[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Aside from that article screenshot, these are the newest cervical cancer news pieces below, and all reference women. Even the article she has screenshot says "Since the coronavirus pandemic, cervical screening attendance rates for women and other people with cervixes have been steadily declining, from 72.2% in 2020 to 68.4% in 2024, NHS England data shows."

You can probably find other articles too, under one of the Guardians main content hubs, which is titled... erm... 'Women'.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-cancer-test

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...h-issue-survey

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...uts-risk-dying

You know when people talk about trying to create culture wars, it's those kids of tweets they're talking about. False information used to get people angry against specific demographics.

Also it's clear from that woman's feed she actually just hates any trans person who has any kind of visibility anywhere. She seems extremely hateful.

[Cherie]

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by BBXX

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

Thank you for offering an outside opinion. Sometimes folks get so focussed on the person they are "talking" to, they forget to read the content of the post.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

With all due respect, you dont know the history and his hatred of me, so better not to comment, I tend to ignore him in the main, if you care to check back his post history he went on an A4 rant about me which shocked quite a few people, bringing mods into it etc, he really has issues. Have a great evening

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cherie

With all due respect, you dont know the history and his hatred of me, so better not to comment, I tend to ignore him in the main, if you care to check back his post history he went on an A4 rant about me which shocked quite a few people, bringing mods into it etc, he really has issues. Have a great evening

Someone doesn't like having the tables turned on them. I stand on everything I have written on this forum, so you pretending now to be wary and a victim, when a short while ago you were on the attack, is an obvious and telegraphed vibe shift.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Someone doesn't like having the tables turned on them. I stand on everything I have written on this forum, so you pretending now to be wary and a victim, when a short while ago you were on the attack, is an obvious and telegraphed vibe shift.

Known tactic by many on here when you clock them. You can play go fish with the amount of victim cards that get played.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I stand on everything I have written on this forum.

I would clean my sandals if I were you.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Beso

I would clean my sandals if I were you.

Fair

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird

You still don't get it. My post was clearly about reform cracking down on abortion rights when they get in, and why stories about women's rights in the US are an indication of what is coming here in a couple of years.

It had absolutely nothing to do with you supporting Farage, Robinson, or especially brexit.

If I reply to you and it's a post about German history; if I write Hitler and Cherie in the same post, under no circumstances does that mean I'm calling you hitler, or even more degrading, calling Hitler, cherie

I can't believe you're trying to double down on this nonsense.

[The Slim Reaper]

Actually scrap that, I absolutely 100% can believe it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

JK Rowling is right: The Guardian should be embarrassed by this
pro-trans propaganda

Only women need a scan for cervical cancer, not ‘people’, like the activist-

appeasing newspaper suggests

The Guardian has long been celebrated for its typos. The other day, however,
it ran a headline which appeared to have an entire word missing. It read:
“One in three across UK are overdue for cervical cancer screening.”

One in three what? Mothers? Midwives? Marchionesses? Members of
Bananarama?

I scanned the article’s intro to locate the mislaid noun. Unfortunately, though,
I ended up even more confused. Because the answer turned out to be
“people”.

“A third of people across the UK,” reported someone with the unusual job title
of health and inequalities correspondent, “are overdue their cervical cancer
screening, while in parts of England some are at greater risk of the disease
than others due to a low uptake for the preventive vaccine.”

Naturally, I was alarmed. Because “a third of people across the UK” includes
me. In all my 44 years on this Earth, I’ve never had a single screening for
cervical cancer. Am I in danger? Should I ring my GP and demand a detailed
inspection of my cervix as soon as possible?

Then again, there is another way to interpret this story. Which is that the
poor old Guardian is so desperate not to offend trans activists, it’s got itself
tied up in knots.

Any sane newspaper, after all, would simply have used the word “women”.
But The Guardian daren’t do that. Because then it would be besieged by
horrified ideologues, irately reminding it that trans women are women but
don’t need cervical cancer screenings – while trans men are men but do need
cervical cancer screenings. To use the word “women”, therefore, is hateful
and trans-exclusionary.

As JK Rowling put it on social media: “This is what happens when you erase
the word ‘woman’ from your reporting: you disseminate inaccuracies and
falsehoods. If you prioritise an ideology over giving clear and accurate
information, you aren’t journalists, you’re propagandists.”

To be fair to The Guardian, however, it doesn’t always get it wrong. Less than
a month ago, it ran the headline: “New AI Test can predict which men will
benefit from prostate cancer drug.” So they are clear about the difference
between men and women sometimes. When the cancer only affects men,
anyway.

Still, it would be nice if they and other progressive outlets could be
consistent. In an important medical context, such nonsense is enough to give
you a thumping headache.

JK Rowling is right. Trans propaganda is bad for your health.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-the-guardian/

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

JK Rowling is right: The Guardian should be embarrassed by this
pro-trans propaganda

Only women need a scan for cervical cancer, not ‘people’, like the activist-

appeasing newspaper suggests

The Guardian has long been celebrated for its typos. The other day, however,
it ran a headline which appeared to have an entire word missing. It read:
“One in three across UK are overdue for cervical cancer screening.”

