"everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix"

OldMeg so erasing women is fine?

OldMeg, would that wording on an advert catch your eye and make you feel that you are the person they want to address?
Do you genuinely believe that most women, including those whose first language is not English or who have low reading skills or who have little knowledge of their biology, will find that wording noticeable and inviting?

Of course it is factually correct, but campaigns need to be more than that.

Exactly what is the problem with dropping the word women? Surely it’s true equality when it’s just aimed at persons with cervix’s (should that be cervi?). Would there be a problem if a similar campaign was aimed at “Anyone with a Prostate”?

I rather think FarNorth that any woman with low reading skills wouldn’t read it anyway, even if it said Woman with a Cervix. Would they be able to read Cervix?

Yes, erasing women is fine ME and really FN there are other ways to reach these woman you flag up.

So many woman or normal ability and good English skills do not present for smear tests. So what’s wrong with catching their atention with this advert? Do we always have to target extremes?

Oh dear - this is so just not about this specific issue. If only it were. What CRUK have done is another example of the erasure of women and the denial of the reality of biological sex in determining what a women is. It’s about the whole self id issue and the potential loss of safe spaces for women and girls. It’s about our hard won rights being systematically taken from us in order to appease a vocal minority. It’s about all political parties being caught up in this madness and if you disagree with this new orthodoxy being called transphobic. People with a cervix, pregnant people - I despair. Of course it matters

Sorry ME but that’s bullshit....IMO ?

I agree with you maryeliza54 - I am sick to the back teeth of these absolutely tiny minorities being given priority over everybody else.

You're entitled to your opinion oldmeg , but it's not bullshit, it's reality.

Ditto OldMeg

What minesaprosecco said and, what maryeliza said in her most recent post (22.6.18 at 7.24am)

Rather than just disagreeing with me, why can you not actually put forward a critique of why I am wrong? Of why not acknowledging the reality of the importance and relevance of biological sex will not and does not impact negatively on women? Perhaps you could explain why every other movement I can think of was based on giving and/ or extending rights to others (or trying to) based on for example race, sexual orientation, disability, sex but the transgender movement wants to take rights away from from biological women. If bullshit is your response or agreeing that it’s bullshit, then quite frankly you have no arguement at all.

There are many women about - and men too - who don't know what a 'cervix' is anyway!

I agree with you, maryeliza.
How can a 'feeling' nix facts?

NfkDumpling said 'Would there be a problem if a similar campaign was aimed at “Anyone with a Prostate”?'

Yes, there would. Why do you suppose there doesn't seem to be one?

OldMeg said 'Do we always have to target extremes?'

The CRUK has said it's reason for using that wording was to include transmen. Transmen are a tiny minority of women, who are probably well aware of having a female (i.e. woman's) anatomy. Why you think we need to target them in this way?

NfkDumpling also said 'I rather think [....] any woman with low reading skills wouldn’t read it anyway, even if it said Woman with a Cervix. Would they be able to read Cervix?'

It wouldn't need to say "Women with a cervix", the word "Women" would do, as it always has in the past.

As NfkDumpling so nicely put it, women with low reading skills, or a poor command of English, may not understand or pay attention to the word "cervix". However they may well spot the word "women".

From OldMeg - 'Yes, erasing women is fine'.

Do you mean erasing the word 'women' from the adverts, or erasing the category of women altogether?

I suppose I’m coming at it from the equality point of view, that it shouldn’t matter whether an ad is aimed at women, men, trans-whatever’s, gays, lesbians or any other of the many genders there seem to be now. This advert is aimed at people with cervix’s.

Yes, I agree the minority genders are getting far more attention than they warrant so to re-word something just for their benefit is rather over the top. But does leaving out the word woman upset me? No. I’m comfortable in my skin and don’t need to be labelled a woman. I’m me.

But don’t you think it could have said ‘women and transmen with cervixes’ ( as CRUK actually have on their website) ? It is fundamentally a female health issue and should be badged as such surely? Just as any prostate cancer issue should say men and transwomen with prostates?

'I’m comfortable in my skin and don’t need to be labelled a woman. I’m me.'

Me too, NfkDumpling, and I know what a cervix is and whether I have one.
Not everyone does know those things.

Here's how Prostate Cymru are advertising.

Butbutbut, Farnorth, nowadays some women have prostates, too!

Clever! “Look after your Third Nut” would need more clues thought wouldn’t it.

There are further clues in the advert, NfkDumpling, although the suggestion of 'cracking it' might be a little eye-watering for some owners of prostates.

Possibly Prostate Cymru are reeling after receiving many many emails making that very point, SueDonim.

That’s why I added ‘IMO’ ME - a clear indication that others see things differently.

What I don’t ‘get’ is why people seem so threatened by a small minority of people with gender issues, none of whom I have ever met. In fact I feel extremely sorry for those I’ve seem on TV, especially big ‘men’ who’ve morphed into ‘women’.

People are , again IMO, allowed to be what they want to be unless they present a danger to me or mine.

oldmeg, some of us are concerned about the danger posed to all women, not just to ourselves or our families, and that is why we are protesting. I agree that anyone can be what they want to be as long as they pose no danger - but I don't limit who I think is threatened by that danger to people who are close to me. The girls in Connecticut who have been beaten in athletics races by boys who self ID as girls, the female martial arts competitors facing Fallon Fox's extra bone density and musculature, the vulnerable women in prisons (Ian Huntley wants to be seen as a woman and might therefore be placed in a women's prison - and he's by no means not the only man in prison doing this) - these women need protection too.

OldMeg, you don't 'get' why people feel threatened.

I don't know if Maria MacLachlan is a friend or relative of yours. If not, you may not be interested to read this interview with her.

It details a physical attack on her by a trans activist, subsequent online distortion of the event and personal abuse to her, and the much-publicised trial in which the judge did not award her compensation because she showed 'bad grace' by forgetting to refer to the defendant as 'she'.

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/06/21/interview-maria-maclauchlan-gra-aftermath-assault-speakers-corner/