I'm pointing out a double standard and that the supposedly inclusive fashionable language of the day is anything but
double standard, OK - sexism exists, no one has said otherwiseI'm pointing out a double standard and that the supposedly inclusive fashionable language of the day is anything but
there's a valid concernWomen with learning disabilities, women with English as a second language, women from poor backgrounds with limited education are actually excluded by a term like 'individuals with a cervix'
Happened to me very recently after a routine bloods appt (sugars and an insistence for Covid antibodies). My Dad died of spinal cancer fairly young, one of the most monstrous few months imaginable. So the nurse on duty does the sample in full ppe, asks about the weather (such distilled Britishness), but when I raised a question about prostate tests and my old man’s history she batted me off about false positives and to wait 3/4 years. Covid results delayed until Monday. It’s not a perfect world.“Individuals with a prostrate” is fine and would be more inclusive for transwomen.
Perhaps the reason why this hasn’t been seen so much is that in the UK at least smear tests are massively more common than tests for prostrate cancer.
I am not sure what the deal is in the US but in Austria there are mandatory tests for prostrate cancer over the age of 50.
When I asked my Doctor about this they said it wasn’t something we did here because of the high level of false positives.
of course this isn’t the case for smear tests which are recommended regularly for people with a cervix.