NHS is obscuring health info about women

No worries, Casdon. I didn't understand, is all.

Doodledog

*I do think that the decision making processes are important though, it infuriates me when the current health minister blames the NHS. He or she is in charge of it, it’s his baby and if things are wrong complaining in the media is admitting you can’t do your own job.*
I understand what you mean now. I agree that it's not a good look to blame the organisation for which you are/were responsible. It very much looks as though all of this has been handed to Stonewall, and whoever is responsible for sign-off has followed their advice.

But that's not what you were saying in the first place, which was that the DM has made it up to run down the NHS:
So Sajid Javid is blaming NHS England, which as Minister for Health he was in charge of until about a month ago? Sounds like a typical Daily Mail distortion/exaggeration aimed at running down the reputation of the NHS to me.

Unaccustomed as I am to defending the DM, it seems to me that they were reporting what Javid said, so he is at fault, not the report.

Sorry Doodledog I do see that on the second point I hadn’t expressed myself very well. What I was trying to say was that by the Mail not acknowledging Javid’s responsibility, but rather having a pop at the NHS directly without mentioning his previous role as accountable minister, they were distorting/exaggerating the reality of the NHS which does not take unilateral action, and not mentioning anything about lines of accountability. It suits the political purpose of the Mail of course.

Whilst I am disappointed in Keir Starmer for not using 'women' to describe adult human females, I don't think that as leader of the opposition he has any input at all into NHS terminology, and using him as a vehicle for whataboutery sounds pretty desperate when it was Javid who was claiming the NHS. He could have taken them out of Stonewall control, or insisted on sex-based terminology for sex-based illnesses, but he didn't.

I do think that the decision making processes are important though, it infuriates me when the current health minister blames the NHS. He or she is in charge of it, it’s his baby and if things are wrong complaining in the media is admitting you can’t do your own job.
I understand what you mean now. I agree that it's not a good look to blame the organisation for which you are/were responsible. It very much looks as though all of this has been handed to Stonewall, and whoever is responsible for sign-off has followed their advice.

But that's not what you were saying in the first place, which was that the DM has made it up to run down the NHS:
So Sajid Javid is blaming NHS England, which as Minister for Health he was in charge of until about a month ago? Sounds like a typical Daily Mail distortion/exaggeration aimed at running down the reputation of the NHS to me.

Unaccustomed as I am to defending the DM, it seems to me that they were reporting what Javid said, so he is at fault, not the report.

maddyone

Casdon

The fact that Keir Starmer was unwilling unable to say that only women have a cervix is not a red herring at all. When leading members of society, including MPs, are going along with this total tosh, it is not really surprising that the NHS is not willing to correctly describe the physical attributes of a woman either. When the leader of a political party endorses this absolute tosh it gives it respectability. Keir Starmer, along with others, has made it possible, acceptable, and respectable to define women as people with a cervix rather the correct definition which would be women..

Your point though was completely irrelevant to a thread which is specifically about the use of terminology on an NHS website, which Keir Starmer has no input or involvement whatsoever into though maddyone. Whatever you think of him, it was a red herring.

Casdon

The fact that Keir Starmer was unwilling unable to say that only women have a cervix is not a red herring at all. When leading members of society, including MPs, are going along with this total tosh, it is not really surprising that the NHS is not willing to correctly describe the physical attributes of a woman either. When the leader of a political party endorses this absolute tosh it gives it respectability. Keir Starmer, along with others, has made it possible, acceptable, and respectable to define women as people with a cervix rather the correct definition which would be women..

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202208/medium-271643-screenshot-20220808-143215.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202208/medium-252471-screenshot-20220808-143305.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202208/medium-309073-screenshot-20220808-143709.png

I checked out the website from the poster Rosie showed us - allaboutcervicalscreening.co.uk
It turns out it's intended for Muslim women.

The wording makes clear that this is all about women, although the video refers to women and people with a cervix.

Someone does have to be interested enough to look at the website, tho, to find out it relates to women.
Maybe the illustration and the logo of MuslimSisterhood are meant to give enough of a clue?

SueDonim

This tells you everything you need to know about women’s erasure.

I forwarded that to a family WhatsApp group, and my dear little brother replied, ‘Wake up Witzend!’ - just to wind me up, you understand.
I replied with, ‘Woke off!!’

I can't understand the thought processes of committee members who would take their understanding of Stonewall training, or any other info on diversity & inclusion, and would come up with the decision to obscure the fact of some illnesses and conditions being specific to women, while not obscuring similar in relation to men.