One in three what? Mothers? Midwives? Marchionesses? Members of
Bananarama?

I scanned the article’s intro to locate the mislaid noun. Unfortunately, though,
I ended up even more confused. Because the answer turned out to be
“people”.

“A third of people across the UK,” reported someone with the unusual job title
of health and inequalities correspondent, “are overdue their cervical cancer
screening, while in parts of England some are at greater risk of the disease
than others due to a low uptake for the preventive vaccine.”

Naturally, I was alarmed. Because “a third of people across the UK” includes
me. In all my 44 years on this Earth, I’ve never had a single screening for
cervical cancer. Am I in danger? Should I ring my GP and demand a detailed
inspection of my cervix as soon as possible?

Then again, there is another way to interpret this story. Which is that the
poor old Guardian is so desperate not to offend trans activists, it’s got itself
tied up in knots.

Any sane newspaper, after all, would simply have used the word “women”.
But The Guardian daren’t do that. Because then it would be besieged by
horrified ideologues, irately reminding it that trans women are women but
don’t need cervical cancer screenings – while trans men are men but do need
cervical cancer screenings. To use the word “women”, therefore, is hateful
and trans-exclusionary.

As JK Rowling put it on social media: “This is what happens when you erase
the word ‘woman’ from your reporting: you disseminate inaccuracies and
falsehoods. If you prioritise an ideology over giving clear and accurate
information, you aren’t journalists, you’re propagandists.”

To be fair to The Guardian, however, it doesn’t always get it wrong. Less than
a month ago, it ran the headline: “New AI Test can predict which men will
benefit from prostate cancer drug.” So they are clear about the difference
between men and women sometimes. When the cancer only affects men,
anyway.

Still, it would be nice if they and other progressive outlets could be
consistent. In an important medical context, such nonsense is enough to give
you a thumping headache.

JK Rowling is right. Trans propaganda is bad for your health.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-the-guardian/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Aside from that article screenshot, these are the newest cervical cancer news pieces below, and all reference women. Even the article she has screenshot says "Since the coronavirus pandemic, cervical screening attendance rates for women and other people with cervixes have been steadily declining, from 72.2% in 2020 to 68.4% in 2024, NHS England data shows."

You can probably find other articles too, under one of the Guardians main content hubs, which is titled... erm... 'Women'.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-cancer-test

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...h-issue-survey

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...uts-risk-dying

You know when people talk about trying to create culture wars, it's those kids of tweets they're talking about. False information used to get people angry against specific demographics.

Also it's clear from that woman's feed she actually just hates any trans person who has any kind of visibility anywhere. She seems extremely hateful.

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

Unlike GB News consumers, most Guardian readers have the intellect to read past the headline and subheading and make a judgement off the actual content of the post.

Perhaps she should look under the section titled WOMEN on the website and see the word WOMEN displayed many times in headlines or captions if that makes her feel any better. But it won't, because she's outraged based on a false narrative she's pushing to create division.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

What's the difference between gay men and men who have sex with men?

That article is written in a very bizarre way imo.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

What's the difference between gay men and men who have sex with men?

That article is written in a very bizarre way imo.

Gay men have sex with exclusively men. Bisexual men also have sex with men, but also women. Pansexual people are attracted to anyone, so might have sex with biological women, men, trans men, trans women, etc...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Gay men have sex with exclusively men. Bisexual men also have sex with men, but also women. Pansexual people are attracted to anyone, so might have sex with biological women, men, trans men, trans women, etc...

Thanks for the information.

I still think that the article should've just said Pansexual, because it made it look poorly written imo by saying "men who have sex with other men" not long after mentioning gay men.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Thanks for the information.

I still think that the article should've just said Pansexual, because it made it look poorly written imo by saying "men who have sex with other men" not along after mentioning gay men.

The term used in the article is a healthcare term (Gay, Bisexual and Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - GBMSM), it's not a term the writer has made up or that is there because the article is poorly written. It's an actual term in the healthcare industry to avoid healthcare professionals assuming someone's sexual identity just because they happen have had sexual intercourse with another man.

It's used as a 'catch all' term because because otherwise you could be listing numerous sexual identities and still leave some out - someone for example could engage in sexual intercourse with another men as part of a threesome with his girlfriend and not indentify as gay, bi or pan.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBXX

The term used in the article is a healthcare term (Gay, Bisexual and Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - GBMSM), it's not a term the writer has made up or that is there because the article is poorly written. It's an actual term in the healthcare industry to avoid healthcare professionals assuming someone's sexual identity just because they happen have had sexual intercourse with another man.

It's used as a 'catch all' term because because otherwise you could be listing numerous sexual identities and still leave some out - someone for example could engage in sexual intercourse with another men as part of a threesome with his girlfriend and not indentify as gay, bi or pan.

I get what you're saying.

I'm just probably someone that would try tick off all sexual options if I were the one to be writing down the options for the patients.