Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Gatling

If someone feels they have a need for a cervical screen they can contact their gp's ,
But the language isn't inclusive no because if you have a cervix your woman ,female , doesn't matter what you self identify as , you can still talk to your gp to arrange one


CERVICALCHECK - THE NATIONAL CERVICAL SCREENING PROGRAMME NOW AVAILABLE TO WOMEN
The National Cancer Screening Service (NCSS) today announces the availability of CervicalCheck, Ireland's first National Cervical Screening Programme.

CervicalCheck will provide free smear tests through primary care settings to the 1.1 million women aged 25 to 60 eligible for screening. A successful national programme in Ireland has the potential to cut current mortality rates from cervical cancer by up to 80%.

The overall aim of CervicalCheck is to reduce the incidence and the death rate from cervical cancer in Ireland. Free smear tests will be provided every three years for women aged 25 to 44 and every five years for women aged 45 to 60 years. The purpose of screening is to detect cell changes before they become cancerous. Most smear test results will be found to be normal with only a small number of women requiring further investigation or treatment.

A contract for the provision of smear taking services has been issued directly to GPs and medical practitioners in primary care settings nationwide. On acknowledgement of completed documentation, registered GPs and medical practitioners can provide free CervicalCheck smear tests to eligible women (aged 25 to 60).

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The inclusive language which people objected to was ‘anyone with a cervix’. Of course the literature included a reference to transgender men, and the change in language was absolutely done for their benefit, because while rates of of cervical screening tests are low among women, they’re even lower among women who do not identify themselves as women! It was a poor attempt to be inclusive of all women, recognising that not all women identify themselves as women. Men weren’t pushing for any change in the language. The HSE information page relating to prostate cancer hasn’t been updated to suggest that women need to be screened for prostate cancer for example -

Out of curiosity, why are less trans men getting themselves checked out in your opinion? I sense it is being inferred that it has something to do with lack of inclusivity/inequality etc. Which would strike me as silly. Sounds similar to what I'm hearing from the UK in relation to BAME people being less likely to take the vaccine due to them 'not trusting the government cuz racism.

https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/why-theres-vaccine-scepticism-in-the-bame-community-covid

SAGE has blamed 'structural and institutional racism and discrimination' for vaccine scepticism among BAME communities.

If a woman is living as a man does that mean they 'block out' women's biological issues. That would be a far more plausible explanation.

One eyed Jack

km991148 wrote: »

The entire argument on the "inclusive" language on the cancer document seems to be based on an assumption that it was language used to somehow cater to transwomens (or whatever term you wish to substitute) feelings.

Has that assumption been tested? Because otherwise there is just going to be a heap of arguments over some very clumsy literature, without any real resolution.

Yes, and it’s been found to be completely without foundation. I explained it at the time, but the idea of people-first language has been around for decades before it became a feature of modern virtue signalling. It’s been controversial ever since it was first put forward as a means of demonstrating inclusiveness.

Gatling wrote: »

If someone feels they have a need for a cervical screen they can contact their gp's ,
But the language isn't inclusive no because if you have a cervix your woman ,female , doesn't matter what you self identify as , you can still talk to your gp to arrange one.

That’s not how the national cervical screening programme actually works. How do you propose encouraging women who do not identify themselves as women to participate in the national screening programme? It’s difficult enough to encourage women who identify themselves as women to participate in the programme which has seen the numbers of women attending clinics fall dramatically in the last number of years, for a variety of reasons, not just the discomfort of having a speculum shoved up their vagina -

Cervical screening: How enduring use of 150-year-old speculum puts women off smear tests

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not how the national cervical screening programme actually works. How do you propose encouraging women who do not identify themselves as women to participate in the national screening programme

But they are women ,this is the issue with 99 selectable genders ,and they know their own bodies they will know when something doesn't feel right or have abnormal bleeding ,
They still have access full gp or other medical services like everyone else ,if they choose not to go it's not because the leaflet doesn't include the 99 others genders it because they are choosing not to .

