Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

Feel free to ask them. The authors' names are on the guidelines, which I linked upthread. Or you can make assumptions and have a tantrum based on those assumptions, if you feel that's a more productive use of your time.

But bear in mind, before you get yourself too worked up, that there are other instances of the article being precise about the meaning of the terms it is using. For example:



That's the first sentence. The very first thing it does is identify the American Cancer Society, and make clear that it will be abbreviated as "ACS". This is despite the fact that the guidelines are from the American Cancer Society, are published in the American Cancer Society's journal, and make clear in the title that they are from the American Cancer Society. Anybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware that they are from the American Cancer Society and, indeed, that that is abbreviated to "ACS".

It then identifies that human papillomavirus is abbreviated to "HPV". These guidelines are specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing. So everybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware of what "HPV" means.

It then goes on to explain what the term "cotesting" means despite, again, the fact that these are guidelines specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing.

But, for some reason, it's only the precision and clarity of "individuals with a cervix" that has people clutching their pearls because of an assumption that they're trying to (shock horror gasp!) "avoid offense" (how dare they!?!?!?!).

It's standard practice in all scientific writing to identify all acronyms before using them, because one acronym can stand for multiple things in addition to the fact that not all readers will be familiar with all acronyms. And "cotesting" needs to be defined because the specific meaning in context will not be known to many readers. So these aren't even remotely equivalent comparisons. Clarity where it's needed because readers won't know is completely different than clarity because readers will be offended. Nobody would actually be confused if "women" or "females" were used instead of "individuals with a cervix".

And the proof is the dichotomy between the willingness to use "men" or "males", or define those simply in terms of biology, compared to the lack of willingness to do that with "women" or "females" or define those words in terms of biology. Clarity isn't the reason, it's the excuse.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But some women produce semen too - such a woman might read this study or how it was reported on CNN and be mistaken that they can't transmit covid 19 sexually because they're women, not penis havers.

The study was of 38 men.

 

[Manger Douse]

The study was of 38 men.

Women aren't exempt from sexually transmitting Covid19 through their semen.

 

[Ziggurat]

Feel free to ask them. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.

The irony in your position is that they're using ungendered language because that's being dictated to them by non-experts.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's standard practice in all scientific writing to identify all acronyms before using them, because one acronym can stand for multiple things in addition to the fact that not all readers will be familiar with all acronyms.

If I'm familiar with what the abbreviation "HPV" means, and I don't have and never have had a cervix, then I think it's reasonable to expect clinicians to. And yet they explain it. Twice.

Later in the guidelines they explain what a "Pap test" is. They explain "hrHPV" twice.

And "cotesting" needs to be defined because the specific meaning in context will not be known to many readers.[/quote]

You think clinicians don't know what "cotesting" means?

Nobody would actually be confused if "women" or "females" were used instead of "individuals with a cervix".

It might make the following sentence a little odd:

The recommendations apply to all asymptomatic individuals with a cervix, regardless of their sexual history or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status, including those who have undergone supracervical hysterectomy and transgender men who retain their cervix.

And the proof is the dichotomy between the willingness to use "men" or "males", or define those simply in terms of biology, compared to the lack of willingness to do that with "women" or "females" or define those words in terms of biology. Clarity isn't the reason, it's the excuse.

Allow me to quote another paragraph from the same guidelines:

There are approximately 11 million women in the groups aged 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 years.71 The overall burden of cervical cancer among women ages 20 to 24 years is relatively small, with 0.8% of all new cases diagnosed in this age group, compared with 4% among women aged 25 to 29 years (Fig. 1), and about 0.5% of cervical cancer deaths are attributable to a diagnosis at ages 20 to 24 years, compared with 3% attributable to a diagnosis among women ages 25 to 29 years (Fig. 3). It is not known how many cervical cancer cases attributable to a diagnosis in patients aged 20 to 24 years were among women who were at high risk (eg, immunosuppressed and/or HIV‐positive individuals for whom different screening recommendations would apply).

Are you sure that they don't use the term "women" in the guidelines? How sure are you?

In fact, every instance bar one of the phrase "individuals with a cervix" (that's 9 in total) are specifically in the recommendations (which themselves are repeated several times throughout the article), or when referring directly to the recommendations. So that's 10 appearances of the phrase in the article, 9 of which are either directly in the recommendations or which are directly referencing the recommendations.

