NHS inefficiencies, when you transition you get a new NHS number assigned to your acquired gender, you have to remember to tell them that you do not need such tests. My GP is on the ball and said you, even post GRS won't need these so we will make the appropriate notes. Some do not. FYI you also have trans men having to decline prostate exams.

riverrock wrote:I don't care how someone wants to be referred to, but when prominent feminists are getting cancelled / no platformed and criminals born male are raping female prisoners there needs to be some balance.


I struggle with de-platforming as much like banning an advert on TV it often has the opposite effect, the problem is some of the more prominent supposed feminists with anti-trans views have big audiences that will eat out of the palm of their hands, I liken it to people that buy into the claptrap that the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow pedals. This makes it hard to make any inroads as the fans of these sorts of people are worse than the most ardent "soccer mom".

Criminals doing things to other criminals in prison is nothing new. It's not nice I will agree and people should be able to serve their time without that fear. However, punishing legitimate trans people because of a small minority is not the right thing to do.

riverrock wrote:I don't know where that balance is, but there seems to be a need for more respect for others on all sides rather than shouting and asserting of "rights".


Agreed, it is however from a trans person's point of view extremely hard work to be civil with people that want to deny your existence.

Anyway I think we have gone a little OT here.
kanga, lobstaboy liked this
#1787574
PeteSpencer wrote:Point of order:

Women who have had a hysterectomy for (pre)cancer of the cervix still need vaginal vault smears and HPV testing till three negative smears in a row.

On re-reading the original article which has ruffled feathers I guess it's only the use of the very first word - 'individuals'- instead ot the barn-door obvious 'women' which demonstrates fear of the J K Rowling effect.

Peter


Indeed, it would have been better worded to simply say "based on evidence collected [link to source(s) we are changing the age that screening begins from 21 to 25 and left it at that.

They have tried to make themselves sound inclusive of trans men that have not yet had any (or indeed may not for other medical reasons be able to have) surgeries, but it has just come over as trying too hard.
#1787576
So @PeteSpencer you're saying that this charity should have said "people who have, or who had a cervix" ?

@Melanie Moxon - why can't we separate the language for people who don't have a Y chromosome from those who do, but wish to be identified with those who don't? I think Woman / Man used to do this, with Female / Male more closely describing identity. Can we not go back to that and keep it simple?

Cisgender was a word invented by German sexologist in 1994 (I believe) and is a translation from German, using latin roots, to describe someone who is still the same gender as they were born as. It does not describe "someone who was born female" on its own. Instead you have to say "Cisgender mother" or some other descriptive word to say whether that person has a Y chromosome or not. It is really only used in academic and specific activist writing. Its not fit for this purpose.

A balance has to be struck when it comes to physical ability. However if somebody said "no you have to compete with the men" I would simply give up the sport and find something else

However others are trying to assert their "right" to play the sport as how they identify.

I grew up playing (full contact) rugby with girls and boys in the same team. As kids, the girls grew faster than the boys up till age 12 (or so) and certainly gave as good as they got. However as kids grew, that was no longer appropriate due to the physical differences, and the girls joined a separate team and league. It has to be recognised there are physical differences that matter. That should be in our language and culture. Trying to airbrush over differences, pretending they don't exist, helps no-one.

On GRCs etc, I believe there is a long awaited review on this due to publish at some point. I suspect that noone has wanted to publish the review (which was completed a few years ago - it just needed a government response) as it would raise the ire of activists.
It isn't fit for purpose that someone can assume a different identity because one day they feel like it (just need to propose that they want to change an attribute of sex) based on the equality act, and change how they identify to others and on official documents, yet to get a Gender Recognition Certificate (to official change gender) you have to go through a much bigger process, which doesn't make sense. There shouldn't be two parallel ways.
The safeguards aren't there in the equality act. There have been examples of male kids trying to use this to get into female changing rooms with the obvious (but legally protected) consequences (they are legally protected in prosing that they change some aspect of sex). Teachers do their best, create separate changing spaces for these kids, who use them twice before returning to their normal changing room to cause havoc in a different way, bragging to their friends leaving traumatised girls. The balance isn't right .

Someone who is struggling with their identity (which includes a lot of kids) will need to get long term and appropriate support to help them work that out. Almost everyone who struggles with his has wider mental health issues. There are many examples of people who went down a trans path and later regretted it, as the real underlying issue wasn't gender, but that was an easy thing to put a finger on. In some studies only 2% of kids under 12 who were referred to counselling for gender confusion considered themselves a different gender to what they were born once they reached adulthood (reference from here: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -in-the-uk ). Unfortunately the primary Gender Identity NHS clinic (Tavistock) is currently run by an activist who discourages criticism and has been accused by clinicians working there of forcing kids down transitioning plans too early (https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... uits-chaos https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962 ) and using puberty blockers without knowing or describing the risks to patients or their families.

To me, the large amount of trans-activism and visibility is helping no one. Its confusing and harming kids who are struggling with this - not supporting them. It is intentionally provoking reactions in people, rather than encouraging support. People who have transitioned need to be respected and supported, but there is a difference between that and what is currently happening.
Kittyhawk liked this
#1787584
PeteSpencer wrote:@Melanie Moxon

Please don't pepper your posts with acronyms without introducing them first if you want audience comprehension and meaningful discussion.

Peter :wink:


Apologies
TM - Theresa May
GRA - Gender Recognition Act
GRC - Gender Recognition Certificate
GRS - Gender Reassignment Surgery

The rest are commonly used everywhere :)
kanga liked this
#1787588
In the case of the article, in my view a simple case of trying too hard. Simply refer to the need to protect against cervical cancer with cervical smears and it’s pretty self explanatory who needs to go for a test. A further label does’t add to the message. As above many women don’t have a cervix for a whole range of reasons. Particularly common, in my experience, among my parent’s generation. A further label doesn’t add to the message.

Must confess, other than when needed, which I don’t think it was in this case, I don’t really see the need to refer to gender as much as we do. Maybe it’s a bit of a hangover from the partial French roots in the English language. People are people. Chromosomes, hormones and physical bodies are biological manifestations. There’s nothing that says that our consciousness has to align with our outward appearance. Trouble is that, as highlighted, trying to modernise can come across as stilted and draw attention in the very way that was trying to be avoided.

Americans have quite a direct way of speaking, which I often like. When they try and add words and emotion in then maybe they sometimes they inadvertently put the emphasis in the wrong place.
#1787602
[quote="riverrock"]So @PeteSpencer you're saying that this charity should have said "people who have, or who had a Cervix”. [quote]

No I’m not .

You’re Wrong on two counts .

Sorry but I’m not getting drawn into this one .

Like I originally said I don’t have a view on transitioning; I was merely correcting an inaccuracy .

Which you are trying to perpetuate
.
Peter
#1787612
I’m a simple sort.

It either has a willy or it has a front bottom.

All the stuff in between, I simply can’t understand or comprehend. Sorry. It just gets so ‘sliding scale’ and complicated.

Magazine articles are going to get very tedious if every minute section of the population needs to catered for by the author to stop people getting all offended.
#1787619
@TheFarmer I can see the joy in simplicity, unfortunately the world is complicated and we have to cope with living in it. In particular it seems that physical make up is not by any means the whole story in gender.
kanga liked this