Your language around this is odd (nothing is shoved up anywhere)

The speculum is the most effective tools for exams of the vaginal canal and cervix unfortunately ,they tried several times to redesign and replace it but nothing else came close to replacing it ,
But nothing to do with self identifying gender

Sir Oxman

HSE came up with the illogical 'people with a cervix' dumping the furthest reach they could using the word 'women'.
Women complained.
HSE relented to 'women and people with a cervix'
No problem - it was a stupid move on behalf of our health service to wibble along with an illogical theory when the main point of any public health campaign is to be as clear as possible towards the targetted group because there are many people who either do not know the medical terms but will know the word 'women' for example.
IMO, there was a possible plamas to transwomen in completely leaving out the word women because, well reality bites and sometimes that's triggering to some people, that's the most important thing to avoid, right?...
Reality bites in the below instructions from the HSE and I applaud the HSE in this instance in makng sure transmen know to update their correct details with medical teams and transwomen update their correct details so as not to interfere with the appointment schedules.

"Trans men and cervical screening
If you have had a total hysterectomy to remove your cervix, you do not need cervical screening.
If you are aged 25 to 65 and still have a cervix, you should attend cervical screening.
When trans men with a cervix will be invited for cervical screening
If you're aged 25 to 65 and registered with welfare services as female, you should receive invitation letters for cervical screening.
If you're registered with welfare services as male, you will not receive invitation letters.
You can still have cervical screening. Talk to your GP.
Contact us to make sure we have your correct details.
Read about trans women and cervical screening"

"If you are a trans woman
If you’re a trans woman aged 25 to 65, you may be invited to attend cervical screening.
But as you do not have a cervix, you do not need to be screened.
You or your GP should let us know your correct details. This is so that we can update our records so we don't contact you unnecessarily."

Gatling

Oh look nobody is being excluded ....


Suprise , surprise

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But they are women ,this is the issue with 99 selectable genders ,and they know their own bodies they will know when something doesn't feel right or have abnormal bleeding ,
They still have access full gp or other medical services like everyone else ,if they choose not to go it's not because the leaflet doesn't include the 99 others genders it because they are choosing not to .

That’s precisely why they’re choosing not to go though - because they don’t see themselves as women, so screening tests which apply to women, don’t apply to them, as far as they’re concerned. It doesn’t matter to them that you or I would say they are women, the point is that they don’t see themselves as women. That’s why the language used in public health campaigns has to recognise and reflect this reality, which up until the point where they changed it, public health campaigns did not recognise or reflect this reality.

Gatling wrote: »

Your language around this is odd (nothing is shoved up anywhere)

The speculum is the most effective tools for exams of the vaginal canal and cervix unfortunately ,they tried several times to redesign and replace it but nothing else came close to replacing it ,
But nothing to do with self identifying gender

The speculum, or any other instrument doesn’t get up there by itself. Plenty of innovative and more effective and efficient methods have been suggested, but physicians were unwilling to use them (it’s there in the article I linked to!), and the most viable suggestion so far in terms of increasing the numbers of women being willing to submit themselves to smear tests has been self-testing. It has everything to do with self-identifying gender and patient care which continues to be ignored because while the speculum might be the most effective tool for now, it’s not at all effective if nobody wants to submit themselves to a test where it is used on them.

Imagine as a man being told a speculum was the most effective tool to be used for prostate cancer screening? You wouldn’t be long telling your GP to get the finger out and find another way, never mind being mindful of your language!

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s precisely why they’re choosing not to go though - because they don’t see themselves as women, so screening tests which apply to women, don’t apply to them, as far as they’re concerned.





The speculum, or any other instrument doesn’t get up there by itself.
Imagine as a man being told a speculum was the most effective tool to be used for prostate cancer screening? You wouldn’t be long telling your GP to get the finger out and find another way, never mind being mindful of your language!

It's purely in their heads so ,

Speculum effects most women , cervix and vaginal canals are all different and some change due to Child birth other's can suffer painful scars from rough sex to to other medical reasons ,no tool is perfect for every woman .some women are just embarrassed at the idea or scared .


It's nothing to do with self identity

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

It's purely in their heads so ,

Ok, that may be your view, and those views are at the crux of any of these online arguments. But can you see why a health service would want to try and capture as many people as possible for a health screen? Regardless of your stance on gender identity/ biological sex/ however you want to phrase this.

