NHS U turn on trans terminology

I fear we are wasting our time, Smileless. We've all been over this numerous times and nothing changes.

The article quoted in the OP sets out a new constitution. I (along with others) am pleased about that, see it as a step in the right direction and hope it is the first of many. Glorianny does not.

Neither of us is making policy, and I assume that nobody on this thread has access to the figures and research used to come to the conclusions that have led to the changes. The OP simply reports the situation as it is, as it appeared in the Telegraph. It's not an opinion piece, it's a report.

Trans men would be called for routine checks if their medical records recorded their biological sex so perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed.

Yes, the general use of the language is to be banned but that does not mean that patients on an individual basis will not be able to be addressed in the way they prefer, as you were when you requested not to be addressed as 'mother', preferring to be addressed by your name.

Glorianny

CRUK think transmen and non-binary people are discriminated against
news.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/05/18/research-shows-one-size-doesnt-fit-all-for-cervical-screening-in-the-trans-and-non-binary-community/

'According to Stonewall' they are discriminated against. They don't have the last word either, particularly now.

If someone is born female they know, assuming that they are able to organise transition to transmale, that they have a cervix. They are, therefore able to ask for a smear test if their records list them as male (which would be foolish, both on their own part and on that of their doctors, but still). If they have organised things so that they are not routinely called for women's health screening and do not ask for one separately, the fact that they don't get one is not discriminatory. It is their own irresponsibility.

If, OTOH, a woman who does not identify as a man has English as a second language, doesn't know what 'cervix-haver' means and misses out because of this, she is being discriminated against.

Mollygo

You’re so funny Glorianny. Every argument you put up about discrimination and attacks applies to what some trans people do, usually to females, but you can’t accept that.

Adding the prefix trans to man or woman automatically identifies them as the sex opposite to what they claim to be.

Like furries, they can call themselves what they want, or identify themselves however they want, like your request to be called by your name rather than mother.
There should never have been the obligation to rename all patients, when those who wanted to claim a title could have asked for that without inflicting it on others. (I was never referred to as mother in hospital anyway, so didn’t need to make a special request.)

Transmen can only give birth because they are female. The trans in their title identifies that as I mentioned above.
If they want to be called daddy or chest-feeder so be it. It won’t change their sex and it shouldn’t mean they have the right to change the titles for everyone.

Keep going.

Sago

Now we need to get rid of Stonewall.

Why? Why would you want this?

I do understand the trans debate and would not want to be in a mixed ward or share bathroom facilities with biological males. I have no issue though with transgender men or women.

I have two lesbian daughters and can assure you homophobia is alive and kicking both in the work place and in social settings.

Do trans men's medical records not record their biological sex? If they record their preferred gender, surely their biological sex is recorded and if so, they would be called for cervical smear tests unless like me, they've had a total hysterectomy and no longer have a cervix.
No transmen are identified as male.

Am I supposed to believe that a trans woman who has not had a total hysterectomy including having their cervix removed, will not know that they have a cervix?
Many people do not understand the operation they have had. Transmen are not called for routine tests.

No one here that I can see is denying anyone in the trans community to be called what they wish, but this is not what the OP is about is it. It's about clear language being used on the basis of sex.
The OP is clear such language will be banned.

How can a trans man who behaves like a man claim to be doing so and give birth?

22 transmen who were included in this study had done so www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7513446/

CRUK think transmen and non-binary people are discriminated against
news.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/05/18/research-shows-one-size-doesnt-fit-all-for-cervical-screening-in-the-trans-and-non-binary-community/

You do make me laugh Glorianny. You re post my post and then accuse me of saying something I haven't said .

Do trans men's medical records not record their biological sex? If they record their preferred gender, surely their biological sex is recorded and if so, they would be called for cervical smear tests unless like me, they've had a total hysterectomy and no longer have a cervix.

Am I supposed to believe that a trans woman who has not had a total hysterectomy including having their cervix removed, will not know that they have a cervix?

