Calling all individuals with a cervix! New cervical cancer screening recommendations with extra extra inclusiveness

submitted by sisterinsomnia from edition.cnn.com

all 36 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]yousaythosethings 38 insightful - 4 fun38 insightful - 3 fun39 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Funny because according to CNN:

Semen is still men’s only: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-semen-china-health/index.html

Sperm and testicles are still men’s only: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/health/poor-diet-kills-sperm-quality-wellness/index.html

Erectile dysfunction is still an issue only for men: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/health/erectile-dysfunction-higher-death-risk-wellness/index.html

Prostate cancer is still a men’s issue: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/health/prostate-cancer-olaparib-trial-study/index.html

Prostates are also male-only when we’re talking about dogs’ bodies: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/health/male-dog-allergy-wellness/index.html

I guess we can discuss reproductive sex when we’re talking about men being more at risk for the coronavirus: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/health/coronavirus-gender-mortality-intl/index.html

Oh wait, biological sex is suddenly a thing again when we’re talking about reproduction and suddenly there’s no ambiguity about what body parts and cells are male vs female: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/health/sperm-choice-female-eggs-wellness/index.html

[–]VioletRemi 29 insightful - 5 fun29 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

So men are still men, while word "women" is stolen by men in dresses?

[–]yishengqingwa666 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is by design.

[–]throwawayfuckreddit 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wording was not to offend transwomen, they could give a fuck about trans men or women. Transwomen would've gotten upset if the dirty word "woman" is used. Thats why they don't change shit for men because they could give TWO shits about trans men. notice, "Transwomen are women" is shouted from the roof tops, "Trans men are men" is tacked on the end in small print. Men don't have to accept transwomen or trans men, but WOMEN do.

[–]lumiosestone 24 insightful - 11 fun24 insightful - 10 fun25 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

Individuals with a cervix?! So I guess the report is also addressed to female cats, dogs, hamsters...?

[–]PotatoPeddler 14 insightful - 6 fun14 insightful - 5 fun15 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

We need marine ob/gyn stations now, so that all the cetacean cervix-havers can get tested too!

[–]MezozoicGay 21 insightful - 4 fun21 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't with transgender boom testing should be starting earlier?

In my experience on work in PCOS helping center, woman body when exposed to too much testosterone have much higher risks of cancer. So when girls at age of 13-14 are starting transitioning massively (I believe JKR said girls transitioning increased by 400% or 4000%) and using puberty blockers, cancer statistics should raise drastically in next decade, when they grow up.

Individuals with a cervix

And word "women" or "females" was never used in an article.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not all cancers are the same. Research shows that women with PCOS have a sixfold increased risk of endometrial cancer, a triple risk of endocrine gland cancers, and two times the risk of ovarian and pancreatic cancers.

Cancer of the cervix - the neck of the uterus that connects it to the vagina - is caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV). Having PCOS that causes women to have levels of endogenous testosterone does not make one more susceptible to HPV.

Similarly, taking high levels of exogenous testosterone as TiFs do is not correlated with increased vulnerability to HPV in and of itself. However, because many sexually-active TIFs have been found to engage in high risk sexual behaviors, they do have far greater rates of a variety of sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and HIV.

A look at patient records at 26 STD clinics in the US found that

Of transgender men tested, 7.7% and 10.5% tested positive for chlamydia and gonorrhea at 1 or more anatomic sites, and 8.3% were HIV-infected.

Those are much higher rates of infection found amongst sexually-active females in the US overall.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30278030/

[–]MezozoicGay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see. Thanks for info.

[–]MonstrousRegiment 16 insightful - 9 fun16 insightful - 8 fun17 insightful - 9 fun -  (2 children)

Oh wise CNN, please, please tell me how to figure out if I am an "individual with a cervix"!

[–]yousaythosethings 11 insightful - 11 fun11 insightful - 10 fun12 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

Some cervixes are masculine and some are feminine and some are masculine 90% of the time and feminine the other 10% of the time, and some are neither more than 50% of the time, but there’s no way to tell or to tell if a folk has one at all. You can’t assume. You just check if someone has a front hole and stick a speculum up there and see what happens.

