Recent actions by the Canadian Cancer Society and a group of midwives have sparked significant controversy over the use of inclusive language in health care. Critics argue that these changes, intended to accommodate transgender and non-binary people, undermine medical accuracy and waste valuable resources.
The Canadian Cancer Society recently issued an apology for using the term “cervix” on a webpage aimed at transgender and non-binary people assigned female at birth. The page, which aims to provide information about cervical cancer testing for the LGBTQ+ community, acknowledged that some trans men and non-binary people are uncomfortable with the word “cervix”. As an alternative, the society suggested terms such as “front hole”.
The Rise of the “Lifestyle Prepper”
Dr Kim Greene-Liebowitz of New York slammed the move on social media, saying: “If you can't call body parts by their real names, you really don't deserve to have a role in health and medicine.” Another critic, Cecile Shaw, expressed her frustration at the financial resources allocated to this content, suggesting that the funds should be directed towards increasing the number of doctors, cancer treatments and diagnostic imaging machines.
The term “bonus hole” has also gained traction as a substitute for “vagina” and “cervix.” One social media user highlighted the absurdity of these changes, stating that “cervix is ​​its own name” and criticized the lack of awareness among professionals.
Meanwhile, a new academic paper has called for midwives to adopt more inclusive language, suggesting terms such as “human milk feeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and “reproductive health specialist” instead of “gynaecologist”. The paper, written by Professor Sally Pezaro of Coventry University and twelve other contributors, aims to move away from “sex language”, arguing that such terms reinforce patriarchal structures and colonialism.
The guide, titled “Gender Inclusive Language in Midwifery and Perinatal Services: A Guide and Case for Justice”, suggests replacing terms such as “women” with “service users” and emphasizes that midwives should avoid words that are traditionally associated with female biology. The authors argue that this approach is essential to achieving reproductive justice and addressing the needs of all birthers, not just cisgender women.
However, the paper has been criticized for its contradictions. Although it states that men can give birth, it discourages the use of terms such as “men/fathers/fathers” and suggests “non-gestational parents”. This contradictory position has caused many to question the logic behind these recommendations.
The authors also claim that inclusive language in midwifery can help combat colonialism, a notion that has been met with scepticism. “If midwifery is truly a feminist profession, then it follows that it should reject any reassertion of a European patriarchal gender binary rooted in colonialism and fight for reproductive justice for the benefit of all who are born, the majority of who are cisgender women”, they write.
Critics argue that the push for inclusive language often results in the erasure of biologically accurate terms, which can confuse patients and detract from effective medical care. “Not only are most people who give birth female, but they are all, in fact, female,” notes one critic. The suggestion is that parents may prefer to seek care from a traditional gynecologist or reproductive health specialist who uses clear and precise terminology.
As debates over inclusive language continue, both the Canadian Cancer Society and the academic midwifery community face ongoing scrutiny from those who believe these changes are unnecessary and potentially harmful to medical practice .
You can read the full academic paper below:
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of RVM News. contact with us for guidelines for submitting your own comment.
English 
Español de Venezuela 