No one here that I can see is denying anyone in the trans community to be called what they wish, but this is not what the OP is about is it. It's about clear language being used on the basis of sex.

How can a trans man who behaves like a man claim to be doing so and give birth?

Good post Oreo.

What are the problems that you realise it causes?

There is no discrimination. Men are treated as men - males - call them what you like, but people born with male bodies. Women are treated as women. This is particularly important in a medical setting, and as it applies to both sexes equally it is not discriminatory.

The fact that some people of each sex 'identify' as something other than they are is neither here nor there. Someone identifying as a millionaire wouldn't get a private bed. Someone identifying as cured wouldn't be discharged. If they did, it would rightly be seen as discriminatory in the first place and medically unwise in the second. So it doesn't happen.

Sorry did I not read the OP here correctly?
Is what is being proposed not this?

The NHS is to crack down on transgender ideology in hospitals, with terms like “chestfeeding” set to be banned.

Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, will this week announce a series of changes to the NHS constitution which sets out patients’ rights.

Referring to “people who have ovaries” rather than “women” will also be prohibited under plans to ensure hospitals use clear language based on biological sex.

Please can someone explain to me how this is anything but a direct attack on transmen? Who many of you think are women. But who don't want to be called women and are therefore to be cancelled in the NHS. How this is at all feminism, which would surely support the rights of all those they consider women.
The idea that
Transmen are not as much of an issue to feminists as they are generally weaker and less aggressive than those with make bodies and socialisation.
Is so untrue, surely all women, but most especially the weaker and more vulnerable are important to feminists.

The fact is that this is discriminatory and it will affect transmen more than transwomen. I realise this causes problems

Glorianny I do wonder though, as women outnumber men as we age how adequate provision can be made in a single sex ward situation? And how many of us would be happy to see a man moved from A&E more rapidly than a woman because the single sex system meant there were male beds available but not female ones?
Now I know this will be viewed as so 'out there' as to be beyond radical, but..............how about wards for men are made smaller while wards for women are made larger, so as to even out the provision to match the demand? You will have to decide on your definitions of men and women or we could just stick to the tried and trusted ones of biological sex which I think you're adopting by your life expectancy measure.

And well said, Rosie. We cross posted.

Well said, Oreo. IMO when this ‘line of argument’ comes up it’s usually when there is nothing to be said against anything said on the rest of the thread.

Who are the ‘some’ referred to in your post above, Glorianny. It’s impossible to respond without knowing if that was directed at me or not, as there is a risk of being accused of ‘making it all about me’, I’m sure you know.

I’ll answer anyway. Transmen are not as much of an issue to feminists as they are generally weaker and less aggressive than those with make bodies and socialisation. You have had this explained a million times, but are you assuming that only when you explain things it makes them true?

FWIW, I agree that discussion is important, but to men and women. I don’t exclude men from very much - just from being put at the forefront of feminist issues.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Ask any man diagnosed with breast cancer.
absolutely because if he was diagnosed with "chest cancer" that would be a thoracic cancer not breast cancer, which is the same disease affecting the same tissue in females and males, albeit more rarely in males.

Glorianny you have argued in the past for phrases such as "people who menstruate" saying "people" is inclusive of all women. When we countered that NHS documents should say "women and others who menstruate" or "women and transmen" you argued that was unnecessarily long. Women, by and large, want to be referred to as women in documentation, those who prefer other terms can request them individually from their health provider.

I have argued that the term people includes transmen and women.
Doesn't it?
The term"others" is offensive in many ways and suggests some sort of discrimination.
Just as I wouldn't accept transmen and others. I wouldn't accept women and others.
Of course you can request woman in your medical records. Just as a transman can request person who menstruates, or even transman who menstruates.
I really don't approve of any discrimination.
Why do you seem determined to prove I do?