Does it look like they totally f-d up the documentation and potentially caused more Ill feeling than good. Yeah, seems that way, but you can see why they would want to try and include as many people as possible. It's not about feelings or offence (I don't think, and particularly when it's down to transwomen.. wtf have they got to sit with it?) but just getting as many checks done as possible so that no one slips through the net.


You can scoff at 'no one being excluded' if you want, but I don't think it's helpful in this context.

Edit to add: even if you were to take an extreme view (or maybe not even such an extreme view depending on your viewpoint) that trans people are all suffering some mental health issue, and gender identity is all made up bs (I'm paraphrasing here, but I hope you get my point) - wouldn't the health service still want to try and catch as many people as possible. I don't think having a 'mental illness' (not my view, but some may think this) prevents you from accessing health care. I'm not sure anyone here (I hope at least) would actually want to prevent access to health care, would they?

Again- did they f-k up with the wording. Yes, they could have done better on this particular example, I'm sure.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

You can scoff at 'no one being excluded' if you want, but I don't think it's helpful in this context.

Scoff really why do people make this stuff up.

Fact, its already been posted on here nobody is being excluded ,there is documents specifically aimed at trans people ,
There not excluded .
Women aren't being called because they don't fit an age group or other reason ,but they can still get an appointment through their gp or a referral.

Bit like the whole idea from a bloke that speculums are I just rammed up inside women during cervical checks ,

Jesus wept !

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Scoff really why do people make this stuff up.

I know why you scoffed.. my point is that a health service is just trying to catch as many people as possible. That doesn't mean that they are pushing one agenda over another, simply that they are trying to get as many people through the door as possible.

I'm sure there are many groups of people that for one reason or another don't just go to the gp to get whatever checks are available to them, and there are many (probably overpaid) groups of managers sitting around trying to work out how to reach them.

In this case it happened to be transmen and cervical checks, and they seemed to have messed it up a bit as they went and alienated a portion of their target audience.


What now is there to say? Is it a case of saying that f them and nothing should change, they can go to the gp anyway (even although we might imagine a significant portion of these people may never do that?) - that's probably a bit extreme, and just as bad as the clumsily worded content they created.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Scoff really why do people make this stuff up.

...

Bit like the whole idea from a bloke that speculums are I just rammed up inside women during cervical checks ,

Jesus wept !

Where do you get this idea that a man must have no knowledge of something if they aren’t a woman?

What You Need to Know About the Speculum


A speculum is a duck-bill-shaped device that doctors use to see inside a hollow part of your body and diagnose or treat disease.

One common use of the speculum is for vaginal exams. Gynecologists use it to open the walls of the vagina and examine the vagina and cervix.


Screening for cervical cancer in transgender men


Preliminary research on self-collected vaginal samples for HPV compared to clinician obtained samples shows promise, this approach may also be more acceptable to transgender men. Future initial HPV screening for transgender men may also utilize non-vaginal sourced specimens; studies supporting concordance of HPV in the urine with HPV in the cervix represent a potential method for a non-vaginal triage algorithm.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

The entire argument on the "inclusive" language on the cancer document seems to be based on an assumption that it was language used to somehow cater to transwomens* (or whatever term you wish to substitute) feelings.

Has that assumption been tested? Because otherwise there is just going to be a heap of arguments over some very clumsy literature, without any real resolution.

*Edit to clarify: as opposed to being inclusive of transmen in the cancer screening programme.

Well, the contested literature mentioned transgender men but the word woman didn’t appear. So transgender men were name-checked to be inclusive. But it wasn’t deemed important to include the word woman, despite many women being unaware they have a cervix or just knowing the word the cervix in another language. Why would the word be left out? It wasn’t for the benefit of transgender men (already catered for as mentioned) and it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of women. So, what do you think the reason was?

And, yes, it is simply an assumption on my part that it’s to spare the feelings of transgender women. There’s not going to be a peer-reviewed study to prove or disprove what I think. How would you test the assumption? This was questioned a lot and answers were hard to come by.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, the contested literature mentioned transgender men but the word woman didn’t appear. So transgender men were name-checked to be inclusive. But it wasn’t deemed important to include the word woman, despite many women being unaware they have a cervix or just knowing the word the cervix in another language. Why would the word be left out? It wasn’t for the benefit of transgender men (already catered for as mentioned) and it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of women. So, what do you think the reason was?