I like Julie Bindels description of Stonewall: Gender Fascists.

The current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is The Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP.
I wonder if he is making sure that this huge error is corrected, as Sajid Javid instructed.

FarNorth

Casdon as that's how it's done, how would a decision be made to obscure the category of women & female but not the category of men & male?

Because she got sucked down the woke rabbit hole by Stonewall ?

maddyone

^those with a cervix ^

That would be women then!

Although Keir Starmer apparently doesn’t know that only women have a cervix, it is indeed true. So those with a cervix are women.
How the NHS are getting away with this blatant discrimination and misogyny I don’t know. I thought discrimination was illegal.

?? Keir Starmer has nothing whatsoever to do with this maddyone. That’s what I would call a very large red herring.

I do think that the decision making processes are important though, it infuriates me when the current health minister blames the NHS. He or she is in charge of it, it’s his baby and if things are wrong complaining in the media is admitting you can’t do your own job.

Agreed, FN, and the NHS decision making process was a bit of a red herring. I also think it was Stonewall’s doing.

"IMO it’s all down to the aggressive stance of Stonewall, which makes money out of getting all sorts of organisations to sign up to their standards of ‘inclusiveness’."

I think you're right but it doesn't explain why only women's health information was changed.

That’s interesting that they call it breast milk, Fiorentina and not ‘chest’ milk. It’s all just a word salad, I think, designed to confuse and befuddle people into denying reality.

SueDonim

the feeding parentcould be a person with a bottle containing formula. ?‍♀️

Indeed it could but in the context of the article I read, it was talking about the importance of breast milk production and not giving babies water.
Here's a quote..

" Phil ' I think mostly it falls back to the 'babies are just small adults' view that is everywhere and so like us when we are thirsty surely they just need more water. But this isn't right. The feeding parent and baby have a really tight relationship and breastmilk responds to both the environment (the heat) and the baby (thirst and demand) and produces the right milk for the baby depending on the circumstances.

And like many I used to think that breasts were like milk bottles storing up milk, but that's not the case, milk is made all the time and it doesn't run out. There's still a serious lack of training about breastfeeding and an inherent mistrust in it too, it needs to change fast. I've done some additional training with the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers because I really wanted to get as much knowledge as I could to support families.

Remember, the feeding parent does need to keep an eye on their fluids, milk making does mean giving your fluids to your baby and that's got to come from somewhere... so feel free to drink lots... whether that's water or squash or a lovely iced tea.' "

As far as I know the "feeding parent" producing the milk for the baby is a woman and that woman is usually the mother.

those with a cervix

That would be women then!

Although Keir Starmer apparently doesn’t know that only women have a cervix, it is indeed true. So those with a cervix are women.
How the NHS are getting away with this blatant discrimination and misogyny I don’t know. I thought discrimination was illegal.

fiorentina51

I recently read an article on breastfeeding where the only mention of a "breastfeeding mother" was when the author referred to the National Association of Breastfeeding Mothers.
The rest of the article we were labelled as "the feeding parent." ?
I'll see if I can find it.

the feeding parent could be a person with a bottle containing formula. ?‍♀️

Apart from the clear mysogeny "those with a cervix" could be baffling for women who aren't fluent in English. They could miss out on vital information.

FarNorth

Casdon as that's how it's done, how would a decision be made to obscure the category of women & female but not the category of men & male?

I don’t know FarNorth, I’m not on the committee!

IMO it’s all down to the aggressive stance of Stonewall, which makes money out of getting all sorts of organisations to sign up to their standards of ‘inclusiveness’.

Presumably many such orgs. have been too afraid of being labelled transphobic if they don’t.

Surely the supposed ‘sainted’ Stonewall needed a new source of income after being gay was no longer seen as something to campaign vigorously about.
All about the £££££ coming in, IMO.
Must look up to see how much Stonewall’s chief executive is paid.

Casdon as that's how it's done, how would a decision be made to obscure the category of women & female but not the category of men & male?

Lots of women collude in misogyny it's much easier. I am sure I did it myself when younger.

I know how it works, having worked in the NHS all my working life.
Direction is set by the government of the day, usually through a circular to relevant departments, or if not all services need to know, by a direction to a specific department or service. In England, that is the Department of Health. Before a circular or other direction is produced there is a committee structure to ensure the direction is clear and meets the political objectives. The proposal is ultimately signed off by the health minister, or if he has delegated a specific issue, by the NHS Chief Executive. The NHS Chief Executive is currently a woman.