Are you deliberately being obtuse? We're referring to poster campaigns, literature posted in GP surgeries, on websites, NHS websites etc where the word woman was obliterated in favour of "people" who have, own etc a cervix, vulva, menstruate etc not personal records. It was said so many times that for women for whom English is a second language they know they are women but may not know the term cervix. There are too many women whose first language is English who don't know the exact meaning or placement of their cervix. David Lammy an educated man thought that a transwoman couldn't have ovaries but could grow a cervix. Thankfully a lot of these areas have been updated to include the word woman, but without the protests they never would have.
Incidentally those poster campaigns never had the same problem when it came to prostate cancer, the words man/men featured large with never a hint of being a 'prostate owner'

Why is this suddenly about transmen who give birth?
Anyone who gives birth is a woman and a mother even if they decide that a father gives birth.Laughable.
Transmen aren’t a problem for women it’s trans activists who are overwhelmingly men who are.

Doodledog

The thread is about self-id making it possible for males to be housed on what were single sex wards and women having no right to complain. It is also about the hope that this heralds a new dawn in the fight against women’s rights being eradicated in favour of trans rights.

You are ignoring all of that in favour of a defence of a small number of child-bearing transmen who want certain terms to be applied.

I don’t know if you realise, but the fact that you have ‘already explained’ something doesn’t make it true, and that whether or not you never said that someone has to do something’ has no bearing at all on whether it happens. Also your words are not ‘facts’ whilst ours are ‘rants’. Your language towards your fellow women is very like that of the worst sort of unreconstructed males . It’s tiresome.

Sorry you don't like my attitude.
I've always considered. discussion a valuable part of female interaction, but obviously not for some.

I think transmen are at the very core of the attitude to trans rights, because they present to those advocating that this is all male driven the evidence that it is not, and also present them with the very. difficult to answer question of how transmen are to be provided for. Those advocating that birth sex is the important factor are faced with people they consider women who look like men, behave like men but are capable of fulfilling a role usually assigned to women- giving birth. Providing those people with accommodations which allow them relevant health care is apparently a problem. Which shows this is nothing to do with caring or providing for women and everything about not coping with trans issues.

The issues about single sex wards, the provision of health care and access to proper treatment is in my opinion as a separate issue.
I do wonder though, as women outnumber men as we age how adequate provision can be made in a single sex ward situation? And how many of us would be happy to see a man moved from A&E more rapidly than a woman because the single sex system meant there were male beds available but not female ones?

Rosie51

^Ask any man diagnosed with breast cancer.^
absolutely because if he was diagnosed with "chest cancer" that would be a thoracic cancer not breast cancer, which is the same disease affecting the same tissue in females and males, albeit more rarely in males.

Glorianny you have argued in the past for phrases such as "people who menstruate" saying "people" is inclusive of all women. When we countered that NHS documents should say "women and others who menstruate" or "women and transmen" you argued that was unnecessarily long. Women, by and large, want to be referred to as women in documentation, those who prefer other terms can request them individually from their health provider.

I have argued that the term people includes transmen and women.
Doesn't it?
The term"others" is offensive in many ways and suggests some sort of discrimination.
Just as I wouldn't accept transmen and others. I wouldn't accept women and others.
Of course you can request woman in your medical records. Just as a transman can request person who menstruates, or even transman who menstruates.
I really don't approve of any discrimination.
Why do you seem determined to prove I do?

Mollygo

I’m out at the moment, but you supported the term cervix-haver when it was used even for those who didn’t want it.
How about you providing some evidence for females saying they wanted to be known as cervix-havers and evidence of where it wasn’t suddenly imposed because of the trans movement.

NO I DID NOT! I have always said the term is for those who do not want to be known as a woman.
Perhaps you could try to understand that there are people who find coping with their birth sex difficult and who find references to that unacceptable. In order to access them some terminology is necessary. You seem not to know that there is a substantial rise in the number of transmen and to be prepared to deny them any consideration simply because they are trans. That's the nature of discrimination.

