CNN calls women "individuals with a cervix" but prostate-havers are still "men"

submitted by Terfenclaw from self.GenderCritical

Here is CNN's tweet about "individiuals with a cervix." The entire article does not mention women a single time. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1288948978088804355

And here are some tweets from CNN, referring to men as men. These are from Feb 2019 and May 2020 https://twitter.com/darshanpathak/status/1289050538579902470

And here is a great thread about how this sort of language is actually dangerous and exclusionary to women with low education, literacy, or who are not native English speakers. 44.2% of women don't know what a cervix is: https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1289161162576207877

all 31 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

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

People need to @cnn and draw their attention to this so they’ll be forced to address it.

[–]yishengqingwa666 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the culmination of thousands of years of male woman-hatred. They want to erase us, down to the very words we have to name ourselves.

[–]JoeDzhugashvili 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting how TRAs call people that won’t bow to the girldick “genital fetishists” and yet they’ve managed to put us at the point where the only “woke” way to refer to women is to specifically identify them solely based on their sexual organs

[–]oyasuminasai50 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's also the laughable claim that TERFs are obsessed with genitals. Ironic that now TRAs preferred nomenclature groups all of humanity by exactly that.

[–]Nowimhere 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Infuriating.

[–]MarkTwainiac 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

this sort of language is actually dangerous and exclusionary to women with low education, literacy, or who are not native English speakers. 44.2% of women don't know what a cervix is: https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1289161162576207877

Also, many women currently living in the Anglophone world who come from a large number of different countries fill all of these characteristics at once: they've been deprived of education; they are not literate even their own native languages; and they have very limited English language skills - or none at all.

Many immigrant and refugee women in the US still know little or no English even after residing stateside for years or decades because a) they come from extremely patriarchal cultures where women are mostly confined to the home and are entirely under the control of their husbands or other male relatives; b) they are not allowed to attend classes or access other learning resources in their new country; c) it's very difficult - or nigh impossible - to learn a new language when you can't read and write in any language, not even your native one.

What's more, vast numbers of women from many countries where they did get an education, have worked outside the home, and can speak English still often have never received the most basic information about their own female biology. In the 80s and 90s I taught advanced-level ESL to adult refugees to the US who hailed from a vast number of diverse home countries - Cambodia, the USSR, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Romania, Syria, Yemen, Iran... - and though my students all had excellent English skills, some had obtained uni and post-grad degrees in their home countries, many had worked outside the home, and many had children, virtually none of my adult female students had been taught even the most rudimentary facts of female biology.

Today, I know tons of women from all over the world who've immigrated to North America and the UK from a wide variety of countries. But whilst most of these women have managed to learn English, to obtain employment, to successfully navigate new cultures and legal systems, and have birthed and raised kids or are raising kids in their new countries, the majority of these women grew up without a basic understanding of biology and female physiology. Because in much of the world reproductive biology and female physiology are not taught in school and are still considered taboo topics.

In many places on earth even today in 2020, any discussion of female physiology is considered unseemly and expressly forbidden. As Ireland's decision this week to ban a Tampax advert for being "offensive" illustrates all too well.

Now gender ideologues want to make it shameful and explicitly taboo to acknowledge and speak about female biology throughout the Anglophone world as well. Progress this ain't.

[–]Realwoman 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

I agree with what you're saying but I find it hard to believe that educated women from USSR and Soviet block countries didn't know the basic facts of women's anatomy. Maybe they just didn't know the English terms.

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

Most still doesn't. It was not taboo, but was not explicetely tought anywhere, except special medical schools. And even if you know about biology, it is hard to learn English variants of words, for some reason.

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

What do you mean by most? I'm from a former Soviet block country and it's just not true that educated women don't know about female anatomy or that it's not taught in school. Now, of course, most don't know the words in English but that's different.

[–]VioletRemi 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I was in school (Ukraine), reproduction systems were studied for just two or three weeks during anatomy lessons. So we learned it to a degree, but not really in-depth, and most just forget soon after. Nowadays maybe situation is much better, but I do not have a kid, and most likely will never born one (as I am lesbian), so I never checked new ones.

I know tho, that our new goverment is trying to add christian "Family Foundations" as a subject for kids to study, and there a lot of sexism and "what woman and man must do in family", with "man bringing money" and "woman looking after kids and cleaning house/making food", and it is strongly against lesbian or gay people. And things like "if boy was growing up without strong father hand, or with mother only, he will grow up as bandit". Mothers are fighting against that subject. And it all time removed or returned back, as man who trying to make it to schools have a ton of money.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I and others who were teaching and providing social services to women from former "Iron Curtain" countries found it very hard to believe as well.

But this is what our students and clients kept telling us, which caused us to have to develop special curricula and programs for them. Except for those who were physicians, midwives or nurses and had received special training in gynecology - a topic not taught in standard medical schools or nursing programs in most of the bloc - none of the full-grown adult females from the Soviet Bloc who came through the very large refugee resettlement agency I worked for had EVER seen an anatomical drawing of the female reproductive tract.

In Soviet Russia from 1930 - 1985:

"The very mention of sex became objectionable, and the topic was absent not only from magazines (both for teenagers and adults), but even from the main Soviet encyclopedia. The idea was that children should be taught morality, and distracted and kept busy as much as possible. The thrust of sex education was to replace the nascent sexual interest with public work, physical education, reading, and to channel this energy in a different direction."

https://www.rbth.com/education/329540-russian-kids-sex-education

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/soviet-era-sex-ed.html

In the USSR, sex ed in its most rudimentary form was not introduced until 1985, when it was confined to 17 and 18 year-old students:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-01-13-mn-8756-story.html

The average rank and file female population in countries like the USSR and Romania were routinely subjected to traumatic exams, birth procedures and (depending on the specific decade and country) abortions or forced pregnancies and births under horrific conditions - and because women were kept in the dark about their own physiology, they had no way to frame, share and properly process what happened to them until years later.