And, yes, it is simply an assumption on my part that it’s to spare the feelings of transgender women. There’s not going to be a peer-reviewed study to prove or disprove what I think. How would you test the assumption? This was questioned a lot and answers were hard to come by.

I'm just asking.. I'm not asking for 'peer reviewed' anything, but at the time I asked it seemed to be getting argued as fact. I was just trying to take some heat out of the "debate".

As far as I understood, the original version didn't include transmen* but it's hard to tell on this thread really as there are many overlapping topics and a lot of heat at times. One thing I find that helps is to try and take as much assumption out if the equation as possible.

*Sorry if I got that wrong.

ceadaoin.

Weird how OEJ is an expert on anything to do with womanhood from breast feeding to sports to vaginal exams and the instruments used. Even weirder how he feels the need to lecture about them on a regular basis and tell women who disagree just how wrong they are lol.

For what its worth, I've never had a speculum just "shoved up" my vagina but I guess that's more to do with competent medical practitioners. I've no doubt it happens but its far from the norm.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But it wasn’t deemed important to include the word woman, despite many women being unaware they have a cervix or just knowing the word the cervix in another language. Why would the word be left out? It wasn’t for the benefit of transgender men (already catered for as mentioned) and it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of women. So, what do you think the reason was?

This is just clutching at straws. If a woman doesn’t know she has a cervix, it’s unlikely she would happen upon the HSE page about cervical cancer. I couldn’t even manage it from google without considerable effort, and if I weren’t searching for the terms in English, I wouldn’t come across it at all, because my regional settings are in my first language! That’s notwithstanding the many thousands and thousands of websites there are in any number of languages for women whose first language is not English.

It’s fair to say that a small minority of women will be unaware of their cervix, not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology, but the idea of women not being able to understand what is being referred to when they read the HSE entry on cervical cancer as it was written then?

You have a really low opinion of women that you imagine they’re that stupid.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

I'm just asking.. I'm not asking for 'peer reviewed' anything, but at the time I asked it seemed to be getting argued as fact. I was just trying to take some heat out of the "debate".

As far as I understood, the original version didn't include transmen* but it's hard to tell on this thread really as there are many overlapping topics and a lot of heat at times. One thing I find that helps is to try and take as much assumption out if the equation as possible.

*Sorry if I got that wrong.

It might not have been made clear in the last few pages, sure. But yes, ‘transgender men’ was used in the literature where ‘women’ wasn’t. The part of the thread where it’s initially discussed will have posts talking about it. It stuck in my mind because it was so egregious. I couldn’t imagine how it was ever justified.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It might not have been made clear in the last few pages, sure. But yes, ‘transgender men’ was used in the literature where ‘women’ wasn’t. The part of the thread where it’s initially discussed will have posts talking about it. It stuck in my mind because it was so egregious. I couldn’t imagine how it was ever justified.

Ye sorry, I thought there was an initial version with something like 'person with a cervix' or something equally as clumsy, followed by an updated version to include transmen.

My opinion is that it was still not done to somehow apease transwomen (but who the f knows these days) but just some badly thought out wording. I would have thought anyone trans would be well aware of their body and know exactly what health checks they need and which services still require opt in as one particular sex Vs another.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have a really low opinion of women that you imagine they’re that stupid.

The intelligence of the populace varies. Public health literature needs to reach as many people as possible. Why would it be ignored that there are people of lower intelligence, people with learning difficulties, people with poor English (who I am NOT calling stupid, by the way)? Do they not deserve this information? How does acknowledging different levels of intelligence in the population denote a low opinion of women? I think it’s far more contemptuous sign to not try to reach those women who may struggle for whatever reason.

jam_mac_jam

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is just clutching at straws. If a woman doesn’t know she has a cervix, it’s unlikely she would happen upon the HSE page about cervical cancer. I couldn’t even manage it from google without considerable effort, and if I weren’t searching for the terms in English, I wouldn’t come across it at all, because my regional settings are in my first language! That’s notwithstanding the many thousands and thousands of websites there are in any number of languages for women whose first language is not English.