You can be called whatever you wish, but so can they.
I have never changed my position on this.
If you can find proof when you return home I suggest you post it. But you can't so you won't.

Ask any man diagnosed with breast cancer.
absolutely because if he was diagnosed with "chest cancer" that would be a thoracic cancer not breast cancer, which is the same disease affecting the same tissue in females and males, albeit more rarely in males.

Glorianny you have argued in the past for phrases such as "people who menstruate" saying "people" is inclusive of all women. When we countered that NHS documents should say "women and others who menstruate" or "women and transmen" you argued that was unnecessarily long. Women, by and large, want to be referred to as women in documentation, those who prefer other terms can request them individually from their health provider.

Glorianny Using the term chest feeding is a far too general term and can meaan anything. Men and women have breasts and nipples and those terms are inisex - and so is the phrase 'breast feeding. It doesn't need to be changed or adapted.

Ask any man diagnosed with breast cancer.

The thread is about self-id making it possible for males to be housed on what were single sex wards and women having no right to complain. It is also about the hope that this heralds a new dawn in the fight against women’s rights being eradicated in favour of trans rights.

You are ignoring all of that in favour of a defence of a small number of child-bearing transmen who want certain terms to be applied.

I don’t know if you realise, but the fact that you have ‘already explained’ something doesn’t make it true, and that whether or not you never said that someone has to do something’ has no bearing at all on whether it happens. Also your words are not ‘facts’ whilst ours are ‘rants’. Your language towards your fellow women is very like that of the worst sort of unreconstructed males . It’s tiresome.

I’m out at the moment, but you supported the term cervix-haver when it was used even for those who didn’t want it.
How about you providing some evidence for females saying they wanted to be known as cervix-havers and evidence of where it wasn’t suddenly imposed because of the trans movement.

Mollygo

But everything you say here Glorianny
Should I have made a big issue out of the term mother being used for others?

Is exactly what was done to females by those who wanted different words because they weren’t and never would be female.

Why could the males, or anyone else do just as you say you did and ask to be called by their name or whatever?

If someone wants to be called a cervix -haver, they can make that choice as you did with your name. Why do you support the demand that everybody should be called cervix-haver?

And no. You don’t have to answer because you’ve already mentioned patriarchy.😁

I don't I simply support the use of the term in the NHS for any one with a cervix who doesn't want to be called a woman. You can be called whatever you like but the term needs to be there for those who don't want to be called a woman. I have never said you have to be called anything. If you have evidence I have please post it.

Mollygo

Glorianny
^That's what discrimination is.^🤣🪱🤣

Nice wriggle, but your explanation doesn’t make sense.

That's how patriarchy has always worked.

You mean males wanting everything their own way regardless of the needs of females, and some females kow-towing to the male demands.
You’re quite right!

Patriarchy as I think I have explained before relies on you imagining that because someone else's rights are recognised this necessarily means yours are diminished. It has been used for every discriminatory practice in history. It was used about the working class, it was used about black people, it was used against homosexuals. It is now being used about trans people.

The illogicality of that claim is vividly illustrated in this thread, when terms which were introduced about transmen failed to even discuss the real matter, deviating off into rants about women with penises instead. The fact is of course that those advocating treating people according to their birth sex, really have no grounds for objecting to the terms which were introduced to cater for the needs of those they consider women. Just women (or females if that is what you choose to call them) whose views are not worthy of consideration.
Which is what patriarchy does. It sorts people into groups, those that matter and those that don't, then pits them against each other.

But everything you say here Glorianny
Should I have made a big issue out of the term mother being used for others?

Is exactly what was done to females by those who wanted different words because they weren’t and never would be female.

Why could the males, or anyone else do just as you say you did and ask to be called by their name or whatever?

If someone wants to be called a cervix -haver, they can make that choice as you did with your name. Why do you support the demand that everybody should be called cervix-haver?

And no. You don’t have to answer because you’ve already mentioned patriarchy.😁