There are 97 instances of the word "women".

Are you sure that they don't use the term "women" in the guidelines? How sure are you?

 

[zooterkin]

Because women with penises could unwittingly spread covid19 because of the imprecise language of the study and way its reported

A) only if you accept someone born with and still possessing a penis is a woman and B) where did Covid-19 come into it? I thought the study was about prostate cancer?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Women aren't exempt from sexually transmitting Covid19 through their semen.

Nobody said they were.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The irony in your position is that they're using ungendered language because that's being dictated to them by non-experts.

Are you sure that they don't use the term "women" in the guidelines? How sure are you?

I would ask for a citation, but it seems rather moot, really. You didn't even read the guidelines before fainting on your couch over them, did you?

 

[Manger Douse]

Nobody said they were.

The study and report by CNN did when they only mentioned men

 

[Manger Douse]

A) only if you accept someone born with and still possessing a penis is a woman and B) where did Covid-19 come into it? I thought the study was about prostate cancer?

The study we're discussing is about Covid19 - the bit about prostate cancer was just from the American Cancer Society's website to show how precise, technical language only seems to apply to people who tend to have a cervix but not those who tend to have a prostate

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The study and report by CNN did when they only mentioned men

The study was of 38 men.

 

[Manger Douse]

The study was of 38 men.

Then are CNN and the scientists involved not putting lives at risk by only refering to men, not penis havers?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The scientists are reporting the data they've collected from 38 men.

WRT CNN, I doubt that there's any significant increase in risk of covid-19 infections from their adoption of the scientist's terminology,. You're free to make that case, though, if you like.

 

[Manger Douse]

The scientists are reporting the data they've collected from 38 men.

WRT CNN, I doubt that there's any significant increase in risk of covid-19 infections from their adoption of the scientist's terminology,. You're free to make that case, though, if you like.

Men are not the only people who can produce semen - a transwomen could read that article and CNN report and think it didn't apply to them - I don't think they or there sexual partners put at risk of covid19 would be happy with "no significant increase"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Men are not the only people who can produce semen - a transwomen could read that article and CNN report and think it didn't apply to them - I don't think they or there sexual partners put at risk of covid19 would be happy with "no significant increase"

Feel free to contact CNN and tell them of your sincere concerns.

 

[Manger Douse]

Feel free to contact CNN and tell them of your sincere concerns.

You're the one saying the push-back to precise terminology is routed in nothing trans-phobia and wacky pet theories - how about you defend it? Its already been shown here to be potentially harmful so chop chop

 

[Ziggurat]

If I'm familiar with what the abbreviation "HPV" means, and I don't have and never have had a cervix, then I think it's reasonable to expect clinicians to. And yet they explain it. Twice.

You've never written formal scientific papers, have you? Stating abbreviations explicitly, even ones which are obvious from context, is required the the style guides for most journals. That's been the case for a very long time. Explaining "male" or "female", "man" or "woman", or using alternative terms for them isn't.

You think clinicians don't know what "cotesting" means?

I think it's written to be understood by more than just clinicians. I don't think it's written to be understood by people who don't know what a cervix is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're the one saying the push-back to precise terminology is routed in nothing trans-phobia and wacky pet theories - how about you defend it?

That's not what I said, no.

Its already been shown here to be potentially harmful so chop chop

Cite?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You've never written formal scientific papers, have you? Stating abbreviations explicitly, even ones which are obvious from context, is required the the style guides for most journals. That's been the case for a very long time. Explaining "male" or "female", "man" or "woman", or using alternative terms for them isn't.

Hey, it was your argument that they wouldn't explain things that they would expect their audience already to know, not mine.

I think it's written to be understood by more than just clinicians.

Then why are these guidelines for clinicians published in a journal for clinicians?

Incidentally, are you sure that they don't use the term "women" in the guidelines? How sure are you?

 

[Manger Douse]

That's not what I said, no.

I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. It's definitely an odd thing to see on a board dedicated to critical thinking - at least when not coming from members who are notorious for posting their own wacky pet theories.

What did you mean then?

Cite?

https://www.jostrust.org.uk/node/666780