Under the communist regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu, sex education in Romania from 1966 on was restricted by the draconian Decree 770. Prior to then, abortion was a/the main method of birth control, and birth rates declined due in large part to high rates of female participation in the workforce outside the home. Decree 770 made contraceptives illegal and all Romanian women were forced to be monitored and subjected to regular invasive medical exams to make sure they weren't taking any measures to prevent pregnancy. When a woman was found to be pregnant, she was closely followed and checked until birth. Secret police kept a close eye on hospital procedures.

Under Decree 770, so-called sex education in Romania focused primarily on propaganda that played up the benefits of motherhood and indoctrinated the population to believe that the greatest satisfaction and achievement that a woman could realize in her life was to be a heroic mother who gives her homeland many children.

Rudimentary sex ed and basic info about reproductive health only became available in Romania after the fall of communism in 1990 (and now it's been rolled back again, for different reasons).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4085661/

[–]VioletRemi 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

There is long lasting joke here "there was no sex in USSR, and never ask how kids appearing".

And there even wiki page about that: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В_СССР_секса_нет

[–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Interesting, I'm from a former socialist country, not Romania though, so this is all very surprising to me since all older women I have know know about the women's reproductive system. But I guess it was different in different countries.

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

But did you grow up and reach adulthood under socialism? And witness/experience the dramatic changes that occurred quite quickly once the Berlin Wall came down and communism collapsed? As the German tragicomedy "Goodbye Lenin" about the GDR made so clear.

The women I was speaking of all grew up in and reached adulthood in Soviet bloc countries, and came to the US from the early 80s - when Gorbachev opened the floodgates partly as a way to get rid of dissidents, Jews, the elderly and the unemployable to make them the responsibility of Reagan, Israel and the West - into the early 90s, after communism fell. These women ranged in age from approx 20 to approx 70 - so most had been born between circa 1910 and circa 1970-74.

BTW, it wasn't just in Soviet bloc countries in the communist era that many women were in the dark. Even in "liberal" Western countries like the USA and Canada, huge swathes of women of earlier generations didn't have access to much in the way of information about their bodies. Which is why there was such a need for "Our Bodies, Ourselves" - which was originally self-published on cheap newsprint pages stapled together (that was the kind of copy I originally got), and only was "formally" published by a big name mass market press - Simon & Schuster - in 1973.

Sex education in schools in the US was strongly resisted by many parties in the 1960s and 70s. The story of the woman who pushed for it - Mary Calderone, a physician and public health expert - is instructive.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605187/

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

I didn't but my mom did and she was super knowledgeable about the woman's reproductive system and she wasn't in healthcare. I guess that's what I'm basing my observations on but I can't think of any woman I know that grew up during that time that doesn't know those basics.

I did experience all the dramatic changes after the Berlin wall fell, well, I was too young for the first few years and to me, that was just the normal state of things, with the adults talking about the past.

But then, I was a very curious kid and I loved reading about science and about pregnancy and genetics, so I knew so much by the time I was 9 and I guess my perception is skewed.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nah, your perception is your own. I was simply reporting on what the Soviet bloc adult female students/clients of mine in the resettlement agency I worked for reported in the 80s and 90s. There were/are always outliers and exceptions. Both as individuals and as countries - like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

If you'd been an adult back then, you might have experienced the changes that started occurring in the Soviet bloc countries in the mid-80s, and especially after 1990, as more dramatic and profound.

[–]denverkris 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Great response.

Tl;dr calling women "cervix havers" is fucking bullshit

[–]shveya 36 insightful - 9 fun36 insightful - 8 fun37 insightful - 9 fun -  (3 children)

The comments section of this article on Facebook were a fun time. Loads of women and even men are like "you mean women?"but there are still handmaids here and there being like "bUt WHaT aBoUt tHe aIdeNs???!!"

[–]WillowCreek 27 insightful - 3 fun27 insightful - 2 fun28 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I like that I'm seeing more people push back to trans ideologies.

[–]Realwoman 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The vast majority of people think it's nonsense once they hear more about it.

[–]shveya 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Same! It’s such a relief to see lots of women sticking up for themselves again.

[–]ekitten 29 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 0 fun30 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

NHS cervical screening says "women and people with a cervix" while their prostate screening page just repeatedly uses "men". https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/prostate-cancer/psa-testing/

[–]Jalaces 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They should say "people with prostates" or else they're guilty of saying having a prostate makes you less of a woman. In their eyes.

[–]VioletRemi 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Saying "people with prostate" will de-validate transwomen as women, so they can't!

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

I haven't seen any transwomen say that, even in the Contrapoints video it is said "oh I am definitely saying that" (when her straw woman says "nobody's suggesting doctors should say "people with prostates"")

[–]Questionings 29 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 0 fun30 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The worst thing here is how primitive this all sounds. Humanity is regressing.

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

It's literal degeneracy

[–]moody_ape 31 insightful - 2 fun31 insightful - 1 fun32 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

so you're telling me that 'men' is the standard human and 'individuals with a cervix' are the other kinds of humans? hmm, sounds oddly familiar...

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This interesting blog post explains it academically, and much more astutely than I could.

[–]divingrightintowork 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Love those people, "hell hath no fury like a cervix haver scorned."

https://twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/status/1289314489813221376

[–]sisterinsomnia 31 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 2 fun32 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The language is actually not from CNN but from the American Cancer Society. CNN and many small-town papers just published what the Cancer Society sent them. Press release. The Cancer Society site has a little more and oddly enough the part they didn't send out does mention women, too. It still also talks about individuals with a cervix.