[–]crodish 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I just imagined someone yelling at the space between someone else's legs lol

"ARE YOU A HE/HIM OR SHE/HER CERVIX???"

[–]luckystar 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

i n d i v i d u a l s

[–]Jalaces 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

I'm missing what's wrong with this? There's no dehumanizing euphemisms for women like menstruator or uterus-haver

[–]sisterinsomnia[S] 29 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

A survey done in the UK a few years ago by a cervical cancer trust found that almost half of the women they surveyed didn't know what a cervix is. That is a huge problem when someone is giving out health information. And as MezozolcGay pointed out, the word 'women' is missing from the entire article. Yet something like 98% of all people with a cervix think of themselves as women.

[–]NecessaryScene1 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yet something like 98% of all people with a cervix think of themselves as women.

And the vast majority of the remaining 2% know that they're really women, so would only be "excluding" themselves if they chose to ignore health advice for women.

Statistically, it is utterly crucial to concentrate the messaging clearly towards women. Even cluttering it with a load of "and transmen and non-binaries and otherkin" etc could statistically do more harm than good overall, by distracting from the core, inclusive "all women" point.

People choosing to go down the path of biology denial and their organisations have to take responsibility of targetting specific information tailored to them and their delusions - it's not a good outcome to cause overall harm by making them the focus of general messaging.

How hard would it be to repeatedly make clear (as was historically the case) to them - "the medication you are taking does not actually change your sex - unless specifically advised otherwise all general medical advice for women continues to apply to you".

[–]sisterinsomnia[S] 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am extremely angry that this development is sold as inclusiveness. My own gender identity is that I am a woman because I am female, i.e, because I have a female body, and that body affects my life as well as the way others treat me.

So when the inclusionists use terms such as 'menstruating people' my gender identity gets slapped on its face and invalidated. But this must not happen to those whose identities require that the body not be mentioned. There is a clear clash of rights and one size, the one with lots more people, is expected to lie down and identify as a silent door mat. Because of #nodebate.

[–]Sun_bear 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

They've erased women. We're not 'individuals with a cervix', we're women.

[–]Jalaces 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I read that some TiMs after surgery have a cervix b's can get cancer too

[–]Sun_bear 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then you have read wrong. Cervixes cannot be artificially created, especially not in men. Also this article is erasing women because of TIFs who want to opt out of womenhood, not TIMs.

[–]yishengqingwa666 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. No man can ever have anything even close to a cervix, a vagina, a vulva, a clitoris or anything else that women have. Ever.

[–]starsstorm 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The cervix is the neck of the uterus. They don’t have a uterus. Ergo, they don’t have a cervix.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People who make this claim don't understand the difference between vaginas and cervixes. As others have pointed out, the cervix is the neck of the uterus. So far as I know, not even the most extreme trans ideologues are claiming that TIMs who get genital surgeries nowadays have uteri. What they get are very crude approximations of vaginas that can be used as fuck holes, but otherwise have none of the properties, capabilities, biochemistry or flora of actual vaginas.

If males who have genital surgeries to make fauxginas get cancer in them, it will be cancer of the tissue that their fauxginas are made of. Usually meaning penile or colon cancer. Now that peritoneal tissue and grafts taken from the back and thighs are also being used, as in the case of Jazz Jennings, then presumably some could get peritoneal cancer and various other skin cancers in their fauxginas too. And I'd imagine those few cases where Tilapia skin has been used would be vulnerable to whatever skin cancer those particular fish get.

[–]Comatoast 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok. I'm sadly laughing my ass off at this. I didn't know anything about tilapia skin, but this is certainly not going to help all of the disgusting jokes about vaginas and fish smells.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/transgender-woman-gets-new-vagina-made-from-fish-skin/

Fuck men and women-hating women with their disgusting misogynistic jokes. The feet, socks, shoes, armpits and ball sacs of average guys after about age 10-12 smell a zillion times worse than the average adult vagina, which doesn't have a rank odor at all.