It’s fair to say that a small minority of women will be unaware of their cervix, not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology, but the idea of women not being able to understand what is being referred to when they read the HSE entry on cervical cancer as it was written then?

You have a really low opinion of women that you imagine they’re that stupid.

It's not stupidity, it could be due to education levels or language skills.

Not knowing the medical name of something has no indication of your intelligence level.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The intelligence of the populace varies. Public health literature needs to reach as many people as possible. Why would it be ignored that there are people of lower intelligence, people with learning difficulties, people with poor English (who I am NOT calling stupid, by the way)? Do they not deserve this information? How does acknowledging different levels of intelligence in the population denote a low opinion of women? I think it’s far more contemptuous sign to not try to reach those women who may struggle for whatever reason.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's not stupidity, it could be due to education levels or language skills.

Not knowing the medical name of something has no indication of your intelligence level.

The implication of ODB’s argument is that women who don’t know what a cervix is, or their first language is not English, could happen upon the HSE website entry for cervical cancer and NOT still know that it refers to them, because the word ‘women’ or ‘woman’ is not mentioned explicitly. THAT’s the level of stupid I’m referring to, because that’s the level of stupid would be required to achieve such a feat.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The implication of ODB’s argument is that women who don’t know what a cervix is, or their first language is not English, could happen upon the HSE website entry for cervical cancer and NOT still know that it refers to them, because the word ‘women’ or ‘woman’ is not mentioned explicitly. THAT’s the level of stupid I’m referring to, because that’s the level of stupid would be required to achieve such a feat.

Yeah, and do you not think anyone is of that low of intelligence? I don’t see what is wrong with assuming differing levels of intelligence. If nobody is that “stupid”, to use your charming description, then super.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

I know why you scoffed..

Stop lieing I did not scoff anything else

Are you hoping for a reaction (try harder)

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One common use of the speculum is for vaginal exams. Gynecologists use it to open the walls of the vagina and examine the vagina and cervix.

They come in stainless ,and polycarbonate and some are coloured others have led lights,
I've been when my partner has had multiple smears and even been there for several births ,

Did you have to refer to Google so you could copy and paste .

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Stop lieing I did not scoff anything else

Are you hoping for a reaction (try harder)

Gatling wrote: »

Oh look nobody is being excluded ....


Suprise , surprise

Not everyone is out to get you. No one is attacking. I think I wrote quite a lot of reasonable posts, trying to get to the core of the matter.

I came here for information, learning, understanding. I've taken a few missteps, sure, and equally I've received some pretty sh**ty accusations and comments in return.

I'm personally done with this thread. It's not really helpful, I wish you all luck discussing this very complex issue that touches many areas of our society.

I would urge you all to try and see beyond attack and show a little more understanding of each others views. Passions can run high at times, sure, but not everyone is looking for a fight. I'm not getting goaded into one.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

Not everyone is out to get you

Never said anything of the sort ......

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Never said anything of the sort ......

I don't care. Have a good evening.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, and do you not think anyone is of that low of intelligence? I don’t see what is wrong with assuming differing levels of intelligence. If nobody is that “stupid”, to use your charming description, then super.

No, no I don’t, precisely because nobody actually is that stupid. It has nothing to do with different levels of intelligence, and everything to do with the fact that you’re clutching at straws to make a point that makes out any woman could possibly be so stupid that she would be able to read the entire entry, and because it doesn’t use the word ‘woman’, she wouldn’t understand it relates to her.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

They come in stainless ,and polycarbonate and some are coloured others have led lights,
I've been when my partner has had multiple smears and even been there for several births ,

Did you have to refer to Google so you could copy and paste .

I do when you make the point that I’m a bloke, implying that I couldn’t possibly know what a speculum is and what is involved in a smear test, or how smear tests are conducted for women who do not identify themselves as women. Your own experience contradicts your own argument suggesting that a man couldn’t know what’s involved.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do when you make the point that I’m a bloke, implying that I couldn’t possibly know.

Your own experience contradicts your own argument suggesting that a man couldn’t know what’s involved.

From your post it was obvious you don't or didn't know .

I perfectly well know about and how and why you no