All that "fishy" talk is projection. And when it's not, it's attraction and taste.

If a woman's vagina smells fishy or malodorous in any other way, it's a sign that something is seriously amiss and she needs medical treatment.

Over many decades, I've accompanied numerous other women on longterm wilderness and camping trips when showering/bathing isn't possible, and I've also travelled to a number of refugee camps where there are no showering or bathing facilities for females. No fish smells emanating from our/their vaginas. Although our/their armpits and breath often did/do stink, albeit not of fish.

[–]Comatoast 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I looked it up after I saw your post. It's a disgusting concept, but really pretty interesting.

It's tricho.. something, iirc. Or maybe that's the one with pork. There's also some sort of disease that can affect either sex that makes sweat have a fish-like odor.

I'm not buying into the nastyness of the jokes,of course. I'm more laughing that the joke is on them for actually having nuvaginas made out of fish after being shitty about the smell of a natural vagina.

[–]yousaythosethings 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Compare with what I just posted. We are obscuring fucking medical PSAs to women and girls only. Not to men and boys. If it’s a male issue, there is no hesitation to discuss men and the male sex, if it’s about reproduction again there is no ambiguity and we can talk about biological sex. If we’re talking about freaking dogs’ bodies, biological sex is again an actual thing. It’s ONLY when we’re communicating to girls and women about the parts of our bodies only we have and that men are not interested in does the media feel the need to obscure and avoid mentioning sex. As if education about female bodies isn’t piss poor virtually everywhere. The girls and women who need PSAs like these the most aren’t going to perk up and take notice when you address them by their body parts. Most people don’t even know what a cervix is or does.

[–]Agodachi 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

THIS! It frustrates me when there is no ambiguity about sex in animals or even plants, but when it comes to humans suddenly that's up for grabs?

In chickens you have hen (females) and roosters (males), in sheep you have the ewe (females) and the ram (males), and in humans you have women/girls (females) and men/boys (males). It is not that complicated.

[–]yishengqingwa666 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are women. THAT'S why. The ONLY people who have a cervix are women.

[–]Comatoast 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I know this was a joke, but now I'm concerned for different reasons.

Why did they increase the amount of time in between screenings like that? I remember paps being part of a yearly screening, and with something that can progress as quickly as cancer I can't understand increasing the amount of time between paps to 5 years.

Also, I recall there being a ton of shit wrong with the gardasil vaccine (possibly causing narcolepsy in a ton of women, something about it not even being effective against the most commonly spread strains of HPV, etc.). Was I dreaming about that?

[–]Realwoman 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Time was increased because the majority of women overcome HPV on their own without any need for treatment and cervical cancer is very slowly growing. So annual screenings resulted in women being over treated when their bodies would have overcome the infection on their own. So if you have a normal pap smear test, you can wait for 3 more years before the next test and you'll be fine. If something is found the next time, it will still be pretty on the time to treat it. Also, for women over 30, they do an HPV test plus a pap smear and if they're both good, you can wait for 5 more years. It's based on data.

There was a lot anti vax propaganda about the vaccine.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I've never had an HPV test and I'm over 30. I wonder how new that is. I also wonder how many women will just skip going to the yearly visit for the regular pelvic exam/breast check altogether with this going into effect. I guess if you're on birth control you have to go to get the rx renewed, or that's the way it used to be here anyway.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're having sex, particularly sex with males, regular screenings for a HPV and other STDs are in your best interests and are routinely recommended.

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really? My doctor gave me an HPV test together with the pap smear as soon as I turned 30 and I was told no need for a a new one for 5 more years.

And I don't know that yearly exams are necessary.

[–]Anon123 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CNN or Twitter is deleting tweets on this story as well. Use the #CNNHatesWomen hashtag. They're trying to shut us up.

[–]terfy_delight 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gosh, if only there was a term for those people with cervices, who menstruate and get pregnant...

We're supposed to pretend this isn't blatant woman erasure. If it wasn't, then female people would be ok to use. The problem is our entire existence invalidates trans identities so there only recourse is to erase us. How progressive and feminist of them.